Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 74

Thread: Liberals giving up tax fight

  1. #31
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
    In the new legislation, the tax rate would be the same as the current temporary tax rate. Without new legislation, the rate would revert back to the last permanent rate, as prescribed by law, before the temporary rate was authorized. The new legislation would be a temporary tax cut from the last permanent tax rate.

    This demonstrates the type of language that is meant to distort, and divide America along class lines. It is true that the proposal from the President is an extension of rates put in place by the Bush administration to combat the last recession at the beginning of his term. However, All economists agree that allowing the current rates to expire and in effect cause a hike in current tax rates across the board would be severely damaging to the current economy. This would also ultimately result in any chance of Obama gaining a second term to be dashed in the wind, and most likely we would go further to the right in the utter failure of progressive mistakes.

    Is that what you want for this country?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #32
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    This demonstrates the type of language that is meant to distort, and divide America along class lines. It is true that the proposal from the President is an extension of rates put in place by the Bush administration to combat the last recession at the beginning of his term. However, All economists agree that allowing the current rates to expire and in effect cause a hike in current tax rates across the board would be severely damaging to the current economy. This would also ultimately result in any chance of Obama gaining a second term to be dashed in the wind, and most likely we would go further to the right in the utter failure of progressive mistakes.

    Is that what you want for this country?


    j-mac
    ALL would not be accurate. Some reading:

    Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”

    News Headlines

    The tax changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 by President George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress were loaded with gimmicks, the benefits were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, and they added trillions of dollars to the national debt.

    (snip)

    Increasing the take-home pay of low- and moderate-income families will lead to more spending and a boost in demand for goods and services and, thus, more jobs. By contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are more likely to be saved, providing a relatively ineffective response.

    Let the tax cuts for the rich expire

    The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11]

    Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/op...23krugman.html

    http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedP...uts-debate.pdf

    Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return.

    Fareed Zakaria - To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #33
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    ALL would not be accurate. Some reading:

    Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”

    News Headlines

    The tax changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 by President George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress were loaded with gimmicks, the benefits were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, and they added trillions of dollars to the national debt.

    (snip)

    Increasing the take-home pay of low- and moderate-income families will lead to more spending and a boost in demand for goods and services and, thus, more jobs. By contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are more likely to be saved, providing a relatively ineffective response.

    Let the tax cuts for the rich expire

    The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11]

    Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/op...23krugman.html

    http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedP...uts-debate.pdf

    Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return.

    Fareed Zakaria - To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire

    Ok, so what? Keynesian's don't believe that....What do you want me to say other than just look at how our country is responding to Keynesian economics today.... Stagnant would be kind.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #34
    Conservative Independent
    DarkWizard12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Tyler TX
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    ALL would not be accurate. Some reading:

    Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”

    News Headlines

    The tax changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 by President George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress were loaded with gimmicks, the benefits were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, and they added trillions of dollars to the national debt.

    (snip)

    Increasing the take-home pay of low- and moderate-income families will lead to more spending and a boost in demand for goods and services and, thus, more jobs. By contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are more likely to be saved, providing a relatively ineffective response.

    Let the tax cuts for the rich expire

    The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11]

    Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/op...23krugman.html

    http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedP...uts-debate.pdf

    Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return.

    Fareed Zakaria - To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire
    please show me how Clinton, by taking money from people, which is what taxes is, ushered in economic growth? Please tell me how it couldn't have POSSIBLY have been external causes like the growth of the internet, or internal such as the decrease in government spending, or other such major economic/monetary policies?

  5. #35
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    ALL would not be accurate. Some reading:

    Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”

    News Headlines

    The tax changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 by President George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress were loaded with gimmicks, the benefits were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, and they added trillions of dollars to the national debt.

    (snip)

    Increasing the take-home pay of low- and moderate-income families will lead to more spending and a boost in demand for goods and services and, thus, more jobs. By contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are more likely to be saved, providing a relatively ineffective response.

    Let the tax cuts for the rich expire

    The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11]

    Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/op...23krugman.html

    http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedP...uts-debate.pdf

    Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return.

    Fareed Zakaria - To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire

    Interesting, yet not one of those links posted actual revenue results from the U.S. Treasury, wonder why? I have given you the links in the past which of course you ignored. Try again. Please explain to us all how personal income tax revenue grew AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts per the following link, Go to Revenue and expenses and put in whatever dates you want


    BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense

    U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

    then you go back to the Clinton years and ignore what happened in 1994, not surprising. If you think that the govt. has a revenue problem what are you doing personally to solve it? Ever thought of having a bake sale?

  6. #36
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ok, so what? Keynesian's don't believe that....What do you want me to say other than just look at how our country is responding to Keynesian economics today.... Stagnant would be kind.


    j-mac
    Actually, we've been under the tax cuts. Keep that in mind, this is under your prefered economics.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #37
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12 View Post
    please show me how Clinton, by taking money from people, which is what taxes is, ushered in economic growth? Please tell me how it couldn't have POSSIBLY have been external causes like the growth of the internet, or internal such as the decrease in government spending, or other such major economic/monetary policies?
    I have repeatedly said government doesn't control the economy, but it does show that we can very well have growth with taxes going up and not being cut. My point to j was that his use of the word ALL was inaccurate.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Actually, we've been under the tax cuts. Keep that in mind, this is under your prefered economics.
    How long have you gone without a raise? Those tax cuts went into effect between 2001-2003, it is 2010 now and the recession started in December 2007. If you are working you are still benefiting from those tax cuts, are you not?

  9. #39
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I have repeatedly said government doesn't control the economy, but it does show that we can very well have growth with taxes going up and not being cut. My point to j was that his use of the word ALL was inaccurate.

    Do you believe that people keeping more of what they earn need more or less of that so called govt. help? Since the govt. doesn't control the economy in your world then you wouldn't have any problem with severe cuts in that 3.6 trillion dollar budget?

  10. #40
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Liberals giving up tax fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Actually, we've been under the tax cuts. Keep that in mind, this is under your prefered economics.
    the damage being done is not the rates, it is the spending under an Keynesian economic plan. It is utter foolishness.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •