• 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!

Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth?

so RightinNYC

why don't you take the promises that were made in the debate over the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and present your own authoritative evidence that they did just what they promised?

I simply cannot find any.

Because I'm not the person who started a thread claiming that I could prove something. Do your own research.
 
Because I'm not the person who started a thread claiming that I could prove something. Do your own research.

So you cannot even support your own position with anything more than an opinion?

You see, I have done the research. I have looked. And I cannot find anything which supports the idea that cutting taxes on the top 2% of people translates into jobs for the rest of us. Such figures do not exist because the reality supersedes the ideological theory and belief.

But should anyone find them, please present them.

It is rank insanity for a nation to be considering adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit by extending expensive tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans without hard and fast proof to back it up.

So please.... please... please... lets see the facts here.
 
So you cannot even support your own position with anything more than an opinion?

Can you show me where in this thread I've stated my position? My only position so far is that you and FilmFestGuy don't understand a fairly basic principle of logic.

You see, I have done the research. I have looked. And I cannot find anything which supports the idea that cutting taxes on the top 2% of people translates into jobs for the rest of us. Such figures do not exist because the reality supersedes the ideological theory and belief.

Oh, well if you say so!
 
from RightinNYC

My only position so far is that you and FilmFestGuy don't understand a fairly basic principle of logic.

Screw logic. And theory. And opinion. And belief systems. And axioms. And anything else other than hard and cold facts.

Oh, well if you say so!

Sorry but I cannot provide evidence of something that does not exist. If you feel it does exist, not its on you to provide proof of it.
But you will not because it does not.
 
Last edited:
You are unfamiliar with the concept of revolution?

Of course I am.

Which one did you have in mind?

In other words, instead of answering a question with an evasive and rather foolish response, why not say where and when it happened before?

Here's a reminder.

"It has happened. And it could again".

Which event are you referring to, OK? Let's have your "hard and cold facts."
 
Last edited:
Screw logic. And theory. And opinion. And belief systems. And axioms. And anything else other than hard and cold facts.

Facts are useless without the cognitive capability to understand and interpret them.
 
Facts are useless without the cognitive capability to understand and interpret them.

Oh I do not mind your fancy understandings and interpretations. I can even accept your high opinion and axioms. Just please give me the facts first that you base them on.

Grant - you are aware of events like The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution where the rich were the victim of the mob - right?
 
Oh I do not mind your fancy understandings and interpretations. I can even accept your high opinion and axioms. Just please give me the facts first that you base them on.

wtf are you even talking about?

Again, please show me where I have made an assertion about the effect of tax cuts on growth. All I've done is point out your own logical flaws.
 
Grant - you are aware of events like The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution where the rich were the victim of the mob - right?

Here's what you said earlier.

"but we will roast the geese upon our fires and pick our teeth with their smaller bones. and it will be good".

Then you went on to say, "It has happened. And it could again".

Certainly I understand revolutions, as do we all, but what event did you have in mind that could find some connection with the United States today?
 
The future is a blank slate upon nothing is yet written. History tells us that when society becomes too far tilted towards the rich and powerful that there is a correction. Sometimes that correction can take place within the peaceful guidelines of the established order. Sometimes it does not. I believe the book ANATOMY OF A REVOLUTION explains this far better than I could.

I see people here... and not just here ... but on sites like this and in bars and colleges all over the land who believe so deeply in ideology. They subscribe to isms and axioms and belief systems. To me, that is all crap. Less than crap since manure has a very utilitarian use in gardens. ideology fails even in that usage. i happen to think that America is a really neat place... maybe the place place ever. And I think the key to that is a thriving and large middle class which is the straw that stirs the drink. And I shudder and want to cry when I see the middle class shrinking and the gains of the 20th century under attack all in the name of goddamn ideology.

I see people here and elsewhere who worship money like a god and think that we are still in the late 18th century. They think that if you make a lot of money that you don't need a toilet in your house because you are above such basic functions. They kiss the posterior of the rich and crave to be rich themselves so they can piss upon the rest of us. I see people talk about the problems of the lower classes but probably have not spent a day being a minority at any time in their life in any situation. I feel sorrow for these people and I feel contempt for them.
 
Last edited:
You are unfamiliar with the concept of revolution?

Oh please start a revolution--pretty please. when you get ready let me know.
 
from Turtle Dude



What is the purpose of the rich then? And I would love to see objective authoritative sources backing up whatever you may opt to claim.

in a free country such a stupid question would not need asking.
 
To relieve the poor of there money

"there money" hmmm. that is a rather silly comment. I thought the poor don't have money and thus cannot afford to pay taxes to fund all the government services they use.
 
I think that is the absurdity he was trying to get your attention with.

It worked.
 
from Turtle Dude



What is the purpose of the rich then? And I would love to see objective authoritative sources backing up whatever you may opt to claim.

The rich don't exist for any purpose, they are just there, like any economic class. This is like asking why rocks exist or why air exists. It just does.
 
Well please oh teacher of law and government, give us the short answer then.

someone beat me to it. Tell me (former?) dem operative. why do you spend so much time campaigning for the government to take more wealth of your fellow citizens?
 
The future is a blank slate upon nothing is yet written. History tells us that when society becomes too far tilted towards the rich and powerful that there is a correction. Sometimes that correction can take place within the peaceful guidelines of the established order. Sometimes it does not. I believe the book ANATOMY OF A REVOLUTION explains this far better than I could.

And according to the samples i just read these revolutions, with the exception of the American Revolution (so far) turned to dictatorships and chaos. If any Americans are planning a revolution they had best consider the possible consequences first.

I see people here... and not just here ... but on sites like this and in bars and colleges all over the land who believe so deeply in ideology. They subscribe to isms and axioms and belief systems. To me, that is all crap.

Sure it is, but these are students, they are in the learning process. Expect them to have dimwitted opinions..
i happen to think that America is a really neat place... maybe the place place ever. And I think the key to that is a thriving and large middle class which is the straw that stirs the drink. And I shudder and want to cry when I see the middle class shrinking and the gains of the 20th century under attack all in the name of goddamn ideology.

Of course the middle class will shrink as the government grows larger. That is to be expected. And that is the biggest reason why taxes have to be kept at a moderate level, as do services. It wasn't Socialism that made America great, and where the middle class became the largest in the world. But turn left and the middle will shrink because it has to. Even if the government were to take all the money from the rich it wouldn't be near enough to pay for what the government spends in one week.

I see people here and elsewhere who worship money like a god and think that we are still in the late 18th century.

And that is their right, just as it is your right to ignore or abstain from wealth. You are free to move in either direction, or stay just where you are.. That freedom, and consequent responsibility, is a difficult thing for many to accept, once they get dependent on the government looking after them,
They kiss the posterior of the rich and crave to be rich themselves so they can piss upon the rest of us. I see people talk about the problems of the lower classes but probably have not spent a day being a minority at any time in their life in any situation. I feel sorrow for these people and I feel contempt for them.

Perhaps you should just ignore them and get on with your own life.
 
Last edited:
The rich don't exist for any purpose, they are just there, like any economic class. This is like asking why rocks exist or why air exists. It just does.


The rich exist to relieve the poor of their financial burdens.
 
The rich exist to relieve the poor of their financial burdens.

I disagree. We tax the rich to help the poor and stabilize society, but that is not why they exist. Their existence is a result of human nature. However, this lack of purpose does not make taxation unjust.
 
My take on why the 2000's had such low growth coming out of the recession


High personal debt levels for the middle class, an expanding trade deficit, and concentration of wealth at the highest levels being the primary factors


High personal debt prevents savings and investing by the middle class in most cases, and it limits consumption that would spur economic growth. Alan Greenspan encouraged Americans in the early 2000s to take out home equity loans to further consumption as a means to spur economic activity.

The trade deficit, money leaving the US for goods and services is of course money that is not going to be used to create economic activity in the US.

Last but not least, and does partially explain why the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy did not produce noticable results. Wealth has been concentrating in the hands of the wealthy for the last few decades, and dramatically so in the last couple. There is a realistic limit to the consumption a person can do (unless the very wealthy all want to build billion dollar homes like one of the owners of Reliance in India has done). This then requires them to make investments to spur economic growth, but they are not required to make investments that will produce productive jobs in the US. If they are not investing in projects that produce productive jobs in the US, or consume more that will create jobs as well, then the tax cuts will not spur on economic growth in the US

You're the FIRST person to give an honest, straight-forward, reasonable answer to this controversial question.

Thanks! I don't know why it's been so difficult for Conservatives to just tell it straight instead of spouting some obscure platitude, i.e., "correlation =/= causation". Furthermore, if you're going to make the claim that varying events affected the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts, then my question then is "Why didn't the Bush-43 administration work to modify the cuts based on what was happening within the nation's economy? The way I see it, his administration dropped the ball here just as they did w/the War on Terror. They took their eye off the ball - twice!

Argue against a flat tax. We who pay most of the taxes tire of dems buying votes by calling for our taxes-and our taxes alone to go up and up and up when we get no additional benefits for paying more and more and more

democrats gain power by spending our money on their voters. If the dems were to cut social spending they would lose their power to buy the votes of those who get more from government spending than they pay in taxes. SInce the dems won't cut their own throats, we have to cut taxes.

When democrats support policies, it's buying votes, when republicans support policy, it's not. This is one of those retarded whines that people keep making because it's easy and requires no real thought to formulate, but never understand why it doesn't get taken seriously by any one else except those others on the extreme.

rich people don't exist for the purpose of funding your socialist dreams. and the fact is states with high taxes are losing wealthy tax payers. and when Sweden had massive taxes, most of their star athletes moved to monte carlo. SO you can attack me personally because you are jealous and ignore the point I was making which had nothing to do with me personally

Let's talk about tax increases for a moment...

Since 1961, only one Democrat President - Clinton - dared to raise taxes and he did so only on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans. He also cut spending by over $200 billion and had the longest period of economic growth in this nation's history. In fact, only Kennedy and Clinton, two Democrat presidents, remain the only U.S. Presidents to spur long-term economic growth over the last 50 years. Kennedy did so by creating NASA and fully engaging the nation in the Space Race. Clinton did so by deregulating the banking, investment, securities and insurance industries and used housing to invest in growth. (See Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) To a large degree it worked. Except for the lack of regulatory oversight, Clinton's initiatives (though controversial) did reduce the deficit. However, ultimately what Clinton tore apart eventually set the nation on a path to the very economic turmoil we're dealing with now. Still, his administration dealt with the mini-banking collapse of 1998. (See Long-term capital investments) It's just too bad we didn't carry forward those lessons learned from 1998 into 2008. Our economy could have been spared at best by government oversight and at worse by duplicating the collaborative efforts within the private banking sector as was done in 1998.

As for political parties curring votes, both sides do it. Republicans think they have the military voting bloc on lock along with the wealthy and the elderly while Democrat mostly get the youth movement, minorities and a vast majority of the middle-class. Both have used various segments of the population - sometimes catering to inner-locking segments, i.e., Independents, to sway votes their way. So, to claim that only those who seek "entitlements" only vote Democrat is like saying everyone who has ever served in the military - active duty, reserves and retired - all vote Republican. Very untrue. Former military here. I generally vote Democrat but I've never voted a straight-party ticket. If I believe a candidate worthy of my vote regardless of party affiliation, he/she will get my vote.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. We tax the rich to help the poor and stabilize society, but that is not why they exist. Their existence is a result of human nature. However, this lack of purpose does not make taxation unjust.


The poor pay taxes too. And they pay more in relation to their buying power.
 
Back
Top Bottom