• 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!

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Conservative said:
Who are we? With the right incentive the private sector will create the jobs. those 16 million people were working somewhere before they became unemployed.
Click to expand...

but they aren't working now....while taxes are still low....so what is the "right incentive"....
 
UtahBill said:
but they aren't working now....while taxes are still low....so what is the "right incentive"....
Click to expand...

so jacking up taxes is going to get them back to work?
 
UtahBill said:
but they aren't working now....while taxes are still low....so what is the "right incentive"....
Click to expand...

Taxes will be offset by the cost of the Obama agenda. Right now businesses don't know what they will be paying to fund Obamacare and anything else Obama is going to require them to pay for. If I owned a business right now I wouldn't be hiring either,especially small businesses. In the meantime those working are still benefiting from those tax cuts. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and repeal the taxes associated with Obamacare would be a good first step.

Do you realize how foolish one sounds when they promote the govt. taking more of the individual's income?
 
Conservative said:
Taxes will be offset by the cost of the Obama agenda. Right now businesses don't know what they will be paying to fund Obamacare and anything else Obama is going to require them to pay for. If I owned a business right now I wouldn't be hiring either,especially small businesses. In the meantime those working are still benefiting from those tax cuts. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and repeal the taxes associated with Obamacare would be a good first step.

Do you realize how foolish one sounds when they promote the govt. taking more of the individual's income?
Click to expand...

There are 5-7 individuals on this board who spend inordinate amounts of time trying to argue for having the wealth of others confiscated by the government at higher rates. None of them can give a good reason for their desire to punish other citizens--envy and spite are the only logical conclusions.
 
Conservative said:
Taxes will be offset by the cost of the Obama agenda. Right now businesses don't know what they will be paying to fund Obamacare and anything else Obama is going to require them to pay for. If I owned a business right now I wouldn't be hiring either,especially small businesses. In the meantime those working are still benefiting from those tax cuts. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and repeal the taxes associated with Obamacare would be a good first step.

Do you realize how foolish one sounds when they promote the govt. taking more of the individual's income?
Click to expand...

You are nothing if not consistent....too bad you are consistently stuck in a rut, a deep rut, and the view is limited in ruts.

Obamacare will not be repealed, it MAY be modified, hopefully to be more like a catastrophic policy so people who have insurance won't have to sell their homes to keep a child alive. But, the requirement that we all buy insurance must be enforced. There are way too many people who CAN afford insurance but just don't buy it so they can have more toys. I know some of them personally.

Low taxes are not the answer, not until we can convince congress to spend less. Tax revenue MUST be higher than money spent, so we can start paying down the national debt.
But any cuts in spending are likely to make unemployment worse, so which end of the alligator do you want to approach? Both are dangerous, right? How about the middle? or maybe from 3 directions at once.
We will never grow the economy without jobs, and that means retrieving those jobs from overseas. But if we do that, THEIR economy suffers, and they buy less American products, meaning nothing to sell, meaning no need for employees to make the products.
Do we really want to export democracy AND capitalism at the same time?
Times are hard, and going to get harder.

Welcome to the 50's.....even tho we probably thought we were successful then, it doesn't look so wonderful to the current generation.
We can't go back, or won't, not voluntarily. It's going to take some real leadership, and so far I haven't seen very many politicians who stand tall enough to see out of the box, much less think outside of it.
Bush fiddled with his little war while the nation's economy burned.
Whatever hope and change Obama had while trying to get elected has been spent, and the investment is not doing the trick.
We need an outsider, a person who has no strings attached to any profit making entity.
Does such a person exist? probably, but will congress work with him? I doubt it...
 
UtahBill said:
You are nothing if not consistent....too bad you are consistently stuck in a rut, a deep rut, and the view is limited in ruts.

Obamacare will not be repealed, it MAY be modified, hopefully to be more like a catastrophic policy so people who have insurance won't have to sell their homes to keep a child alive. But, the requirement that we all buy insurance must be enforced. There are way too many people who CAN afford insurance but just don't buy it so they can have more toys. I know some of them personally.

Low taxes are not the answer, not until we can convince congress to spend less. Tax revenue MUST be higher than money spent, so we can start paying down the national debt.
But any cuts in spending are likely to make unemployment worse, so which end of the alligator do you want to approach? Both are dangerous, right? How about the middle? or maybe from 3 directions at once.
We will never grow the economy without jobs, and that means retrieving those jobs from overseas. But if we do that, THEIR economy suffers, and they buy less American products, meaning nothing to sell, meaning no need for employees to make the products.
Do we really want to export democracy AND capitalism at the same time?
Times are hard, and going to get harder.

Welcome to the 50's.....even tho we probably thought we were successful then, it doesn't look so wonderful to the current generation.
We can't go back, or won't, not voluntarily. It's going to take some real leadership, and so far I haven't seen very many politicians who stand tall enough to see out of the box, much less think outside of it.
Bush fiddled with his little war while the nation's economy burned.
Whatever hope and change Obama had while trying to get elected has been spent, and the investment is not doing the trick.
We need an outsider, a person who has no strings attached to any profit making entity.
Does such a person exist? probably, but will congress work with him? I doubt it...
Click to expand...

1) the GOP will defund it even if they cannot overturn it YET

2) the Roberts court will rule that the tenth amendment is violated by requiring people to buy insurance

3) the rich pay too many taxes and jacking taxes up on the rich will only encourage the dems to buy the votes of the rest of the population with more spending.
 
Conservative said:
Then tell me what economic policy Bush had in place March 1, 2001?



washingtonpost.com
Economists Say Recession Started in 2000

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 22, 2004; 1:34 PM
Click to expand...

Actually, NBER determined the recession began in March 2001.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, NBER does say that but you haven't answered the question. How could Bush cause a recession without an economic policy in place?
Click to expand...

Government doesn't control the economy. But fighting two needless wars has an effect on a lot of things, espeically the deficit when we pretend we don't have to pay for those wars.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, NBER does say that but you haven't answered the question. How could Bush cause a recession without an economic policy in place?
Click to expand...
You implied the recession started in 2000 and I merely disputed that fact, you were wrong, the economy was in decline but had yet met the technical definition of recession which I believe is 2 or more quarters decline in GDP.
 
Boo Radley said:
Government doesn't control the economy. But fighting two needless wars has an effect on a lot of things, espeically the deficit when we pretend we don't have to pay for those wars.
Click to expand...

We weren't in any war in March 2001, try to keep up
 
pbrauer said:
You implied the recession started in 2000 and I merely disputed that fact, you were wrong, the economy was in decline but had yet met the technical definition of recession which I believe is 2 or more quarters decline in GDP.
Click to expand...

As I showed economists disagreed with NBER and your statement
 
Conservative said:
Read what you were responding to, slowly and then respond accordingly. The topic was the recession that Bush inherited, not the defict or the war.
Click to expand...

I did. I responded to Bush bringing on the recession. Date played no role in my response. Again, read slowly.
 
Boo Radley said:
I did. I responded to Bush bringing on the recession. Date played no role in my response. Again, read slowly.
Click to expand...

Then tell me how Bush brought on the recession by just taking office in January 2001? What Bush economic plan was put into place March 1, 2001?
 
Conservative said:
Then tell me how Bush brought on the recession by just taking office in January 2001? What Bush economic plan was put into place March 1, 2001?
Click to expand...

Again, you should read slower. I never said he did. Start with the first sentence and read it slow, out loud. See if that helps.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, you should read slower. I never said he did. Start with the first sentence and read it slow, out loud. See if that helps.
Click to expand...

Again you jumped into a discussion that had nothing to do with the deficit or the wars, want to try again showing how partisan and non responsive you are?
 
Conservative said:
Again you jumped into a discussion that had nothing to do with the deficit or the wars, want to try again showing how partisan and non responsive you are?
Click to expand...

Offered clarification. Responded with my take. Read slower before you respond, but feel free to respond to anything I actually said. ;)
 
Conservative said:
As I showed economists disagreed with NBER and your statement
Click to expand...
You never mentioned NBER, IMO, you tried to deceive which is nothing new.

Conservative said:
Then tell me how Bush brought on the recession by just taking office in January 2001? What Bush economic plan was put into place March 1, 2001?
Click to expand...
Nobody said he put an economic plan in place that caused the recession, since it would take 2 consecutive quarters to make a recession, it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
 
pbrauer said:
You never mentioned NBER, IMO, you tried to deceive which is nothing new.


Nobody said he put an economic plan in place that caused the recession, since it would take 2 consecutive quarters to make a recession, it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
Click to expand...

This was your quote,
Bush did not inherit a recession, that didn't occur until after Bush became president.
Click to expand...

So obviously you were wrong since it takes two quarters of negative economic growth for a recession with the first one being the end of 2000 when Clinton was in office. Looks like the economists actually got it right as November 2000 is what they said. You really need to get over your BDS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom