Page 51 of 87 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 862

Thread: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

  1. #501
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    So who are those liars posting Treasury data? What figures in those numbers are lies?
    You must have a reading comprehension problem, read the first three words then repeat them over and over until you understand them. Then continue reading,


  2. #502
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    If you fully understand the unified budget then you know as you stated that Clinton was dishonest with the American people about reducing the U.S. Debt. I agree with you, ALL Presidents have used the SS surplus to show a lower debt than we actually had however that unified debt is what is shown by the U.S. Treasury and there was no reduction at all.
    The treasury shows debt held by the public went down. The unified budget does not include internal borrowing, by definition. There was a unified budget surplus, no lying went on. The national debt increased because it includes internal borrowing.

  3. #503
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Does it really matter about the Clinton numbers. We were in the midst of the tech bubble. Tax receipts on capital gains were through the roof. So it would be hard to look at that and say it was sustainable.

  4. #504
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    You must have a reading comprehension problem, read the first three words then repeat them over and over until you understand them. Then continue reading,
    Right, figures don't lie and the fact is there was no budget surplus during the Clinton years, thanks for finally agreeing with that even though you won't admit it.

  5. #505
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    The treasury shows debt held by the public went down. The unified budget does not include internal borrowing, by definition. There was a unified budget surplus, no lying went on. The national debt increased because it includes internal borrowing.
    Why did the debt held by the public go down? You seem to be on both sides of the issue. Apparenly stealing from the SS fund it ok. Is that how all liberals operate, put off the problems of today to tomorrow? Where is the money going to come from to replace those dollars taken from SS today?

  6. #506
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Right, figures don't lie and the fact is there was no budget surplus during the Clinton years, thanks for finally agreeing with that even though you won't admit it.
    I think when the Clinton administration claimed they had a surplus, they used the same accounting method the Bush administration used to report their deficits. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't disputed your figures and accept them. It's no big deal to prove one side or the other.

    Did you actually think I would believe the POS Heritage report? They must believe their readers are stoooooooooopid. They might well be right.


  7. #507
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I think when the Clinton administration claimed they had a surplus, they used the same accounting method the Bush administration used to report their deficits. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't disputed your figures and accept them. It's no big deal to prove one side or the other.

    Did you actually think I would believe the POS Heritage report? They must believe their readers are stoooooooooopid. They might well be right.
    Tell me exactly what was in the Heritage Report that you don't believe and be specific. As for the Clinton surplus it has been proven that there was no surplus yet liberals keep spouting that. Glad to see you don't refute the numbers anymore. By the way the IRS offers the same data.

  8. #508
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Tell me exactly what was in the Heritage Report that you don't believe and be specific. As for the Clinton surplus it has been proven that there was no surplus yet liberals keep spouting that. Glad to see you don't refute the numbers anymore. By the way the IRS offers the same data.
    I can read you like a book, I knew you would ask this question. I have no problem with the data, however the report is very misleading, it's written in such a manner to make the reader believe the rich are paying more for their taxes when you and I know that simply isn't the case; they are paying less - simple reasoning tells you that. The deception comes with the 20% comparison - the comparison is two separate pieces of the pie. It stand to reason that if you cut off people at the bottom, the 20% at the top will have an average income greater the previous 20%


  9. #509
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Does it really matter about the Clinton numbers. We were in the midst of the tech bubble. Tax receipts on capital gains were through the roof. So it would be hard to look at that and say it was sustainable.
    Very true, I just want to make sure the facts are straight. There was a surplus, thats all I want to prove. Whether it was sustainable or not would be much more a subject of debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Why did the debt held by the public go down? You seem to be on both sides of the issue. Apparenly stealing from the SS fund it ok. Is that how all liberals operate, put off the problems of today to tomorrow? Where is the money going to come from to replace those dollars taken from SS today?
    This has literally nothing to do with what I am debating (which should not even be debatable). There was a surplus, can you say that conservative? Whether they stole from SS or not, whether that is ok with you, wherever that money is going to come from for SS in the future, no matter how liberals operate, there was still a surplus.

  10. #510
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Fifty-one pages and youo guy really haven't gotten anywhere on this issue. You're about as bad as Congress!

    Seriously though, I'm not an economist nor am I an accountant. I usually stay out of these types of discussions most of the time because the priciples behind the "economic slight-of-hand" always confuse the hell outta me. So, I tend to be content watching Conservative duke it out with everyone else. It gets quit commical after a while. (And that includes everyone who contributes when the discussion gets...personal.) But when I think I have something positive to contribute or a question to ask, that's when I chime in. Such as the case now...

    My brief take on the matter: IT'S GONNA TAKE A WHILE - LONGER THAN THE NATION SEEMS WILLING TO GIVE THE DEMOCRATICALLY HELD CONGRESS - TO FIX THIS NATION'S ECONOMY AND NO SINGLE WAY IS THE BE-ALL/END-ALL RIGHT WAY!!! But I think Alan Greenspan and FilmFestGuy (FFG for short) are closer to having the right ideas moreso than most for the times we currently find ourselves in.

    First, Greenspan: On Meet the Press a few weeks ago, he said (and I paraphrase), "Issuing tax-cuts using borrowed money will not decrease the deficit; it will only add to it." In today's economy, I'd say he's 100% correct! There's no way we can afford to issue tax-cuts on the wealthiest wage earners in this country right now and expect to decrease the deficit while also expecting to turn our nation's economy around in short order. It's just not going to happen. Why? IMO, it's exactly as FFG points out here:

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    Here's why: the rich don't spend when given stimulus because they already make significantly more than they spend. Giving them more money doesn't make them spend more. They hoard it (my edit...i.e., bank it, invest it) and gain the interest from it.

    Further, tax cuts [that benefit the top wage earners the most] don't create jobs. Were it the case, then the Bush tax rates (which we currently have) would be putting people back to work. It's not happening. And it didn't really happen in the mid-2000s either. The "boom" of the Bush recovery was almost exclusively given to the top 10% of earners. The remaining 90% of wage-earners only collectively shared 12% of the mid-2000s growth. If your (Conservative) philosophy of giving tax cuts to the wealthy to assist the middle class were accurate, then the growth would have been more evenly spread throughout all levels of wage-earners instead of being so specifically clumped up at the top.

    The opposite is true if you lower taxes for the bottom 60% of earners. They are much more likely to spend on home improvements, electronics, clothing, and other things that will drive up demand - and increase income for the top earners.


    The 2000s are the prime example of how poorly structured tax cuts can hurt the economy. They were the exact equivalent of Hoover's foolish tax cuts right before the Great Depression.

    As a result, new policies need to be developed that give true incentives ONLY for hiring. You cannot give the tax cut up front, it must only be collected after hiring.

    The only thing that will grow jobs is increased demand for products. You don't increase demand for products by cutting taxes for the wealthy. You cut taxes for the working and middle classes - who will then spend the money, which will then make the rich, richer (through natural market forces - not through unnecessary tax cuts).


    We can agree that spending must be reigned in. But tax cuts do not solve anything if they're not properly targeted.

    Additionally, who uses the nation's infrastructure more? The organic farmer or Wal-Mart? Who uses highways more? Who uses the electric grid more? Who requires more police and fire protection? Giant corporations and the wealthy use a much greater share of our government-provided infrastructure than do simple wage-earners and small businesses, and thus progressive rates are appropriate.
    I'll echo one critical point FFG was attempting to make, "properly targetted tax cuts". Now, where should some of those tax cut be? IMO...:

    * Small businesses, specifically in health care cost (which I think the healthcare bill tries to do - I'll have to read up on it more...still reading it actually, but took a break from it due to personal issues in the household), equipment, payroll taxes...these things will help drive down the net operating cost of small businesses and help them to hire employees.

    * Capital Gains Tax to give more people incentive to invest w/o the fear of being heavily penalized for their investment earnings.

    * Earned Income Credit - while not a tax cut, it could be increased alittle on a short-term basis to provide a cushion for parents as a means to put money back in their pockets.

    Again, I'm not claiming that my ideas are the best. I know I'm out of my league when it comes to these types of issues, but hey...this is an opinion-based forum, right? Where everyone is entitled to their points of view, right, wrong or indifferent.

    Target tax cuts where they can be the most effective no matter how paintful they might be. If they will incentivise (small) businesses while also reducing the deficit and creating jobs, I'm all for it!

Page 51 of 87 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... 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
  •