• 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!

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

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

Conservative said:
So who are those liars posting Treasury data? What figures in those numbers are lies?
Click to expand...
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, :mrgreen:
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

pbrauer said:
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, :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

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.
 
drz-400 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...
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%
 
washunut said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :mrgreen: 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:

FilmFestGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

pbrauer said:
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%
Click to expand...

No, they are paying more even though their percentage is less. You seem to have a problem with that concept just like you have a problem explaining how tax revenue went up AFTER the tax rate cuts. This isn't a zero sum economy where someone wins and someone loses. All have the opportunity to win.

What you and others have a problem understand is that when tax rates were cut, people kept more of what they earned, spent money, created demand which required new workers who then became taxpayers. Happens all the time, more taxpayers means more tax revenue to the govt. Right now 16 million Americans aren't working and paying very little in taxes. Getting them back to work has to be a priority and the empty suit in the WH doesn't have a clue.
 
Conservative said:
Apparenly stealing from the SS fund it ok. Is that how all liberals operate,
Click to expand...

It's not about choice. The SS has to loan it to the government them by law.


UST FACTS.com

* The Social Security program has an independent budget that is separate from the rest of the federal government.

* Since 1982, Social Security has had surpluses ranging from $89 million to $190 billion per year. By law, these surpluses must be loaned to the federal government, which is obligated to pay the money back with interest. This is referred to as the "Social Security Trust Fund" and at the close of 2007 it had a balance of $2.2 trillion.

NOTE: The above fact does not mean that the federal government will have enough money to pay back the Social Security program.

ricksfolly
 
drz-400 said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

If there was a surplus then the U.S. Treasury Dept. would show it and they don't. Debt increased every year during the Clinton Administration and that should be the bottom line for anyone. If anyone can show me where the U.S. Treasury Dept showed the debt dropping then I will apologize and accept your statement. Stealing from the SS fund to show a lower deficit is slight of hand and dispicable as you will find out someday when your SS contributions won't be there.
 
ricksfolly said:
It's not about choice. The SS has to loan it to the government them by law.


UST FACTS.com

* The Social Security program has an independent budget that is separate from the rest of the federal government.

* Since 1982, Social Security has had surpluses ranging from $89 million to $190 billion per year. By law, these surpluses must be loaned to the federal government, which is obligated to pay the money back with interest. This is referred to as the "Social Security Trust Fund" and at the close of 2007 it had a balance of $2.2 trillion.

NOTE: The above fact does not mean that the federal government will have enough money to pay back the Social Security program.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Let me know how that money is going to be paid back to the SS trust fund since the govt. has spent the money and continues to run a deficit?

The only reason the govt. would have to borrow the money is because of the deficit. That something you support, loaning SS money to the general fund? Does that make any sense to you, the govt. HAS to loan the money to the general fund? What law requires that?
 
Last edited:
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
I knew you would pull that BS, see my sig conservative. On and individual basis the rich pay less and like I said, it doesn't take a genius to know this.
Click to expand...

the fact is-the rich pay far far more taxes than they use in government services. A group that makes 22% of the income and pays 40% of the income taxes and ALL of the death confiscation taxes is a group that is grossly overtaxed

so stop quibbling. We need to make those who cast the majority of votes for big government to pay far more in taxes
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
No, they are paying more even though their percentage is less.
Click to expand...
I hate to be a stickler for detail, :) do you have any proof they pay more taxes after the Bush tax cuts?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
I hate to be a stickler for detail, :) do you have any proof they pay more taxes after the Bush tax cuts?
Click to expand...

the rich pay a higher share of the tax burden

but why quibble-no matter what the numbers the top 1-2% pay far more than they should

until the majority of those who vote for more welfare socialism start getting more of their income taken when the dems spend more, they will never have any incentive to stop the run away government spending
 
Conservative said:
Let me know how that money is going to be paid back to the SS trust fund since the govt. has spent the money and continues to run a deficit?

The only reason the govt. would have to borrow the money is because of the deficit. That something you support, loaning SS money to the general fund? Does that make any sense to you, the govt. HAS to loan the money to the general fund? What law requires that?
Click to expand...

He didn't say he supported it. He said it was the law.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
If there was a surplus then the U.S. Treasury Dept. would show it and they don't. Debt increased every year during the Clinton Administration and that should be the bottom line for anyone. If anyone can show me where the U.S. Treasury Dept showed the debt dropping then I will apologize and accept your statement. Stealing from the SS fund to show a lower deficit is slight of hand and dispicable as you will find out someday when your SS contributions won't be there.
Click to expand...

I already did show you, from your link to the treasury that debt held by the public decreased. Thats it. Discussion is over. A unified budget does not include internal borrowing, and therefore the whole intragovernmental holdings, national debt is an irrelevent point. I know, it sucks, you think it is dispicable, but that is how the budget works. Sorry, some things are true whether you like it or not.
 
drz-400 said:
I already did show you, from your link to the treasury that debt held by the public decreased. Thats it. Discussion is over. A unified budget does not include internal borrowing, and therefore the whole intragovernmental holdings, national debt is an irrelevent point. I know, it sucks, you think it is dispicable, but that is how the budget works. Sorry, some things are true whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Here is all that matters, sorry

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Click to expand...

That's no proof, any time you group tax payers using percentages of the total you are not showing a true picture. By your own admission the total has been reduced by 47% and this will affect the percentage grouping of the remaining returns. Please show me how Bush's tax cuts affect the highest 120,000 earners and you will have something.

Please review my signature again. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

YOu seem to be engaging in evasion Pbauer in an effort to justify soaking a group that already pay way too much of the federal income tax share
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
That's no proof, any time you group tax payers using percentages of the total you are not showing a true picture. By your own admission the total has been reduced by 47% and this will affect the percentage grouping of the remaining returns. Please show me how Bush's tax cuts affect the highest 120,000 earners and you will have something.

Please review my signature again. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Be my guest, do all the research you want. Interesting that you don't seem to care that the rich paid a greater share of the taxes AFTER the tax cuts and instead now want to get to the individual rich person as if that really matters. 47% of the income earners in this country do not pay any income taxes, where is your outrage? You seem more concerned about getting more out of the upper income groups and the questionis why?

Individual Tax Statistics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom