• 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?

Objective Voice said:
And what "proof" might that be?

Even here you're deflecting again instead of giving a straight answer which I find somewhat disturbing coming for you, a poster I generally respect for his intellect, tact and honesty, when you make such commentary as this:



Haymarket asked a very simple question that even Conservative should be able to do with his "at-the-ready cut-N-paste" answers - show evidence that tax cuts did, in fact, create the jobs that Republicans/Conservatives claim they should/would have. As far as I'm concerned, the Bush tax cuts failed. America's evidence is the recession and the high unemployment rate we're still trying to get control over.
Click to expand...

The question eventually comes down to whether the government can handle finances more effectively than the individual. There seems to be those who feel that the government should have more money in order to create jobs, wealth, or some such thing. This argument appears to be that because tax cuts didn't create enough jobs taxpayers should send Washington more money and maybe it will happen this time. Maybe it will.

But the smart money says otherwise.
 
Grant said:
While his opponent wants to raise taxes for no particualr reason.
Click to expand...

same thing as principle and ideology = no particular reason.
 
perhaps it is my fault for not making myself understood.
I was saying "no particular reason" is the same thing as the vague terms "principle and ideology".
I myself have very pragmatic reasons that principle and ideology never touch upon.
 
It seems that very few people understand even the most basic facts about what drives our economy.

Tax cuts alone will not cause the economy to grow unless all taxes were eliminated 100%.

Tax cuts along with reduced spending and a positive outlook on the part of the public are required for growth.

Obama has proven that you can't waste money on idiotic ill conceived schemes like Cash For Clunkers and hope to do anything but flush money down the drain.

Our economy is based on Faith and Hope, and Obama does not instill either in the vast majority of thinking Americans with either one. People have believe there is hope before they will go out and spend money on large items and that also requires faith that the right things are being done, and Obama hasn't done anything right yet unless he resigned when I wasn't looking.


California is bleeding population and jobs and is bankrupt because of Liberalism and it's going to get very dangerous here very soon as some cities become near ghost towns.

But the Delta smelt will be alive as the citizens starve.
 
haymarket said:
Nope - got the right guy --- Mr. Cut Taxes out of pure principle and ideology.
Click to expand...

You do understand why you are wrong? you attributed a quote to me that I did not write

you thus FAIL
 
you are Mr. Cut Taxes -- no mistake there.

and you take yourself way way way tooo seriously... for even a Turtle.

My favorite posts are when you guys with the inferiority complex have to pronounce yourself the winners all the time. Its so wonderfully cute.

and as for the quote thing ... sometimes the waiter brings you the wrong soup...

and he knows exactly what he is doing to make a point.

Or maybe not.

Something to think about just the same.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
you are Mr. Cut Taxes -- no mistake there.

and you take yourself way way way tooo seriously... for even a Turtle.

My favorite posts are when you guys with the inferiority complex have to pronounce yourself the winners all the time. Its so wonderfully cute.

and as for the quote thing ... sometimes the waiter brings you the wrong soup...

and he knows exactly what he is doing to make a point.

Or maybe not.

Something to think about just the same.
Click to expand...

sometimes someone makes a mistake and gets called on it and persists in being in error and when proven to be wrong pretends it was on purpose. as to taking things too seriously, I don't work for the DNC and I don't go around trying to get the government to confiscate more wealth from others
 
Certainly the suppliers of war materials made money....
Was it worth several thousand lives....?
 
No they weren't. He cut taxes as soon as he pumped up the DOD, Medicare, and Security budget too. What does he care? It was only his problem for 8 years let the next guy take the blame for it and fix it...oh wait.
 
JohnWOlin said:
No they weren't. He cut taxes as soon as he pumped up the DOD, Medicare, and Security budget too. What does he care? It was only his problem for 8 years let the next guy take the blame for it and fix it...oh wait.
Click to expand...

It's amusing when liberals think they're onto something.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Here we go! This is actually where I was hoping the discussion would lead.

Because I was hoping eventually that we would get to the point that to defend the tax cuts as being "good", you'd have to essentially prove a negative - or "it could have been worse".

This is, of course, the trap that Obama landed in with the stimulus.

But to a deeper question: why do so many believe that a tax cut is automatically good for the economy? I know that it means people take a little more money home and there's obviously nothing wrong with that - BUT historically the correlations with "growth" don't match up very well. Indeed, they seem to have little to no impact or reltionship to being "good for the economy".
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how people keeping more of what they earn is a bad thing for the U.S. Economy? Explain to me why the govt. needs 3.6 trillion dollars a year to do much of what is duplicated at the state level? Explain to me how an economy that grows from 9.9 trillion to 14.5 trillion with two recessions and 9/11 is a bad thing? Because the economy didn't grow at the rate you believe is appropriate doesn't change the fact that it grew 4.5 trillion dollars?

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
 
JohnWOlin said:
It's amusing when people got nothing to say other than scoff and sneer.
Click to expand...

Phony Conservatives have plenty to say, unfortunately it is the same old, tired, echos of what they always say, which is not much more than telling us that if we lower taxes, the uber-rich will spend more and it clearly follows that we won't have any more problems....I think they made a movie along those lines, "A Miracle on Wall Street", a follow up of "How the Greedy Grinch Stole the Wealth of a Nation".
 
I know mentioning Warren Buffet's name conjurs up images of Pres. Obama having atleast one billionaire in his hip pocket, but the way I see it if this billionaire who happens to be the 3rd richest man in the world says, "tax me" and understands full well that the rich have been getting richer for atleast the last 10 years, I think the American people will eventually begin to take heed.

But for me, it's not about taxing the rich just because. It's about taxing with a specific purpose and understanding (even in the smallest degree) the economic situation of the day and realizing that cutting spending won't reduce the deficit in and of itself. Taxes will have to be increased at some point - either that or many of the tax breaks many of us have come to enjoy - from the riches to the lowest ruins of the middle-class tax bracket - will likely have to go away. You can't keep giving tax credits without running a risk of reducing revenues because tax credits reduce your taxable income level. So, at some point something's got to give.

Since the rich have the economic means to take advantage of many of these credits already on top of taking advantage of several pre-tax deductions, i.e., IRAs, 401K, mutual funds, etc., it just makes sense to tax them while the country is trying to get its economic house in order.

For me, it's not about taking money from the rich. It's about getting this country back on sound, economic footing. To that, I agree with both Mr. Buffet and the President. Nine-five to ninety-nine percent of Americans can use a tax break. That 1-5% have had more than their fair opportunity to do more for themselves and this country by way of the cumulative years of tax breaks they've had to do what Republicans/Conservatives have been saying tax cuts to the wealthy do - create jobs and stimulate growth. I'm still waiting for the prove that either happened using the Bush tax cuts. Convince me that the recession was a fluke and that the economy was, in fact, on an upward tick and that more jobs were created between 2001-2008 than at any other period in this nation's history and I'll jump on this Bush tax cuts bandwagon so fast you'll want to bring back the wagon trains!

Warren Buffet's commentary on taxes in 2007:

In particular Buffett urged the Senate Finance Committee not to repeal the estate tax. It is scheduled to come up for a vote, perhaps as soon as this week.

He told the committee that he recently compared how much he pays in taxes in terms of a percentage of his salary to what his employees pay.

The results? Buffett says he pays 18 percent of his salary to the IRS while the rest of his staff pays nearly twice that — 33 percent, a lopsided equation that put Buffett in a Robin Hood frame of mind.

"Frankly, an economy where my receptionist pays a lot higher tax rate than, than I do does not strike me as a just economy," he told lawmakers.

Buffet has challenged the elite members of the Forbes 400 list to do their own calculations and compare their tax rate with their receptionists, and then consider his challenge that the rich should pay more.

"I see nothing wrong with those who have been blessed by this society to give a larger portion of their income to the society than somebody that's working very, very hard to make ends meet," Buffett said.
Click to expand...

Warren Buffet's commetary on taxes just this week (Nov 22, 2010):

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you," Buffett said. "But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
Click to expand...

Now, granted, this is the opinion of just one American billionaire, but you have to really consider the significance of what he has to say about the wealthiest Americans and taxes. After all, who else would know about the loopsidedness of it than a wealthy individual who has paid into the system for as long as he has and have been blessed for having the ability to take advantage of them? Yet, it turns out he's not alone in his thinking...

Patriotic Millionaires unite!!! (Okay, I was being sarcastic with the "unite" part, but what follows is serious...)

"We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country. For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled," they write. "We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more. We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way."

"Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction," conclude the more than three dozen millionaire signers of the letter, a group that includes a number of Google executives, active CEOs and philanthropists such as Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Also, from the Patriotic Millionaires article, a few interesting factoids:

Millionaires know how to work with numbers. And the Patriotic Millionaires are sharing a few numbers with members of Congress who might be interested in making policy based on facts rather than a hunch. For instance:

• Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000.

• Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans rose by 281 percent.

• In the 1950s and early 1960s, a period when growth was high and unemployment was low, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent.

• In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent.

• Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35 percent.

• Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

• Letting tax cuts for the top 2 percent—which were never meant to be permanent—expire as scheduled would pay down the federal debt by $700 billion over the next ten years

Just a few things to think about as the tax debate continues...

For our FoxNews watchers, you may want to check out this video.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I know mentioning Warren Buffet's name conjurs up images of Pres. Obama having atleast one billionaire in his hip pocket, but the way I see it if this billionaire who happens to be the 3rd richest man in the world says, "tax me" and understands full well that the rich have been getting richer for atleast the last 10 years, I think the American people will eventually begin to take heed.

But for me, it's not about taxing the rich just because. It's about taxing with a specific purpose and understanding (even in the smallest degree) the economic situation of the day and realizing that cutting spending won't reduce the deficit in and of itself. Taxes will have to be increased at some point - either that or many of the tax breaks many of us have come to enjoy - from the riches to the lowest ruins of the middle-class tax bracket - will likely have to go away. You can't keep giving tax credits without running a risk of reducing revenues because tax credits reduce your taxable income level. So, at some point something's got to give.

Since the rich have the economic means to take advantage of many of these credits already on top of taking advantage of several pre-tax deductions, i.e., IRAs, 401K, mutual funds, etc., it just makes sense to tax them while the country is trying to get its economic house in order.

For me, it's not about taking money from the rich. It's about getting this country back on sound, economic footing. To that, I agree with both Mr. Buffet and the President. Nine-five to ninety-nine percent of Americans can use a tax break. That 1-5% have had more than their fair opportunity to do more for themselves and this country by way of the cumulative years of tax breaks they've had to do what Republicans/Conservatives have been saying tax cuts to the wealthy do - create jobs and stimulate growth. I'm still waiting for the prove that either happened using the Bush tax cuts. Convince me that the recession was a fluke and that the economy was, in fact, on an upward tick and that more jobs were created between 2001-2008 than at any other period in this nation's history and I'll jump on this Bush tax cuts bandwagon so fast you'll want to bring back the wagon trains!

Warren Buffet's commentary on taxes in 2007:



Warren Buffet's commetary on taxes just this week (Nov 22, 2010):



Now, granted, this is the opinion of just one American billionaire, but you have to really consider the significance of what he has to say about the wealthiest Americans and taxes. After all, who else would know about the loopsidedness of it than a wealthy individual who has paid into the system for as long as he has and have been blessed for having the ability to take advantage of them? Yet, it turns out he's not alone in his thinking...

Patriotic Millionaires unite!!! (Okay, I was being sarcastic with the "unite" part, but what follows is serious...)
Click to expand...

The country was on "sound economic footing" before the entitlement programs began, and politicians began pissing the money away in order to get votes. If Warren Buffet wants to give away money to the politicians in Washington, good for him. But it would be just as insane as Ted Turner giving his money to the United Nations.
 
Grant said:
The country was on "sound economic footing" before the entitlement programs began, and politicians began pissing the money away in order to get votes. If Warren Buffet wants to give away money to the politicians in Washington, good for him. But it would be just as insane as Ted Turner giving his money to the United Nations.
Click to expand...

Social Security was in response to the great depression....so the "sound economic footing" you speak of didn't really exist...
 
UtahBill said:
Social Security was in response to the great depression....so the "sound economic footing" you speak of didn't really exist...
Click to expand...

The country was on sound economical footing following end of WWII and, despite the largest layoff in US history, there was a great deal of prosperity. taxes were low and one working man could own a home and support a family.

Now people are having fewer children and one middle class man cannot afford to raise a family and afford a home. What changed?

Entitlements and higher taxes have seen the middle class shrink away, with the majority falling downward. There is too much uncertainty because no one knows what the politicians might do next, because the ideology of America, and what it stood for, has also changed.
 
Last edited:
from Grant

The country was on sound economical footing following end of WWII and, despite the largest layoff in US history, there was a great deal of prosperity. taxes were low and one working man could own a home and support a family.

Now people are having fewer children and one middle class man cannot afford to raise a family and afford a home. What changed?
Click to expand...


Taxes were low????? Tax rates coming out of World War Ii through the Fifties were high for the rich. The level of difference between the wealthy was much lower than it is today.

What changed? Just look at the level of unionized workers across the land when prosperity was riding high and compare it to what has happened to unions over the last twenty years. There is a major part of your answer.

The fact is this - when we were an agriculturally based economy, a person could be of limited intelligence but still make a decent life on the land. When we made the transition to a manufacturing economy, because of the labor movement, a person could be of limited or average intelligence and make a good living producing things in a plant or factory. Where is there a job in the modern economy for a person with an IQ of 80 to 90 who might be a decent honest and hard working person but is lost in todays market? How many people do we need to say "welcome to Wal Mart" or "do you want fries with that burger" and how much do they earn?

You asked what changed... and I laid it out for you. I suspect you will not like the answer.
 
no they didint because all the money from the cuts the rich invested in other country's that where more profitable
 
Grant said:
The country was on sound economical footing following end of WWII and, despite the largest layoff in US history, there was a great deal of prosperity. taxes were low and one working man could own a home and support a family.

Now people are having fewer children and one middle class man cannot afford to raise a family and afford a home. What changed?

Entitlements and higher taxes have seen the middle class shrink away, with the majority falling downward. There is too much uncertainty because no one knows what the politicians might do next, because the ideology of America, and what it stood for, has also changed.
Click to expand...


What taxes and entitlements are you talking about? Surely it cant be income taxes and don’t call SS an entitlement, since its coming out of my check every time I get paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom