Page 94 of 108 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 1076

Thread: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

  1. #931
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Tax cuts create demand. Demand creates jobs. Right?

    Let's look at tax rates and unemployment rates in the US and Europe? They, for one, say so. Canada, the exception (and who really knows what the hell those crazy people do anyway), does not make the rule.
    Ask a liberal who they think has the role of creating jobs, the govt. or the private sector? Who pays for the public sector jobs?

  2. #932
    Student Johnny DooWop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Right
    Last Seen
    11-02-10 @ 02:28 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    290

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You just destroyed my entire weekend telling me that I lost this debate, wow, the disappointment that you were the one judging the debate and claimed I lost. What am I to do! Wonder how a true debate instructor would judge this debate. There is quite a difference claiming that the GOP defeated Prop 8 rather than individual supporters of the GOP along with other political party supporters voted for Prop 8. Regardless, the people spoke and you didn't like the outcome thus you went to the courts to overturn the will of the majority. That is what liberals do.

    Yes, Bush signed the 2008 bailout, I was against it, but "your" President supported it. Bush and Obama on the same side of the issue yet it was Obama that lied about the inherited deficits. Deficits aren't inherited they are yearly and thus created. What did Obama do with the payback of the TARP money?
    You're really flailing in this debate. I'm honestly starting to feel embarrassed for you. You argue numbers much better than you do political science. I'll do you favor and switch the debate back to numbers because I'm feeling a little bad for you right now. So here is an article I was reading in the Washington Post about the tax cuts, I'd like to hear your biased opinion on it.

    "“Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time. Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.

  3. #933
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,359

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    You think it is the role of the govt. or the private sector to create jobs? Who pays for the public sector jobs?
    I'm way-right economically. See my intro thread "Ecofarm" (it's closed). I'm a "national defense force only" kinda guy, economically.

    I believe tax cuts not only create jobs but also growth and eventually revenue. Further, they create innovation and helping a society to avoid technological and cultural stagnation.

    Tax cuts are so good, we should have them all the time and if the government runs out of money it can stop providing services (the private sector will take care at appropriate levels, no worries).
    Last edited by ecofarm; 10-29-10 at 01:15 PM.

  4. #934
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative
    You just destroyed my entire weekend telling me that I lost this debate, wow, the disappointment that you were the one judging the debate and claimed I lost. What am I to do! Wonder how a true debate instructor would judge this debate. There is quite a difference claiming that the GOP defeated Prop 8 rather than individual supporters of the GOP along with other political party supporters voted for Prop 8. Regardless, the people spoke and you didn't like the outcome thus you went to the courts to overturn the will of the majority. That is what liberals do.

    Yes, Bush signed the 2008 bailout, I was against it, but "your" President supported it. Bush and Obama on the same side of the issue yet it was Obama that lied about the inherited deficits. Deficits aren't inherited they are yearly and thus created. What did Obama do with the payback of the TARP money?
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny DooWop View Post
    You're really flailing in this debate. I'm honestly starting to feel embarrassed for you. You argue numbers much better than you do political science. I'll do you favor and switch the debate back to numbers because I'm feeling a little bad for you right now. So here is an article I was reading in the Washington Post about the tax cuts, I'd like to hear your biased opinion on it.

    "“Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time. Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.
    i think you both need a cookie and a time out.

  5. #935
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny DooWop View Post
    You're really flailing in this debate. I'm honestly starting to feel embarrassed for you. You argue numbers much better than you do political science. I'll do you favor and switch the debate back to numbers because I'm feeling a little bad for you right now. So here is an article I was reading in the Washington Post about the tax cuts, I'd like to hear your biased opinion on it.

    "“Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time. Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.
    Thanks for your concern, I really appreciate it but please get some facts and explain to me how your income is an expense to the Federal Govt. Further please explain to me how total debt grew with surpluses? Interesting logic on the part of those who don't seem to have a grasp on what makes up the debt. Obviously you ignored the information I posted on public debt and intergovt. holdings. You continue to ignore anything that refutes your opinions or what you want to believe.

    Obama has increased the debt 3 trillion in two years, where is your outrage?

  6. #936
    Student Johnny DooWop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Right
    Last Seen
    11-02-10 @ 02:28 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    290

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    please explain to me how total debt grew with surpluses?
    What surpluses?

  7. #937
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,064

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny DooWop View Post
    You're really flailing in this debate. I'm honestly starting to feel embarrassed for you. You argue numbers much better than you do political science. I'll do you favor and switch the debate back to numbers because I'm feeling a little bad for you right now. So here is an article I was reading in the Washington Post about the tax cuts, I'd like to hear your biased opinion on it.

    "“Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time. Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.
    No. you're the one flailing.

    Yes, in a country where the government provides everything for its citizens, a la communism, raising taxes is necessary. In your world, unemployment is irrelevant because who needs to work anyway.

    But in a country where you want citizens to work and succeed, you need government to get out of its way. You cut taxes and take pressure off of industry, which in turn can hire people, who can spend money, which will raise revenue for the very same industries.

    That means more workers to tax and more revenue to tax. So tax cuts actually lead to much, much, much higher tax revenue collected.

    Again, would you rather have 35 percent of $100 bucks, or 20 percent of $1,000. That is really the argument.

  8. #938
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny DooWop View Post
    What surpluses?
    The surpluses Clinton supporters claim existed, then explain to me how you keeping more of your money is an expense to the govt?

  9. #939
    Student Johnny DooWop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Right
    Last Seen
    11-02-10 @ 02:28 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    290

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    So tax cuts actually lead to much, much, much higher tax revenue collected.

    Again, would you rather have 35 percent of $100 bucks, or 20 percent of $1,000. That is really the argument.
    Who ever said I support higher taxes genius? Do you think anyone actually wants higher taxes? LOL. All I'm saying is that cutting taxes is great, but you have to cut spending and be in the right economy to do so. What happens when you cut taxes but don't cut spending and then start two wars? Huge deficits and a messed up economy. If I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd rather be in a stable economy with higher taxes than the sh*thole we are in now with low taxes. I thought conservatives were supposed to be fiscally responsible? Of course the ultimate solution would be to cut government spending (which neither democrats nor republicans do) adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like our Founding Fathers and then cut taxes. You guys are supporting reckless and irresponsible financial policies.

  10. #940
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny DooWop View Post
    Who ever said I support higher taxes genius? Do you think anyone actually wants higher taxes? LOL. All I'm saying is that cutting taxes is great, but you have to cut spending and be in the right economy to do so. What happens when you cut taxes but don't cut spending and then start two wars? Huge deficits and a messed up economy. If I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd rather be in a stable economy with higher taxes than the sh*thole we are in now with low taxes. I thought conservatives were supposed to be fiscally responsible? Of course the ultimate solution would be to cut government spending (which neither democrats nor republicans do) adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like our Founding Fathers and then cut taxes. You guys are supporting reckless and irresponsible financial policies.
    You are all over the place, doubt that any debate moderator would be giving you any points at all. As the Treasury Dept shows govt. revenue increased AFTER the tax rate cuts why increase taxes as all you would have to do is cut spending but that doesn't make any sense to a liberal. We have 16 million Americans unemployed, 4 million more than when Obama took office. how are you going to put them back to work by raising taxes?

    When are you or anyone else going to actually address the issues and govt. spending. You blame the wars for the deficits yet refuse to tell us how much those wars cost on a yearly basis since deficits are yearly.

Page 94 of 108 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •