• 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?

Boo Radley said:
Nonsense. It is only going back to where we were, which was no where near the highest rates we've seen in this country. And in no way does it compare, in anyway, with Jim Crow laws.
Click to expand...

that is not an argument. we had idiotically high tax rates. we still have too high tax rates on those who pay too much as it is

If you are not willing to pay X amount of taxes on the next dollar you make, you have no credibility arguing someone else pay X amount of taxes on the next dollar they make
 
liblady said:
agreed.

10 char
Click to expand...

See my above post

if you want the rich to pay 80% taxes on their next dollar you should agree to pay that much on your next dollar
 
TurtleDude said:
that is not an argument. we had idiotically high tax rates. we still have too high tax rates on those who pay too much as it is

If you are not willing to pay X amount of taxes on the next dollar you make, you have no credibility arguing someone else pay X amount of taxes on the next dollar they make
Click to expand...

Who says it's too high? What is the standard? Who decides? I have no problem paying my taxes, and no problem with a progeressive tax, meaning when I make more, I pay more. So, I don't have the problem you're suggesting.
 
I have known, over the years, more than a few people who say that they will vote for anyone who can lower taxes. That is single issue voting, just as stupid as those who vote for a candidate based on any other single issue.
Taxes are necessary, period. Taxes are often wasted, true, but they are still necessary. Complaining about it won't change it. Posting here won't change it. The only thing you can do is minimize your taxes thru legal means, or even illegal until you get caught.
The Bush tax cuts did NOT help the economy mainly because spending wasn't cut the same amount. Any president/congress that overspends and adds to the national debt should be considered a criminal. But that is hard to do when half the country is complicit in the crime....
 
TurtleDude said:
that is not an argument. we had idiotically high tax rates. we still have too high tax rates on those who pay too much as it is
Click to expand...

Obviously, not near enough taxes to cover the looming trillion dollar deficit this year, so expect an even bigger tax hike... either that or cut unnecessary expenses.

They can start by cutting back on the military (around ten billion for each dead terrorist), and the billions of free money we donate to a dozen different countries every year, including the $6.4 billion to Taiwan, for no other reason than to stick it to China.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Obviously, not near enough taxes to cover the looming trillion dollar deficit this year, so expect an even bigger tax hike... either that or cut unnecessary expenses.

They can start by cutting back on the military (around ten billion for each dead terrorist), and the billions of free money we donate to a dozen different countries every year, including the $6.4 billion to Taiwan, for no other reason than to stick it to China.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Any serious effort will likely include both cutting spending and rasing taxes.
 
Boo Radley said:
Who says it's too high? What is the standard? Who decides? I have no problem paying my taxes, and no problem with a progeressive tax, meaning when I make more, I pay more. So, I don't have the problem you're suggesting.
Click to expand...

are you willing to pay 91% of your next dollar

50% of your next dollar

if you are not willing to pay the top rate than you are dishonest

if you are you are lying

with a flat tax the more you make the more you pay but it prevents people like you voting up my taxes without YOU suffering any more taxation
 
ricksfolly said:
Obviously, not near enough taxes to cover the looming trillion dollar deficit this year, so expect an even bigger tax hike... either that or cut unnecessary expenses.

They can start by cutting back on the military (around ten billion for each dead terrorist), and the billions of free money we donate to a dozen different countries every year, including the $6.4 billion to Taiwan, for no other reason than to stick it to China.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

we should start with unconstitutional spending-ie the stuff dems use to buy the votes of their pawns and the spending used to create more dem pawns
 
UtahBill said:
I have known, over the years, more than a few people who say that they will vote for anyone who can lower taxes. That is single issue voting, just as stupid as those who vote for a candidate based on any other single issue.
Taxes are necessary, period. Taxes are often wasted, true, but they are still necessary. Complaining about it won't change it. Posting here won't change it. The only thing you can do is minimize your taxes thru legal means, or even illegal until you get caught.
The Bush tax cuts did NOT help the economy mainly because spending wasn't cut the same amount. Any president/congress that overspends and adds to the national debt should be considered a criminal. But that is hard to do when half the country is complicit in the crime....
Click to expand...
cutting socialist spending would destroy the dem party's ability to win elections
 
TurtleDude said:
we should start with unconstitutional spending-ie the stuff dems use to buy the votes of their pawns and the spending used to create more dem pawns
Click to expand...

What unconstitutional spending are you speaking of? The war in Iraq, Afghanistan?
 
pbrauer said:
What unconstitutional spending are you speaking of? The war in Iraq, Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

read the tenth amendment and get back to me on where in the constitution welfare, medicare and medicaid is authorized

You do have a law degree don't you?
 
TurtleDude said:
read the tenth amendment and get back to me on where in the constitution welfare, medicare and medicaid is authorized

You do have a law degree don't you?
Click to expand...

Where is DADT Constitutional? Or where is defining marriage Constitutional? Where was denying women the vote Constitutional in a pre-19th Amendment Constitution. Thats an interesting one because its impossible to find a justification for it in the text.

The Constitution doesn't specifically allow for these things and many other items yet they exist and are constitutional, or were considered constitutional for a long time. The Constitution doesn't specifically allow for welfare, medicare, or medicaid, but the judicial branch hasn't struck them down.

You want to keep playing because I can find a million things you like about the government that isn't specifically allowed in the Constitution
 
pbrauer said:
What unconstitutional spending are you speaking of? The war in Iraq, Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Exactly what was unconstitutional about the spending authorized by the House and Senate for use in Iraq and Afghanistan are you babbling about?

You have failed once again to make an intelligent point but then I have come to expect no more.

All liberals who want to pay a higher tax I say go ahead pay your heads off. Oh you did already.

For the thousandth time Tax cuts alone will never fix any economy with corresponding reductions in the crazy over spending binge the Trifecta of Doom has us in.
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
Where is DADT Constitutional? Or where is defining marriage Constitutional? Where was denying women the vote Constitutional in a pre-19th Amendment Constitution. Thats an interesting one because its impossible to find a justification for it in the text.

The Constitution doesn't specifically allow for these things and many other items yet they exist and are constitutional, or were considered constitutional for a long time. The Constitution doesn't specifically allow for welfare, medicare, or medicaid, but the judicial branch hasn't struck them down.

You want to keep playing because I can find a million things you like about the government that isn't specifically allowed in the Constitution
Click to expand...

find one

the commander and chief can impose DADT last I checked

I don't care-I think its a stupid rule.

the judicial branch was coopted under FDR and until he threatened to pack the court, most of his New Deal was being struck down

find say 10 things that I like that isn't allowed by the constitution

I doubt you have the education to even understand the constitution enough to do that
 
TurtleDude said:
find one

the commander and chief can impose DADT last I checked

I don't care-I think its a stupid rule.

the judicial branch was coopted under FDR and until he threatened to pack the court, most of his New Deal was being struck down

find say 10 things that I like that isn't allowed by the constitution

I doubt you have the education to even understand the constitution enough to do that
Click to expand...

I can't even define 10 of your positions. But the point stands, stuff you support such as DADT or the gov't defining marriage is NOT found in the Constitution. I'm not talking about FDR, i never mentioned it don't change the topic.

So tell me, how are these things Constitutional when they aren't specifically mentioned? I'll even use you're exact same question:
read (Constitution) and get back to me on where in the constitution DADT and defining marriage are authorized
 
Wiseone said:
I can't even define 10 of your positions. But the point stands, stuff you support such as DADT or the gov't defining marriage is NOT found in the Constitution. I'm not talking about FDR, i never mentioned it don't change the topic.

So tell me, how are these things Constitutional when they aren't specifically mentioned? I'll even use you're exact same question:
read (Constitution) and get back to me on where in the constitution DADT and defining marriage are authorized
Click to expand...

lets see If I can give you a quick constitutional lesson

1) DADT is a rule imposed by the CiC--the Constitution gives the CIC such powers. I don't agree with it but I agree it is power that the president has

2) gay marriage is a state issue thus the US constitution really isn't at issue unless it violates a constitutional right

again I don't care, if gays want to marry that's fine with me.

you aren't doing to well on diagnosing my positions

that million is looking rather hard to reach
 
TurtleDude said:
lets see If I can give you a quick constitutional lesson

1) DADT is a rule imposed by the CiC--the Constitution gives the CIC such powers. I don't agree with it but I agree it is power that the president has
Click to expand...

Actually, the president does not have those powers since the power resides in the hands of Congress in Article I Section VIII Clause XIV.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
 
Councilman said:
Exactly what was unconstitutional about the spending authorized by the House and Senate for use in Iraq and Afghanistan are you babbling about?
Click to expand...
Don't blame me if you don't understand what I wrote. :roll:
 
TurtleDude said:
are you willing to pay 91% of your next dollar

50% of your next dollar

if you are not willing to pay the top rate than you are dishonest

if you are you are lying

with a flat tax the more you make the more you pay but it prevents people like you voting up my taxes without YOU suffering any more taxation
Click to expand...

I repeat, I have no problem paying my tax, which is more than those below me or people above me paying more. I see no problem here. I can't be any clearer.
 
Boo Radley said:
I repeat, I have no problem paying my tax, which is more than those below me or people above me paying more. I see no problem here. I can't be any clearer.
Click to expand...

There are some among us who will whine about paying 1%. They want govt services for free, because they DESERVE it. Most of them haven't DONE anything to deserve it, but that is beside their point.

I get a navy retirement, one of my former coworkers says it is too generous. I told him that he was just as eligible as I, all he had to do was earn it by serving. He said that he had "better things to do with his life".

Selfishness has no limits, I guess...
 
UtahBill said:
There are some among us who will whine about paying 1%. They want govt services for free, because they DESERVE it. Most of them haven't DONE anything to deserve it, but that is beside their point.

I get a navy retirement, one of my former coworkers says it is too generous. I told him that he was just as eligible as I, all he had to do was earn it by serving. He said that he had "better things to do with his life".

Selfishness has no limits, I guess...
Click to expand...

real selfishness is wanting other people to pay more when they don't get anything additional
 
TurtleDude said:
real selfishness is wanting other people to pay more when they don't get anything additional
Click to expand...

Wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies: study

Wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies: study | Reuters

The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government

Why the rich should pay more taxes

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The United States spent nearly $400 billion last fiscal year to fund tax breaks and programs aimed at helping Americans build wealth, but the majority of that money went to the highest earning taxpayers, according to a report released Wednesday.

Tax policies gave $400 billion to the wealthy - Sep. 22, 2010
 
Boo Radley said:
Wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies: study

Wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies: study | Reuters

The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government

Why the rich should pay more taxes

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The United States spent nearly $400 billion last fiscal year to fund tax breaks and programs aimed at helping Americans build wealth, but the majority of that money went to the highest earning taxpayers, according to a report released Wednesday.

Tax policies gave $400 billion to the wealthy - Sep. 22, 2010
Click to expand...

opinions noted not shared.

tax breaks don't cost anything and are not a benefit unless tax breaks mean that those getting them are paying less than what they use

right now its the bottom 80% who are getting tax breaks while those on the top of the tax burden heap pay far more than they use

try again

CNN is a leftwing propaganda site and their terminology is biased

you also need to read the stuff you posted-doesn't quite support your claims as you state
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
opinions noted not shared.

tax breaks don't cost anything and are not a benefit unless tax breaks mean that those getting them are paying less than what they use

right now its the bottom 80% who are getting tax breaks while those on the top of the tax burden heap pay far more than they use

try again

CNN is a leftwing propaganda site and their terminology is biased

you also need to read the stuff you posted-doesn't quite support your claims as you state
Click to expand...

Dude, only one was an opinion, the other two discuss a study. It must be nice to dismiss reality because it has a liberal bias.

:lamo :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom