• 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!

Republicans are acting like vandals

Explain to us why then The Obama forced the Democrats to renew GWB's tax cuts.
of

It was an exercise in compromise, a political method of giving in on something you do not like to get something even more important to you. This method had been routinely practiced by the US Executive and Legislative branches during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. However, it has largely been out of the Regressive playbook since about 2000, so when rare sightings occur, people often fail to recognize it often mistaking it for political weakness.

If you recall, Obama was never in favor of extending tax cuts on the $250K+ crowd. He gave in to get the extension of the payroll based tax cuts for lower wage earners (the ones that will actually spend the money), and more importantly an extension of unemployment benefits, which Republicans detested (but apparently less than they detested having the idea of having the tax cuts expire on the high wage earners.)

The logic that infers that Obama was in favor of extending the tax cuts on high wage earners because it would help (or not hurt) the economy would also have you conclude that the Republican leadership was in favor of extending unemployment benefits. Its bad logic.

The act of endorsing a bill or voting in its favor should not be construed to mean they endorse all aspects of the bill or even like it. The art of politics is compromise, which means sometimes having to say "your sorry".
 
Last edited:
You said tax increases had minimal impact.........and now your admitting they do have a substantial impact......please tell us what the cut-off point is.

.
.

To clarify, increasing taxes on the ones most benefiting from this economy (those that right now are making very good money) will have minimal impact on economic recovery but can have a substantial impact on deficit reduction. It is minimal pain for maximum gain. On the contrary, taxing those that are currently struggling or removing expenditures that might go to the middle class will have maximum pain on the economic recovery and will likely contribute little to deficit reduction (and may even make it worse.)

Remember, if you take a $1 of expenditure out of the market with a multiplier of 1.6, that will come back in taxes at 30%... call that $.50. Hence, for every dollar you reduce expenditure, you are really only getting a $.50 debt reduction impact. OTH, a big part of the current deficit is revenue short fall.

The slowing of the economy in 2008 took $400B out of government tax receipts and then unemployment benefit payments went up $100B, hence, 1/3 of the current deficit run rate is the recession itself. You fix the recession and you go a long way to fixing the deficit..... and expenditures are a much better way to fix the deficit.

BTW, Obama did not triple the running deficit. The running deficit under Bush was $700B.... then Bush added $500B (as per above) by handing over a severely recessed economy. The running deficit when Obama took office was just under $1.2T. Obama's great sin is not that he caused the problem (he did not), he just hasn't been able to fix it.
 
Last edited:
$200B y/r. 1.5T deficit. Leaves $1.3T deficit. Over 10 years, that adds $13T to the debt rather than $15T.
Obama, our savior.
:roll:


On the contrary - it is perfectly possible to reduce federal spending by $1.5T in the next fiscal year -- all you need to do is pass a budget to that effect.

Actually, that is not possible. Reducing expenditures also leads to revenue reduction. You can not spend cut your way out of a deficit and you certainly can not do it with out causing a very deep recession / depression (which, of course IS revenue reduction)
 
To clarify, increasing taxes on the ones most benefiting from this economy (those that right now are making very good money) will have minimal impact on economic recovery but can have a substantial impact on deficit reduction. It is minimal pain for maximum gain. On the contrary, taxing those that are currently struggling or removing expenditures that might go to the middle class will have maximum pain on the economic recovery and will likely contribute little to deficit reduction (and may even make it worse.)

So increasing taxes on struggling business owners and employers will have no impact whatsoever.........

Remember, if you take a $1 of expenditure out of the market with a multiplier of 1.6, that will come back in taxes at 30%... call that $.50. Hence, for every dollar you reduce expenditure, you are really only getting a $.50 debt reduction impact. OTH, a big part of the current deficit is revenue short fall.

And if that had a grain of truth.....The Soviet Union would have been the most prosperous nation the world had ever seen.....

The slowing of the economy in 2008 took $400B out of government tax receipts and then unemployment benefit payments went up $100B, hence, 1/3 of the current deficit run rate is the recession itself. You fix the recession and you go a long way to fixing the deficit..... and expenditures are a much better way to fix the deficit.

Right.....a bloated and out of control liberal government spending MORE MONEY.....will surely fix our debt and deficit......

BTW, Obama did not triple the running deficit. The running deficit under Bush was $700B.... then Bush added $500B (as per above) by handing over a severely recessed economy. The running deficit when Obama took office was just under $1.2T. Obama's great sin is not that he caused the problem (he did not), he just hasn't been able to fix it.

If you say so.........

obama_budget_deficit.jpg



The Largets Budget in World History......
The Largest Spending Bill in World History.....
The Largest Omnibus Bill in World History.....
The Largest Entitlement Program in World History........

....evntually they start adding up......

............Barack HusSame Obama--The Most Expensive President in World History.
.
.
.
 
If you recall, Obama was never in favor of extending tax cuts on the $250K+ crowd. He gave in to get the extension of the payroll based tax cuts for lower wage earners (the ones that will actually spend the money), and more importantly an extension of unemployment benefits, which Republicans detested (but apparently less than they detested having the idea of having the tax cuts expire on the high wage earners.)
Wait... GWB cut taxes for someone other than the rich, and those tax cuts have a positive effect on the economy?
Say it ain't so.
 
So increasing taxes on struggling business owners and employers will have no impact whatsoever.........

Where did I speak about "struggling business owners"? Why do you insist on arguing with superlatives? It is not becoming. The extremes are almost always outliers to a point (not applicable), therefore arguing the extreme is not an intelligent retort.

I specifically spoke of those that are doing well in the recession: those the remain in the highest tax brackets in a soft economy. Struggling owners, by definition, have a built in tax cut as they aren't making money, they either pay less tax (because they are in lower rate territory) or are not making money, in which case they accrue tax loss carryforwards, which shelter future taxes when they do make money (or carrybacks, which can be used to recover taxes previously paid). I propose increasing marginal rates on the highest tax brackets, specifically on high wages. I also suggested using job creation tax credits for people that actually create jobs.


And if that had a grain of truth.....The Soviet Union would have been the most prosperous nation the world had ever seen.....

Right.....a bloated and out of control liberal government spending MORE MONEY.....will surely fix our debt and deficit......

Again, using the Soviet Union as an example is another pointless superlative. This is not the SU... government is a much smaller component of the economy. This is a silly distraction to the fact you do not understand....

This is mind boggling! You can comprehend how extending the Bush tax cuts is helpful to a recession (so you imply, but I really doubt it), but do not understand the concept of spending multipliers? I will explain this if you can explain the other (even if you can't, which I doubt you can, I will proceed).

Let's say the government contracts a building maintenance service. It pays the service $1000 for a month's work. Let's say the owner makes a 20% pre-tax on the business and the rest is paid to the workers that actually do the cleaning (we will leave supplies out here for simplicity)... The owner has a $200 profit. It is taxed at 30%... $60 back to the government. The worker earns $800. Payroll taxes on that are $62 to the worker and $62 to the employer... we are now up to $184 back to the government. The worker has a $800 income... after deductions, lets call it $700. That at 30% is $210.... now the government has $390 of its $1000 back. The worker, as a lower wager earner, saves nothing and consumes everything (the remaining $590 is spent).... if they paid $100 to a plumber, he pays $30 in taxes. They buy groceries with the other $494... that store has a 20% pre-tax profit, so another $30 to the government....plus the store has workers and supplies.... so the $1000 paid by the government is a $1000 in revenue to the cleaning company, $100 in revenue to the plumber, $490 in revenue to the grocery store.... and $454 (45%) in tax receipts. This is just a two tier look, it assumes everyone pays 30% to the federal government and does not consider other state and local taxes... but it is the way the system works. it is why stimulus spending works. Of course, you need an economy to continue to move money through it.

Spending money does not fix the deficit other than it stimulates the revenue flow to the government... that will fix the deficit. $400B of revenue disappeared because the economy headed south. As my example shows you, cutting the $1000 from the government cleaning bill will have revenue consequences. it is not a $1000 saved.



If you say so.........

obama_budget_deficit.jpg



The Largets Budget in World History......
The Largest Spending Bill in World History.....
The Largest Omnibus Bill in World History.....
The Largest Entitlement Program in World History........

....evntually they start adding up......

............Barack HusSame Obama--The Most Expensive President in World History.
.

Even the Heritage Foundation was good enough to prove my point.... Obama was handed a $1.2T running deficit (2009 is the last Bush budget).... while it is fair to blame Obama for not fixing the problem, he did not create it.


I now a wait your clear explanation of how tax cuts to the wealthiest of American's work to improve the economy.....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom