• 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!

Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

Conservative said:
You are going to believe what you want to believe no matter how wrong you are. Please feel free to put the Bush actual numbers vs. the Obama numbers. stop buying what the media tells you as they make you look and sound foolish. Too many people have a lot invested in their Bush Derangement Syndrome so you fit into that category. We are now paying for that mental condition.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
Click to expand...
Polly wants a cracker!
Polly wants a cracker!
squawk!
Polly wants a cracker!
Polly wants a cracker!
squawk!
 
Misterveritis said:
Oh, I don't know. Being angry about out of controls spending generated enough interest in voters other than the felons, dead and illegals that Republicans regained the house of representatives. They also reversed the politics in about half of the states (from memory between 1/3rd and 40%)

People are not longer talking about unrestrained spending. Being angry accomplished a great deal. Let us hope the voters continue to be angry.
Click to expand...
Voters don't care about spending or the debt. They just don't.
 
Conservative said:
Love your novels, now get the facts by looking at the budgets of the United States. Line item expenses are Personal Income Taxes, SOCIAL SECURITY(which includes Medicare), Corporate taxes, and Excise Taxes. Love experts like you who have never looked at the budget of the United States.

Example

Receipt 2010

Individual Income tax 898.5
Corporate Taxes 191.4

Total 1089.9

SS/Unemploy/Other 864.8

Excise Taxes 66.9

U.S. Treasury

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
Click to expand...

I think we need to go to a private room as you are starting to embarrass yourself.

First off, your link does not work. Second, you are now telling me that individual and corporate income taxes are $1.1T for 2010, which is completely consistent with what I have been saying (they never exceeded $1.5T ... they peaked in 2007). Had you followed my link (which did work, BTW), you would actually see the THE BUDGET (which you claim I never looked at, but that would be refuted had you actually followed the link)

OK, so you have confirmed my numbers as I continue to try to figure out where the h'll you are getting you numbers from. Again, I am saying that federal income taxes never exceeded $1.5T, which they did in 2007. You, OTH, have this notion that they are clise to $3T (almost 2.5X, what is in the budget).....

I can only conclude, sir, that it is in fact you that has never read the budget.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
I think we need to go to a private room as you are starting to embarrass yourself.

First off, your link does not work. Second, you are now telling me that individual and corporate income taxes are $1.1T for 2010, which is completely consistent with what I have been saying (they never exceeded $1.5T ... they peaked in 2007)... which, BTW, is right from table 2.1 of THE BUDGET, which you claim I have never looked at, yet repeatedly quote from and post. Great, now you have confirmed my numbers.... where on earth do you get the federal income tax numbers you keep quoting, which are close to $3T (almost 2.5X, what is in the budget).....

I suggest to you, sir, that you have never read the budget.
Click to expand...

My link works fine but you are right in one regard and I apologize, using bea.gov does provide payroll taxes into the total personal taxes, however the budget of the United States shows the follwing in tax revenue AFTER the Bush tax cuts and doesn't include payroll taxes.

The last I checked, Individual Income taxes went from 808.9 billion dollars to 1.145 trillion dollars in 2007(an Increase) which is the time AFTER the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented. Note the line item for revenue and not the SS line item. I suggest sir that you are posting worthless information that is not only off topic but totally irrelevant today.

Receipt 2008 2007 2006 2005 Fiscal 2004 Fiscal 2003

Individual Income tax 915.3 1,145.7 1,043.9 927.2 808.9 793.7
Corporate Taxes 138.2 304.3 353.9 278.3 189.4 131.8

Total 1,053.5 1,450.0 1,397.8 1205.5 998.3 925.5

SS/Unemploy/Other 848.9 900.0 837.8 869.6 733.4 712.9

Excise Taxes 62.5 67.3 73.9 73.1 69.9 67.5
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
The economy would have grown IMO even without the tax cuts due to the massive increases in government spending that were enacted during the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...
The government spending more likely reduced the amount the economy grew. When the government takes a dollar from a productive person they take their cut (a bit like the mob) before giving 80 cents of it to someone who is unproductive.
 
Misterveritis said:
As you wish. Let's see what the next election brings. Will voters demand socialism or freedom?
Click to expand...
It depends upon how you define the words - Socialism and Freedom - I don't find them mutually exclusive. In fact a certain amount of what you might call socialism has been woven into the fabric of our nation since it's founding. President George Washington helped the poor people of DC.

See ya, Wed Nov. 7, 2012.
 
Misterveritis said:
The government spending more likely reduced the amount the economy grew. When the government takes a dollar from a productive person they take their cut (a bit like the mob) before giving 80 cents of it to someone who is unproductive.
Click to expand...

Looking at the budget deficit, it's more like they give out $1.20 for every dollar they take in. The right doesn't understand simple arithmetic
 
Conservative said:
My link works fine but you are right in one regard and I apologize, using bea.gov does provide payroll taxes into the total personal taxes, however the budget of the United States shows the follwing in tax revenue AFTER the Bush tax cuts and doesn't include payroll taxes.

The last I checked, Individual Income taxes went from 808.9 billion dollars to 1.145 trillion dollars in 2007(an Increase) which is the time AFTER the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented. Note the line item for revenue and not the SS line item. I suggest sir that you are posting worthless information that is not only off topic but totally irrelevant today.

Receipt 2008 2007 2006 2005 Fiscal 2004 Fiscal 2003

Individual Income tax 915.3 1,145.7 1,043.9 927.2 808.9 793.7
Corporate Taxes 138.2 304.3 353.9 278.3 189.4 131.8

Total 1,053.5 1,450.0 1,397.8 1205.5 998.3 925.5

SS/Unemploy/Other 848.9 900.0 837.8 869.6 733.4 712.9

Excise Taxes 62.5 67.3 73.9 73.1 69.9 67.5
Click to expand...

Cool! Now that we agree on numbers, we can have a meaningful argument over their interpretation.

The problem I have with your view of this is that you conveniently started at 2003, with the low point of individual income tax collections. Of course, revenues are going to rise from the low point. The problem is that you ignore the 20% drop in individual income tax collections from the point that the tax cut was enacted (2001) until 2003.

The so-called Bush Tax cuts were enacted and signed into law on June 7, 2001. Some provisions were phased in, but much of it took place immediately, including the idea "rebates" or advances on refunds. Nonetheless, there was a substantial impact on FY 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

In 2002, tax collections were $858B individual and $148B corporate. That was the first year effect.... but we need a baseline, when this started. In 2001 (a recessed year), tax collections were $994B individual and $151B corporate. Hence, income tax collections after the Bush tax cuts were enacted FELL by $220B or 19.2% from a total of $1,145B (or $1.15T in 2001) to $925B in 2003 , yet GDP actually rose 5% during this time frame. In fact, it took 4 years (until 2005) before income tax revenues returned to 2001 levels. During this time, GDP rose 23% from $10.2T to $12.5T, so clearly income tax revenue as a function of GDP fell.

Sorry, but the Bush tax cuts cut taxes (and tax revenue)
 

Attachments

  • Tax revenue_Page_1.jpg
    Tax revenue_Page_1.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Cool! Now that we agree on numbers, we can have a meaningful argument over their interpretation.

The problem I have with your view of this is that you conveniently started at 2003, with the low point of individual income tax collections. Of course, revenues are going to rise from the low point. The problem is that you ignore the 20% drop in individual income tax collections from the point that the tax cut was enacted (2001) until 2003.

The so-called Bush Tax cuts were enacted and signed into law on June 7, 2001. Some provisions were phased in, but much of it took place immediately, including the idea "rebates" or advances on refunds. Nonetheless, there was a substantial impact on FY 2002.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2002, tax collections were $858B individual and $148B corporate. That was the first year effect.... but we need a baseline, when this started. In 2001 (a recessed year), tax collections were $994B individual and $151B corporate. Hence, income tax collections after the Bush tax cuts were enacted FELL by $220B or 19.2% from a total of $1,145B (or $1.15T in 2001) to $925B in 2003 , yet GDP actually rose 5% during this time frame. In fact, it took 4 years (until 2005) before income tax revenues returned to 2001 levels. During this time, GDP rose 23% from $10.2T to $12.5T, so clearly income tax revenue as a function of GDP fell.

Sorry, but the Bush tax cuts cut taxes (and tax revenue)
Click to expand...

Not sure how looking backwards provides any excuses for what is going on right now but the Bush tax cuts started at the end of fiscal year 2001 which ran from October 1, 2000 to Sept. 30,2001 as they were passed in June as pointed out but the first phase wasn't completed until the end of the year. The economy in 2002 was hurt by 9/11 which began in October 2001 and ended in Sept 2002. Bush was dealing with a Democrat controlled Senate. the GOP took over the Congress in the fall of 2002 and in 2003 passed the rest of the Bush tax cuts that actually benefited 2004-2007 economic policy and govt. revenue. Now regardless we can argue this until hell freezes over but what does that have to do with the results generated by the Democrat Congress from January 2007-January 2011? The results today are there for all to see.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
 
Polly wanna cracker?

308dcf63-4713-48f1-9bf3-0429513ea06b.jpg
 
pbrauer said:
It depends upon how you define the words - Socialism and Freedom - I don't find them mutually exclusive. In fact a certain amount of what you might call socialism has been woven into the fabric of our nation since it's founding. President George Washington helped the poor people of DC.

See ya, Wed Nov. 7, 2012.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't find them mutually exclusive.
 
sangha said:
Looking at the budget deficit, it's more like they give out $1.20 for every dollar they take in. The right doesn't understand simple arithmetic
Click to expand...
Perhaps the difference is in the borrowing and in the printing and not so much in the collection.
 
Misterveritis said:
The government spending more likely reduced the amount the economy grew. When the government takes a dollar from a productive person they take their cut (a bit like the mob) before giving 80 cents of it to someone who is unproductive.
Click to expand...

I really cannot agree that crowding out occurred even during the Bush years in which we ran a deficit, but had very low levels of unemployment. Reason being, the current account allowed a great deal of foreign direct investment to flow into the United States, greater than the amount required to fund the deficit (not saying the CA inflow does fund the deficit). Accordingly, firms had little issue obtaining credit during those years.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I really cannot agree that crowding out occurred even during the Bush years in which we ran a deficit, but had very low levels of unemployment. Reason being, the current account allowed a great deal of foreign direct investment to flow into the United States, greater than the amount required to fund the deficit (not saying the CA inflow does fund the deficit). Accordingly, firms had little issue obtaining credit during those years.
Click to expand...


Quite true

Crowding out was not an issue during the last 20 years in general, especially not for the period of time after 1999. If crowding out was an issue interest rates would have been far higher then they were during that period of time
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I really cannot agree that crowding out occurred even during the Bush years in which we ran a deficit, but had very low levels of unemployment. Reason being, the current account allowed a great deal of foreign direct investment to flow into the United States, greater than the amount required to fund the deficit (not saying the CA inflow does fund the deficit). Accordingly, firms had little issue obtaining credit during those years.
Click to expand...

To late. MrV has already abandoned that argument in post #540. Even he can't defend his own ridiculous arguments
 
Conservative said:
You are going to believe what you want to believe no matter how wrong you are. Please feel free to put the Bush actual numbers vs. the Obama numbers. stop buying what the media tells you as they make you look and sound foolish. Too many people have a lot invested in their Bush Derangement Syndrome so you fit into that category. We are now paying for that mental condition.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
Click to expand...

Damage the house (2) (9/18/2011)

Blame others for the mess they had made.

Normally, president and his administration have annual revenue income, like a salary income for a family. He spends it for mortgage and other expenditure. They used to overspend the income, then they borrow the money by issuing bond.

But Bush damaged the house with a leaking roof and big hole on wall. (Housing bubble and financial crisis)

Obama not only has to pay monthly mortgage, but also must change the roof and repair the wall. That repair cost is much more than the normal monthly mortgage. The income remains the same. (salary unchanged or decreased) Expense increase drammatically. (save the firms too big to fall, help the unemployed people, help the drowned home owners....) That become a huge increase of national debt. Who should be responsible for that repair money?

Damage the house is easy. To repair it cost much. Republicans attacked Obama for the mess their own president (Bush) had made.

The fact is Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton, he left a deficit for Obama. Worse, he left a big financial crisis to Obama. Now they accuse Obama because he spend a lot of money to repair the roof. You know, to repair a roof costs more than to pay monthly mortgage.
 
katsung47 said:
Damage the house (2) (9/18/2011)

Blame others for the mess they had made.

Normally, president and his administration have annual revenue income, like a salary income for a family. He spends it for mortgage and other expenditure. They used to overspend the income, then they borrow the money by issuing bond.

But Bush damaged the house with a leaking roof and big hole on wall. (Housing bubble and financial crisis)

Obama not only has to pay monthly mortgage, but also must change the roof and repair the wall. That repair cost is much more than the normal monthly mortgage. The income remains the same. (salary unchanged or decreased) Expense increase drammatically. (save the firms too big to fall, help the unemployed people, help the drowned home owners....) That become a huge increase of national debt. Who should be responsible for that repair money?

Damage the house is easy. To repair it cost much. Republicans attacked Obama for the mess their own president (Bush) had made.

The fact is Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton, he left a deficit for Obama. Worse, he left a big financial crisis to Obama. Now they accuse Obama because he spend a lot of money to repair the roof. You know, to repair a roof costs more than to pay monthly mortgage.
Click to expand...

If Bush inherited a surplus why doesn't the Treasury Dept show that surplus? They don't show a surplus as the debt went up every year under Clinton because there wasn't a surplus, there was a PROJECTED surplus which apparently you cannot comprehend. Deficits aren't left to income Presidents, they are created by the outgoing and income President. Obama's department heads spent the Bush budget after January 21, 2009 so how did Bush create a deficit from October 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009?

Your love for Clinton is admirable but what does that have to do with the thread topic. Deficits are yearly and debt cumulative. Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion debt and left with it at 5.7 trillion so show me the surplus. Bush took office with a 5.7 trillion debt and left it at 10.6 trillion. Today it is 14.6 trillion
 
You play it in a tricky way. To seperate it to other tems such like Project surplus.... .

If you earn $1,100 a year and you spend $1,000, you have $100 surplus. That's common sense. At the same time, if you also inherits a debt of $4,400 so you have to pay a 3% interest on it, that's $132, if you add them together, then you have a $32 deficit. Should Clinton be responsible for that $4,400 debt and interest?

But with it you say he didn't earn more. That's a nonsense. When we say Clinton had a surplus, that's normal term we use to judge each presidency fiscal year. You now want to judge it by national debt, it's another standard to deal with Clinton. It doesn't mean Clinton hadn't had surplus in 2008,2009 and 2010.

If you judge Bush with same standard, he had none surplus. That's why you push out different term to confuse people.
 
katsung47 said:
You play it in a tricky way. To seperate it to other tems such like Project surplus.... .

If you earn $1,100 a year and you spend $1,000, you have $100 surplus. That's common sense. At the same time, if you also inherits a debt of $4,400 so you have to pay a 3% interest on it, that's $132, if you add them together, then you have a $32 deficit. Should Clinton be responsible for that $4,400 debt and interest?

But with it you say he didn't earn more. That's a nonsense. When we say Clinton had a surplus, that's normal term we use to judge each presidency fiscal year. You now want to judge it by national debt, it's another standard to deal with Clinton. It doesn't mean Clinton hadn't had surplus in 2008,2009 and 2010.

If you judge Bush with same standard, he had none surplus. That's why you push out different term to confuse people.
Click to expand...

In addition of you take money out of one account and put it into another replacing it with an IOU, in the liberal world that gives one account a surplus. What is it about liberalism that doesn't seem to understand that deficits are yearly and debt is cumulative. Clinton did NOT have a surplus by any standard Clinton did not have a surplus as the Treasury shows yet for some reason you and others cannot seem to understand that.

Yearly deficits are made up of budget and intergovt. holding(SS, Medicare, and other govt. long term responsibilities. What Clinton had was a budget surplus but an intergovt. holding deficit which did not make for a net surplus. He got the budget surplus by using SS funds from intergovt. holdings leaving a deficit in that acccount.
 
Conservative said:
In addition of you take money out of one account and put it into another replacing it with an IOU, in the liberal world that gives one account a surplus.
Click to expand...

That was actually how the Republican legislature "balanced the budget" in Minnesota.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom