• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

What we do know....if that after Reagan, the concept of a one-parent working family was a thing of the past. It became a reality that both parents working became a necessity rather than a luxury...and yet....the Republican party wants to claim that they are the party of "family values". Puh-lease.....the GOP has done more to destroy the family unit than gay marriage ever would.

entitlement programs and the growth of a parasitic federal government is what caused that, Not Reagan
 
When would be the right time to raise taxes? There is no evidence that not raising them will help jobs. In fact, someone has a link to a study showing that it wouldn't. But not taxing will add to the debt. So, logically, based on this, what should we do? How much do we really care about the deficit?

I could ask what evidence there is that raising taxes will help create jobs? There is plenty of evidence that not raising taxes will help jobs. You only have to look to the past. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush all maintained and fostered prosperity by reducing taxes. What resulted was more government revenue due to more people working in the private sector and paying those reasonable taxes. Raising taxes is gauranteed to reduce private sector jobs and reduce government revenue. Government jobs are the worst way to spend our money. Government jobs are bureaucratic money pits with high costs and low performance that produce mostly red tape. The government killed the goose. They took all of the tremendous revenue generated in the past twenty years and sqaundered it. Now they want to tax us for their folly.
 
I could ask what evidence there is that raising taxes will help create jobs? There is plenty of evidence that not raising taxes will help jobs. You only have to look to the past. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush all maintained and fostered prosperity by reducing taxes. What resulted was more government revenue due to more people working in the private sector and paying those reasonable taxes. Raising taxes is gauranteed to reduce private sector jobs and reduce government revenue. Government jobs are the worst way to spend our money. Government jobs are bureaucratic money pits with high costs and low performance that produce mostly red tape. The government killed the goose. They took all of the tremendous revenue generated in the past twenty years and sqaundered it. Now they want to tax us for their folly.

Why would you sak that as I make no such claim. And no, there is really no evidence that cutting taxes will help jobs. Historically we can see jobs created with a high tax base and with a low tax base, and us losing jobs with a low tax base and with a low tax base. In fact, someone would be hard pressed to prove taxes play a major role of any kind in creating jobs.
 
Why would you sak that as I make no such claim. And no, there is really no evidence that cutting taxes will help jobs. Historically we can see jobs created with a high tax base and with a low tax base, and us losing jobs with a low tax base and with a low tax base. In fact, someone would be hard pressed to prove taxes play a major role of any kind in creating jobs.


Ok, show it.


j-mac
 
there is really no evidence that cutting taxes will help jobs. Historically we can see jobs created with a high tax base and with a low tax base, and us losing jobs with a low tax base and with a low tax base. In fact, someone would be hard pressed to prove taxes play a major role of any kind in creating jobs.

Recovery always begins with more people buying. That leads to more employment and more people buying...

ricksfolly
 
When would be the right time to raise taxes? There is no evidence that not raising them will help jobs. In fact, someone has a link to a study showing that it wouldn't. But not taxing will add to the debt. So, logically, based on this, what should we do? How much do we really care about the deficit?

Boo, now there you go again equating tax cuts to deficits when the reality is allowing people to keep more of their own money never has been a cost to the govt. Show me that the govt. cares about the deficit and as long as they don't why do you?

Say Anything » Chris Matthews To Obama: Stop Saying That Tax Cuts Represent Giving People Money

Paul Ryan Schools Chris Matthews on Tax Hikes, Budgets and Economics 101 | NewsBusters.org
 
They are known facts. Are you seriously trying to argue that the population and therefore total revenue doesn't increase every year? Hello....anybody home.

And do your own research on Reaganonmics. You will see that while Reagan cut taxes in half for the top 1%, he doubled taxes on the middle class.

That is a lie and obviously the landslide victory in 1984 proves it. You still living in that liberal Disneyland. Tax increases on the Middle Class went into the Middle Class Social Security fund for retirement and the rest of the tax increases are use taxes so if you don't use the services you don't pay the taxes. Having trouble understanding that concept?
 
Pelosi and Hoyer split on tax vote before November elections - The Hill's On The Money

pardon reality's intrusion into this purely "academic" debate

you can hardly, by the way, read one of these stories, and there are many, probably more than one a day, without encountering the obligatory paragraphs devoted to discussing the party's future after november

which, pointedly, do NOT include the palsied pelosi as party leader on the cheap carpet

hoyer (like chuckie schumer upstairs) is making HIS MOVE

look for nancy to nod out sometime around january

Dems plan for a future without Pelosi - Richard E. Cohen - POLITICO.com

the party is in complete disarray

embarrassed yet?

back to the books
 
Last edited:
Boo, now there you go again equating tax cuts to deficits when the reality is allowing people to keep more of their own money never has been a cost to the govt. Show me that the govt. cares about the deficit and as long as they don't why do you?

Say Anything » Chris Matthews To Obama: Stop Saying That Tax Cuts Represent Giving People Money

Paul Ryan Schools Chris Matthews on Tax Hikes, Budgets and Economics 101 | NewsBusters.org

Our discussion is about the deficit. You say your concerned. I am as well. I say we have to cut speanding and raise taxes. You seem to think tax cuts are a magic cure, and there is no evidence to support that. As we are the government, they will care when we really do and not just be against whatever party is in power.
 
Our discussion is about the deficit. You say your concerned. I am as well. I say we have to cut speanding and raise taxes. You seem to think tax cuts are a magic cure, and there is no evidence to support that. As we are the government, they will care when we really do and not just be against whatever party is in power.

It's not a magical cure, but it's a sure-fire way to send us back down the crapper again.
 
It's not a magical cure, but it's a sure-fire way to send us back down the crapper again.

So, with the tax cuts, we went down the crapper, as you say. So your arguing if we keep them, we'll go back down the crapper? not sure I buy that as I don't think the cuts or increases mean anything at all.
 
Our discussion is about the deficit. You say your concerned. I am as well. I say we have to cut speanding and raise taxes. You seem to think tax cuts are a magic cure, and there is no evidence to support that. As we are the government, they will care when we really do and not just be against whatever party is in power.

Yes, raise taxes on the 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes. you just don't understand incentive at all.
 
Yes, raise taxes on the 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes. you just don't understand incentive at all.

Well, the lower third has a lot more to spend than the upper 1%. Gottcha. But that has nothing to do with our debate. Try addressing what I wrote. ;)
 
Well, the lower third has a lot more to spend than the upper 1%. Gottcha. But that has nothing to do with our debate. Try addressing what I wrote. ;)

Actually those 47% don't care about raising taxes on the other 53%. As I pointed out people making 40-50K per year have a percentage not paying any taxes at all but that doesn't bother you in your world of so called fairness. I have addressed many times what you wrote, spending causes debt not tax cuts.
 
Actually those 47% don't care about raising taxes on the other 53%. As I pointed out people making 40-50K per year have a percentage not paying any taxes at all but that doesn't bother you in your world of so called fairness. I have addressed many times what you wrote, spending causes debt not tax cuts.

Of course no is rasing taxes on the 47% 47% of tax payers don't make 250,000 or more. Be accurate please. ;)
 
Of course no is rasing taxes on the 47% 47% of tax payers don't make 250,000 or more. Be accurate please. ;)

47% don't pay any income taxes now so of course they don't make 250,000. Keep diverting from reality.
 
47% don't pay any income taxes now so of course they don't make 250,000. Keep diverting from reality.

Please try to keep up. The porposal has been to let the tax cuts laspe on the top 1%.
 
Please try to keep up. The porposal has been to let the tax cuts laspe on the top 1%.

And the point is the tax cuts don't lapse on 47% of the people regardless. Try to understand that 53% of the people fund this govt. and yet 47% pay nothing yet use most of the services provided by those 53%. I am still waiting for you to tell me how much money will be generated by raising the taxes on the top 1%?

this is nothing more than class warfare and envy which is what liberalism is all about. "Your" President hasn't been accurate on any projection yet so why is he accurate now?
 
And the point is the tax cuts don't lapse on 47% of the people regardless. Try to understand that 53% of the people fund this govt. and yet 47% pay nothing yet use most of the services provided by those 53%. I am still waiting for you to tell me how much money will be generated by raising the taxes on the top 1%?

this is nothing more than class warfare and envy which is what liberalism is all about. "Your" President hasn't been accurate on any projection yet so why is he accurate now?

Ben Stein is a conservative and he disagrees with you.

In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning
 
Ben Stein is a conservative and he disagrees with you.

In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning

Logic and common sense along with actual facts support my point of view. Bea.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury websites support my position because they show actual results.

My question to you is why aren't you winning? You seem to care more about what someone else makes or pays in taxes vs. trying to become one of those you seem to hate. I am tired of this argument and trying to convince you the value of you keeping more of what you earn. It makes no sense to continue this.

I will ask you again however to name for me just one Obama economic prediction that has been accurate? He claims it will blow a 700 billion dollar hole in the deficit, do you believe that and if so prove it. He claimed that his stimulus plan would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%, how is that prediction working out? He claimed that economic growth would be 4% this year, annualized the GDP rate is now at 1.6%. He has made claims that jobs are being created each month for the last 8 yet every month this year unemployment is higher than it was last year.

Stop buying the rhetoric and do your own research to get the facts.
 
Please try to keep up. The porposal has been to let the tax cuts laspe on the top 1%.

wrong-again. 200K is well below the cut off for top 1%-that is about 350K
 
Ben Stein is a conservative and he disagrees with you.

In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning

the rich always win. You ever see the movie (The Original) Rollerball? Big "government" (run by anti-individualistic corporate barons) kept changing the rules to kill off the ultimate winner. He kept winning no matter what the rules were but the game itself was ruined.

When the best and the brightest cannot win, the entire system is FUBAR
 
Congress Punts on Taxes - WSJ.com

how do YOU spell s-u-r-r-e-n-d-e-r?

Democrats abandoned plans to vote before Election Day on extending Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class while eliminating them for better-off Americans, spooked by protests from vulnerable incumbents and bleak prospects for passage.

With time running out to plan for 2011, the delay raises uncertainty for small businesses and individual taxpayers over their future liabilities. It also sets up a titanic battle over taxes after the election.

does anyone other than our lost leadership actually believe that that which can't be done TODAY will be doable AFTER the murderous midterms in november?

pelosi, for example, is gonna be replaced

get real, mr hoyer

party on, dp'ers
 
Logic and common sense along with actual facts support my point of view

Incorrect. Everything you have ever cited has yet to actually prove your arguments. If you could actually prove your arguments, you'd run linear regression upon all of that raw data to actually prove your claims. Instead you have stated "I don't care about linear regression."

Facts =/= Your opinion. Get that straight.
 
Incorrect. Everything you have ever cited has yet to actually prove your arguments. If you could actually prove your arguments, you'd run linear regression upon all of that raw data to actually prove your claims. Instead you have stated "I don't care about linear regression."

Facts =/= Your opinion. Get that straight.

I posted bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury results. Raw data proves that tax revenue grew AFTER both the Reagan and Bush tax RATE cuts. Why I have to explain to you the benefits of YOU keeping more of your own money is beyond me.


*** 2000*** ***2001*** ***2002*** ***2003*** ***2004*** ***2005*** ***2006*** ***2007*** ***2008*** ***2009***
******Current*receipts 3,132.40 3,118.20 2,967.90 3,043.40 3,265.70 3,659.30 3,995.20 4,197.00 4,074.00 3,726.90
Current*tax*receipts 2,202.80 2,163.70 2,002.10 2,047.90 2,213.20 2,546.80 2,807.40 2,951.20 2,780.30 2,409.30
***Personal*current*taxes 1,232.30 1,234.80 1,050.40 1,000.30 1,047.80 1,208.60 1,352.40 1,488.70 1,438.20 1,140.00

Personal income tax revenue in billions

Yr
2003 2047 billion
2004 2213
2005 2546
2006 2807
2007 2951
 
Back
Top Bottom