• 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!

Do The Rich Need Saving?

Do The Rich Need Saving?


  • Total voters
    54
Still trying to defend the tax cuts for the rich?

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion of tax rates. GDP has gone up through history irregardless of tax rates, so naturally revenues will be higher due to that alone. Now, if you can prove that the revenues wouldn't have been even higher without the tax cuts, it would be relevant.

laughs .. well the same can be said about your statement ... can you prove they would have been higher if they weren't cut ?? if you can your posts would be relevant ....
 
Tax revenues increased because Reagan raised Federal taxes at least 6 times, and then there were the huge capital gains from the wave of LBO's and mergers, i.e. Wall Street junk bond fever, and a real estate bubble. It had squat to with Reagan's tax cuts, and much more to do with Paul Volcker's Fed policies, which are worthy of a thread all by themselves

Well damn now I'm confused .. . Catawba keep telling me that it was all those tax cuts for the rich that Reagan gave that caused all our troubles ... now you are saying that Reagan raised taxes ?? (psss I know he did but don't tell catawba)
 
laughs .. well the same can be said about your statement ... can you prove they would have been higher if they weren't cut ?? if you can your posts would be relevant ....


"In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding."

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

:sun
 
Good gawd you use some real winners to try and prove your point ..

On Faith Panelists Blog: The rich benefit from society and should give back - Starhawk
Starhawk is a prominent voice in modern Wiccan spirituality and cofounder of reclaiming.org, an activist branch of modern Pagan religion
not a single fact given there what so ever .. just a pagan witch's thoughts ..

Urbanomics: How the rich and poor benefit from government

This site is a blog, author unknown …. and shows a circle graph with no numbers as far as actual usage or dollars ..

Raise taxes on the rich | Marketplace From American Public Media

another site that says absolutely nothing .. but goes back to the ranting and raving of how the 80's was America's death ..

If thats the best you can produce you have less than nothing .

But just for the sake of fun .. lets post some facts .. lets us walmart use of our road ways

Semi's average about 9 miles per gal (fact)
Walmart has a fleet of semi's that number 7,200 (fact)
each truck averages about 2000 miles per week (fact)
federal tax on a gallon of diesel fuel is 24.4 cents (fact)

now you can do the math .. I have already …. and that will work out to just over 2 million dollars walmart pays the federal government to use the road ways …. and another 2 million dollars they pay the states on fuel taxes.

So besides all the other taxes paid, they pay an addition 4 million dollars to use our roads via the fuel taxes. The average person pays 225 dollars … so walmart pays as much as 17,777 people to use there road ways. Next time you are out driving .. let me know when you count 17,000 cars before seeing a walmart truck on the road .

Not sure about you .. . but to rational people .. it seems they are paying more then fair share for using the highways, in just fuel taxes alone.

But hey maybe that Wiccan witch put a spell on you and told you her opinions were fact ..

You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal. ;)

Links already given:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf

Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org

Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
 
This post is slightly off topic from the current discussion in this thread,but it is relevant and it's something I've been wondering. The more conservative posters have argued that it isn't right to tax the rich, because they earned it and the rich shouldn't have to give up their money. However the right-wing are also the group that likes to talk the most about patriotism and how much they love their country and honor the sacrifice of the men in uniform.

My question is why can't we ask the rich to sacrifice some of their wealth for the good of the country they claim to love so much? The country needs more revenue and the working class doesn't have the means to provide so why don't the patriotic rich of America agree to have their taxes raised for the good of the country? This is a very emotional based argument I'll admit, I just find it strange that the group that talks the most about patriotism is unwilling to ask the rich to pay more for the good of the country they love. Perhaps Jefferson was right when he said "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
 
You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal. ;)

Links already given:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf

Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org

Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes


While Barb is at it, I would also be interested to know how the working class benefitted from our 8 year war in Iraq, that the majority of Democrats voted against?
 
This post is slightly off topic from the current discussion in this thread,but it is relevant and it's something I've been wondering. The more conservative posters have argued that it isn't right to tax the rich, because they earned it and the rich shouldn't have to give up their money. However the right-wing are also the group that likes to talk the most about patriotism and how much they love their country and honor the sacrifice of the men in uniform.

My question is why can't we ask the rich to sacrifice some of their wealth for the good of the country they claim to love so much? The country needs more revenue and the working class doesn't have the means to provide so why don't the patriotic rich of America agree to have their taxes raised for the good of the country? This is a very emotional based argument I'll admit, I just find it strange that the group that talks the most about patriotism is unwilling to ask the rich to pay more for the good of the country they love. Perhaps Jefferson was right when he said "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."

Excellent question! I would be interested to hear how they defend that position as well! :sun
 
You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal. ;)

Links already given:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf

Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org

Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?
 
okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?

No, I saying I won't spend a lot of time on your diversion. It simply is a wrong headed attempt a miscomparion.
 
okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?
Assuming you can eliminate that one which you can't. You still have the others to deal with. I'm assuming you decided to instead focus on the one he omitted simply because you don't have an answer, but if you do then by all means correct me.
 
NO.

They don't deserve our help or votes.

Why should we vote to help the rich person who neither knows nor cares about you???

They buy the better food and clothes. They live high on the hog. They have huge houses. They have the better cars. They DON'T DESERVE OUR HELP.

They're proud, selfish, and materialistic. They deserve greater taxes.

No, I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate on this issue.

___

I don't like how proud, selfish, and vain rich people can be. Don't even dare to think the rich don't primarily embody these behaviors. Those people don't deserve their mansions and expensive houses.

I'm still conservative in the social sector and the belief in working had to earn money... but that was warped and perverted into CEOs earning obscene bonuses and the rich living lavishly; well above what is necessary.

There should be a cap on total wage. Bring it down. Business profits should not be used for personal gratification. It's materialism at its finest.

They live in such posh houses and live so far above people who are struggling. How can a conservative who can barely pay for insurance have the audacity to vote for the rich and wealthy... to enrich them further... while you take further cuts and suffer?

Many perverted conservatives and Republicans actually dare to use the Bible to support their vain and materialistic lifestyle.

Are you broke? Were your benefits cut? Lost your insurance? How could you vote for Republicans who vote to further enrich the poor????

If you're frugal and you work for what you earn, then I have no problem so long as you don't spend money on things you don't need, like a Hummer or a huge house. It's obscene, materialistic decadence. Get them to understand by taxing them painfully.

___

Simply put, we're suffering while we cut their taxes. It is injustice.

Wow!! Dude!! Well stated!!

I will just add that I just want everyone including the rich to pay their fair share of taxes.. Again, nicely stated there Wake!!
 
okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?

From all my reading, the interstate highway system was put in to benefit industry and the economy primarily, and the benefit has been huge. Here is a 2006 report on the economic benefits of the system:

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
SYSTEM


Key findings
include the following:

"Industry Costs: Interstate highway investments have lowered production and distribution
costs in virtually every industry sector. Cost elasticities – the percentage change in industry
costs for a given percentage change in highway capital -- for each of the 35 industry sectors
indicated that an increase in highway capital reduced costs in all but three industry sectors.
On average, U.S. industries realized production and distribution cost savings averaging 24
cents annually for each dollar invested in the non-local road system.

Productivity: The term refers to the value of output per dollar of input for all factors of
production. Interstate highway investments have made significant contributions to U.S.
productivity growth, but the magnitude of the impacts have declined over time. During the
1950s, highway network investments’ contribution to annual productivity growth was 31
percent; it averaged 25 percent in the 60s; by the 1980s, it contributed 7 percent to U.S.
productivity growth in the 1980s.

Net Social Rate of Return: This term refers to the net benefits to private industries (net of
depreciation of highway capital stock) that share use of the public highway or non-local road
network. The term “social” refers to the fact that the highway network is a shared
investment by all industries in the economy. Net rate of social return on highway capital was
about 35% in the 1950s and 60s; it declined to about 10% in the 1980s, or just about equal
to rates of return on private capital. Nonetheless, the overall contribution to social welfare
from Interstate highway investment has been enormous over the life cycle of the interstate
system."
 
Last edited:
From all my reading, the interstate highway system was put in to benefit industry and the economy primarily, and the benefit has been huge. Here is a 2006 report on the economic benefits of the system:

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
SYSTEM


Key findings
include the following:

"Industry Costs: Interstate highway investments have lowered production and distribution
costs in virtually every industry sector. Cost elasticities – the percentage change in industry
costs for a given percentage change in highway capital -- for each of the 35 industry sectors
indicated that an increase in highway capital reduced costs in all but three industry sectors.
On average, U.S. industries realized production and distribution cost savings averaging 24
cents annually for each dollar invested in the non-local road system.

Productivity: The term refers to the value of output per dollar of input for all factors of
production. Interstate highway investments have made significant contributions to U.S.
productivity growth, but the magnitude of the impacts have declined over time. During the
1950s, highway network investments’ contribution to annual productivity growth was 31
percent; it averaged 25 percent in the 60s; by the 1980s, it contributed 7 percent to U.S.
productivity growth in the 1980s.

Net Social Rate of Return: This term refers to the net benefits to private industries (net of
depreciation of highway capital stock) that share use of the public highway or non-local road
network. The term “social” refers to the fact that the highway network is a shared
investment by all industries in the economy. Net rate of social return on highway capital was
about 35% in the 1950s and 60s; it declined to about 10% in the 1980s, or just about equal
to rates of return on private capital. Nonetheless, the overall contribution to social welfare
from Interstate highway investment has been enormous over the life cycle of the interstate
system."
We could also look at the other means of transportation. For instance I'd be very interested to see how much air shipping has helped business, because the airports they fly into are ran by the government and the air traffic controllers are government employees.
 
NO.

They don't deserve our help or votes.

Why should we vote to help the rich person who neither knows nor cares about you???

They buy the better food and clothes. They live high on the hog. They have huge houses. They have the better cars. They DON'T DESERVE OUR HELP.

They're proud, selfish, and materialistic. They deserve greater taxes.

No, I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate on this issue.

___

I don't like how proud, selfish, and vain rich people can be. Don't even dare to think the rich don't primarily embody these behaviors. Those people don't deserve their mansions and expensive houses.

I'm still conservative in the social sector and the belief in working had to earn money... but that was warped and perverted into CEOs earning obscene bonuses and the rich living lavishly; well above what is necessary.

There should be a cap on total wage. Bring it down. Business profits should not be used for personal gratification. It's materialism at its finest.

They live in such posh houses and live so far above people who are struggling. How can a conservative who can barely pay for insurance have the audacity to vote for the rich and wealthy... to enrich them further... while you take further cuts and suffer?

Many perverted conservatives and Republicans actually dare to use the Bible to support their vain and materialistic lifestyle.

Are you broke? Were your benefits cut? Lost your insurance? How could you vote for Republicans who vote to further enrich the poor????

If you're frugal and you work for what you earn, then I have no problem so long as you don't spend money on things you don't need, like a Hummer or a huge house. It's obscene, materialistic decadence. Get them to understand by taxing them painfully.

___

Simply put, we're suffering while we cut their taxes. It is injustice.

That is even more extreme than my position Wake, but I think your heart is in exactly the right place, and I commend you for your honesty and bravery in making your position known!

I have greater respect for you, for whatever that is worth. :sun
 
You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal. ;)

Links already given:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf

Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org

Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html


Now lets move on to corporate welfare and I will agee that some of it needs to stop, but lets look at the misconceptions we are constantly being given … you surely heard the fabled “fact” that we give 8 or 9 billion in corporate welfare to the oil companies right ? I suggest you look into this, because all the research I've been able to find .. just doesn't add up to that number at all ..
here are just a few facts I've found so far .

Section 199 Deduction.*This tax deduction, under Internal Revenue Code Section 199, goes to all domestic manufacturing. Producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods produced in the United States are all eligible for the manufacturer’s tax deduction. The Section 199 deduction is unavailable to the service sector, and even that is a stretch, as the tax deduction includes music and movie production. Removing oil and gas production eligibility for this tax break is not removing a subsidy or closing a tax loophole but imposing a targeted tax hike. In fact, Congress already imposed a tax hike on oil and natural gas companies by freezing the deduction at 6 percent when other manufacturers receive a 9 percent deduction.

So what this is really saying is that gas and oil companies pay 3% more then other manufacturers, and removing it completely on only gas and oil companies is a targeted tax hike on only oil and gas companies … that could hardly be classified as a tax break for just oil companies or a subsidy of any kind.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has spent taxpayer dollars on oil research and development, including funding for unconventional oil, gas, and coal. Although President Obama’s FY 2012 budget request significantly cuts funding for the Office of Fossil Energy, decreasing its size by $417.8 million below the FY 2010 appropriation, it does not go far enough. The only funding in this area should maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, for which the President’s budget requests an appropriate $121.7 million. Eliminating all other fossil energy funding would save $399 million.

Now I can find a divide of how much the DOE spent themselves and how much they passed on to oil and gas companies … so I'll be more then fair and give it all as a subsidy that would amount to 400 million dollars today. A nice tidy sum .. and I'm all for cutting it.


Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit.*Oil producers receive a 15 percent tax credit for costlier methods and technologies, such as injecting liquids and carbon dioxide into the earth. Many EOR processes are no longer in use, and the tax credit applies only when the price of oil falls below a certain level.
Only “qualified costs” will generate the tax credit.* There are three general types of qualified costs - tangible property, intangible drilling and development costs (IDC), and tertiary injectants.* Qualified EOR projects must be located within the U.S. and have commenced after 12-31-1990.* The regulations provide an exception for the post-1990 "significant expansion” of projects that had begun before that date. The amount of the credit is 15% of qualified costs for tax years 1991-2005.* According to Notice 2006-62 the credit is completely phased out for 2006 due to high oil prices.* A notice is issued each year, and based on oil prices a determination is made on whether or not the credit is* available.
Industry Director Directive #1 on Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit
Basically saying that no oil company has be able to claim this credit since the 90's

Marginal Well Production Credit.*Marginal wells produce 15 or fewer barrels of oil per day, produce heavy oil, or produce mostly water and fewer than 25 barrels of oil per day.
http://www.ipaa.org/issues/factsheets/oil/2007-03-MarginalWellTaxCreditFactSheet.pdf

Now from what I can find is there are 650,000 of this wells … they get a 3 dollar per barrel credit for the first 3 barrels which would be a maxim of roughly 650 million dollars. But here is something interresting .. The Dept. of Energy has evaluated the benefits of a tax credit and believes that it could prevent the loss of 140,000 barrels per day of production if fully employed during times of low oil prices like those of 1998 and 1999.

http://www.ipaa.org/issues/factsheets/tax_capital/2009-04-MarginalWellTaxCreditFactSheet.pdf

This site is saying that there is a phase out when the price of oil reaches a certain point … and I'm thinking its around 20 dollars a barrel, Quickly I can't find that for sure .. but when comparing what the two web sites are saying .. using the 1998 and 1999 prices it seems that is true .. so in all probability we will never see prices in the 20 range again .. this subsidy may not even be in effect.

Now . I haven't found anything that amounts to the 8 or 9 billion figure being thrown around . Even if the marginal tax credit was in effect I can see only about 1 billion given to the oil companies.

For a better explanation try this site .. I realize it's a conservative site … but it gives numbers and facts .. that you can try to disprove. It's worth a read and you are more then welcome to disprove the figures and statements they give.

Archived-Articles: About Those Oil Subsidies

What I am saying, is before you go taking the talking points of what your party is giving you, s it's better to look up the “facts” from reliable sites.

The facts in this case say the oil companies don't get 8 or 9 billion in tax breaks or subsidies but that the figure is closer to 1 billion ….. Now .. I'm all for stopping even a billion dollars in subsidies, but at least lets be honest in the discussion of what we are cutting.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks | FactCheck.org

just another site to educate you on what is "said" to be given .. and what is “actually” being given.

Now just as an added question to your logic .. most subsidies are given for one of two reasons ... one is to keep the price of a product lower ... who benefits from that the most ? Can't the rich better afford higher prices ? The other reason a subsidy is given, is because a company can give a product .. like certain insurances at a better price then the government can if a company is able to give a certain insurance for 100 dollars .... and the government funds that for them ... because it will cost them 125 dollars to supply the same benefit isn't it kinda stupid not to give the company that subsidy ?
 
"In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding."

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

:sun

I'll be as stupid as you are .. prove what they are saying . . I want to see the actual numbers of what our tax revenue would have been without the cuts ..

but I do agree we can't have both .. so cut the damn spending because like it or not . .tax revenue went up from 2003 to 2007
 
Last edited:
I'll be as stupid as you are .. prove what they are saying . . I want to see the actual numbers of what our tax revenue would have been without the cuts ..

but I do agree we can't have both .. so cut the damn spending because like it or not . .tax revenue went up from 2003 to 2007

But not because of the tax cuts. That is what Bush's economic adviser tried to get across to him, that revenues would have gone up even more without the tax cuts, just as they did during the Clinton tax increase. I am satisfied with the combined authoritative position on this from the The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist.

If you can find more authoritative sources than these to refute their position, please post them on up.

Even common sense tells us it took 30 years of too much spending and too much in tax cuts to create our debt, and it is going to take 30 years of increased taxes and cutting spending to solve it.

Just raising taxes, or just cutting spending is not going to enable us to both pay down our debt and repay the money taken from the SS trust funds for General Fund use.

It is going to take a balanced approach, just as the majority of voters say needs to happen. :sun
 
Last edited:
I'll be as stupid as you are .. prove what they are saying . . I want to see the actual numbers of what our tax revenue would have been without the cuts ..

but I do agree we can't have both .. so cut the damn spending because like it or not . .tax revenue went up from 2003 to 2007

Why is it that you moron always seem to stop the calander in 2007?? You all know it is 2011 not don't you?? What you think the Bush economy ended a year before he left office and 2 years before his final budge ended?? The tax cuts were a major reason for the crash in 2008.. I know.. You are going to say that was the housing bubble that crashed.. Perhaps.. Do you know what the number one reason that people can't pay their morgage is?? Losing their jobs.. With the tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation, companies all over the U.S. out sourced millions of jobs to cheaper labor.. Not one job was created here due to the tax cuts.. It has been estimated that Bush lost 8 million jobs during the economic melt down.. Well?? How about those tax cuts??

I don't think Cata is the one that is stupid.. Especially when you are dumb enough to point out that tax revenue increased from 2003 to 2007.. I mean how lame can you be?? Bush was in office until Jan of 2009.. Bush's last budget was also all of 2009.. So all that spending you think Obama did?? That was Bush.. Bush addes some stuff to the budget that wasn't there before to inflate the deficit.. Two wars, his perscription drug plan, and a few other things..

The tax cuts cost this nation about $320 billion a year.. Or nearly a third of the deficit.. And even though the revenue went up in the years you mentioned, we still lost money.. That is a mathmatical fact.. We lost money because the growth was smaller than it could have been.. I know that is probably a hard concept for you to understand.. It has been estimated that first 10 years of the tax cuts will cost this nation $3.4 trillion or their abouts.. Estimates vary.. In either case, Bush's tax cuts cost this nation far more than Obama's medical reform..

But the over all issue here is simple and one that is either willfully ignored or ignorantly missed by conservatives.. The economy sucks right now.. Instead of trying to cut spending to pay for the tax cuts.. Why not just repeal the tax cuts?? Think of it.. $320 billion a year taken off the deficit for just letting the tax cuts expire.. And remember.. The rich were much better off during the Clinton years than they were with Bush..

Where are the jobs?? This tax cut was about creating jobs.. Where are the jobs.. You can shove the tax revenue where the sun don't shine.. Where are the jobs!!
 
Last edited:
Well damn now I'm confused .. . Catawba keep telling me that it was all those tax cuts for the rich that Reagan gave that caused all our troubles ... now you are saying that Reagan raised taxes ?? (psss I know he did but don't tell catawba)

If you know he increased some Federal taxes then you know he lowered capital gains taxes, and aren't really ''confused'. Following on Carter's cuts in capital gains, it amounted to a steep reduction in taxes for financial speculation as opposed to business and industrial investment, and yes, it has caused a lot of trouble.
 
Why is it that you moron always seem to stop the calander in 2007?? You all know it is 2011 not don't you?? What you think the Bush economy ended a year before he left office and 2 years before his final budge ended?? The tax cuts were a major reason for the crash in 2008.. I know.. You are going to say that was the housing bubble that crashed.. Perhaps.. Do you know what the number one reason that people can't pay their morgage is?? Losing their jobs.. With the tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation, companies all over the U.S. out sourced millions of jobs to cheaper labor.. Not one job was created here due to the tax cuts.. It has been estimated that Bush lost 8 million jobs during the economic melt down.. Well?? How about those tax cuts??

I don't think Cata is the one that is stupid.. Especially when you are dumb enough to point out that tax revenue increased from 2003 to 2007.. I mean how lame can you be?? Bush was in office until Jan of 2009.. Bush's last budget was also all of 2009.. So all that spending you think Obama did?? That was Bush.. Bush addes some stuff to the budget that wasn't there before to inflate the deficit.. Two wars, his perscription drug plan, and a few other things..

The tax cuts cost this nation about $320 billion a year.. Or nearly a third of the deficit.. And even though the revenue went up in the years you mentioned, we still lost money.. That is a mathmatical fact.. We lost money because the growth was smaller than it could have been.. I know that is probably a hard concept for you to understand.. It has been estimated that first 10 years of the tax cuts will cost this nation $3.4 trillion or their abouts.. Estimates vary.. In either case, Bush's tax cuts cost this nation far more than Obama's medical reform..

But the over all issue here is simple and one that is either willfully ignored or ignorantly missed by conservatives.. The economy sucks right now.. Instead of trying to cut spending to pay for the tax cuts.. Why not just repeal the tax cuts?? Think of it.. $320 billion a year taken off the deficit for just letting the tax cuts expire.. And remember.. The rich were much better off during the Clinton years than they were with Bush..

Where are the jobs?? This tax cut was about creating jobs.. Where are the jobs.. You can shove the tax revenue where the sun don't shine.. Where are the jobs!!

Probably because most of us moran as you like to refer to us as .. realize that after 2007 ... the only budgets writen and placed on the desk of the president to sign .. was written by the morans in both houses ... that just happen to be democrats .. or did that simple fact just happen to slip your doped up mind ?

Oh I see ... it was them damn lower taxes that caused those companies to move their jobs overseas .... makes sense .. to someone I guess .. not sure who tho
 
Last edited:
If you know he increased some Federal taxes then you know he lowered capital gains taxes, and aren't really ''confused'. Following on Carter's cuts in capital gains, it amounted to a steep reduction in taxes for financial speculation as opposed to business and industrial investment, and yes, it has caused a lot of trouble.

oh I'm sorry when I keep forget that when talking with liberals .. . it's always the fault of a republican .. . I'll try to not make that mistake again
 
Why is it that you moron always seem to stop the calander in 2007?? You all know it is 2011 not don't you?? What you think the Bush economy ended a year before he left office and 2 years before his final budge ended?? The tax cuts were a major reason for the crash in 2008.. I know.. You are going to say that was the housing bubble that crashed.. Perhaps.. Do you know what the number one reason that people can't pay their morgage is?? Losing their jobs.. With the tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation, companies all over the U.S. out sourced millions of jobs to cheaper labor.. Not one job was created here due to the tax cuts.. It has been estimated that Bush lost 8 million jobs during the economic melt down.. Well?? How about those tax cuts??

I don't think Cata is the one that is stupid.. Especially when you are dumb enough to point out that tax revenue increased from 2003 to 2007.. I mean how lame can you be?? Bush was in office until Jan of 2009.. Bush's last budget was also all of 2009.. So all that spending you think Obama did?? That was Bush.. Bush addes some stuff to the budget that wasn't there before to inflate the deficit.. Two wars, his perscription drug plan, and a few other things..

The tax cuts cost this nation about $320 billion a year.. Or nearly a third of the deficit.. And even though the revenue went up in the years you mentioned, we still lost money.. That is a mathmatical fact.. We lost money because the growth was smaller than it could have been.. I know that is probably a hard concept for you to understand.. It has been estimated that first 10 years of the tax cuts will cost this nation $3.4 trillion or their abouts.. Estimates vary.. In either case, Bush's tax cuts cost this nation far more than Obama's medical reform..

But the over all issue here is simple and one that is either willfully ignored or ignorantly missed by conservatives.. The economy sucks right now.. Instead of trying to cut spending to pay for the tax cuts.. Why not just repeal the tax cuts?? Think of it.. $320 billion a year taken off the deficit for just letting the tax cuts expire.. And remember.. The rich were much better off during the Clinton years than they were with Bush..

Where are the jobs?? This tax cut was about creating jobs.. Where are the jobs.. You can shove the tax revenue where the sun don't shine.. Where are the jobs!!

Oh yeah great idea ... I was all for it .. except you didn't have to repeal anything .. those tax cuts were all set to expire at the end of 2010 ... do you understand that expire .. means end ??? No vote was needed .. democrats controlled everything .. and they didn't have to do a damn thing .. just let them end .. but nooooooo .... "they" wrote the damn bill to extend the very same tax cuts you are raging against .... and Obama signed the same damn bill into law .. but hey .. I understand ... it wasn't their fault ... it had to be Republicans fault .. because that is all you have!!
 
Last edited:
But not because of the tax cuts. That is what Bush's economic adviser tried to get across to him, that revenues would have gone up even more without the tax cuts, just as they did during the Clinton tax increase. I am satisfied with the combined authoritative position on this from the The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist.

If you can find more authoritative sources than these to refute their position, please post them on up.

Even common sense tells us it took 30 years of too much spending and too much in tax cuts to create our debt, and it is going to take 30 years of increased taxes and cutting spending to solve it.

Just raising taxes, or just cutting spending is not going to enable us to both pay down our debt and repay the money taken from the SS trust funds for General Fund use.

It is going to take a balanced approach, just as the majority of voters say needs to happen. :sun

you know what ... .we almost agree ... the only difference is .. you want the tax increases first ... . and I want the spending cuts first .. I've heard this story line for 30 years . we are going to get our fiscal house in order ... . we are going to cut spending .. and for 30 years it hasn't happened .. So now myself and many other Americans are saying .. show me you can rein in the spending, show me you are will to fix broken programs and make them less exspenive and more efficient, show me that you are willing to revise SS and Medicare to ensure that future generations will have them .. do that .. show me progress in that direction .. and I will be all for tax hikes to help get us out of this mess .. because we do agree on that part of it .. spending cuts alone will not get us out of this mess.
 
Barbarian, No matter the reason for the credit, it is tax payer dollors going to pay for something that is the companies responsibility. If you believe in the free market ideology, you can't also believe in government supplimenting business. And it makes no difference as to why.

Oh, and anyone who uses the American non-Thinker can never, ever complain about a source, as any source, no matter how wild, beats the American non-Thinker. :lamo :lamo


Now, I did not single out oil companies, but spoke of corporate welfare on the whole. Your job would be to show that either such is just and a proper expensive of tax payer money, which to me means you're arguing that all we need to spend is a reason you like, or that we really don't have any corporate welfare of any significant sixe, which I think would be contrary to actual evidence.

Average taxpayers pick up an expensive tab for corporate welfare expenditures. Government spending for corporate welfare programs far exceeds government spending for social programs.

1.Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures)


2.Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures)

Corporate welfare programs are protected at the expense of the poor and powerless. In the last Congress, spending for the needy absorbed the majority of spending cuts, while corporate welfare spending was barely touched.

1.Fact: Over 90% of the budget cuts passed by the last Congress cut spending for the poor -- programs that ensure food for the needy, housing for the homeless, job training for the unemployed, community health care for the sick. (source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bearing Most of the Burden, 1996).


2.Fact: Only 3.9% of total federal outlays go to programs that solely benefit poor people.
Welfare programs for corporations do not play by the same rules as welfare for people. Welfare benefits for individuals and families are limited by strict eligibility requirements and time limits, while corporations get corporate welfare benefits regardless of wealth or accountability.

1.Fact: Individuals and families must demonstrate need to receive benefits, while corporations with billions of dollars in annual income remain on the federal dole.


2.Fact: Most social spending is in the form of discretionary spending, which is scrutinized in the annual budget negotiating process in Congress; most corporate welfare programs are in the form of tax expenditures, which go on and on since they are not subject to annual review by Congress.

Facts on Corporate Welfare | OMB Watch

In the wake of an earlier round of bank bailouts presided over by George H.W. Bush, I published a short piece in Newsweek entitled “Welfare Bankers” (sadly, the magazine’s digital archives do not extend to October 16-17, 1989). Protesting the moral double standard applied to bankers and to welfare mothers, I argued that the bankers whose institutions were bailed out at a cost of about $156 billion (what a deal compared to today’s bailout!) could perhaps be retrained as child care workers.

In the decade that followed this financial debacle, we could have gotten banking reform. Instead, we got welfare reform. Stricter work requirements and time limits were imposed. The welfare rolls declined sharply. Participation in the TANF program has fallen by half since 1996.

Welfare reform was heralded as a great success because it got so many of our female “troubled assets” off the rolls. But in addition to some unanticipated side effects (which I’ll describe in a future post), it was premised on the assumption that single mothers would be able to find work if they just tried hard enough.

Welfare for Bankers - NYTimes.com

As for those oil companies:

However, the Bush budget proposal also increases some of the largest corporate welfare programs, such as federal aid to oil companies through the fossil energy research and development program and research subsidies to aerospace companies as well as increases for the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Foreign Agriculture Service, and the Conservation Reserve Program.

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

And that has probably emboldened Congress -- which, instead of investigating oil companies, just handed them (by various estimates) anywhere from $1.4 billion to $4 billion in tax breaks in the new energy bill.

Still, inquiring minds want to know: Isn't there something wrong when firms profit so richly from the misfortune of the U.S. economy and American consumers?

How Those Big Bucks End Up in Big Oil's Pockets
 
you know what ... .we almost agree ... the only difference is .. you want the tax increases first ... . and I want the spending cuts first .. I've heard this story line for 30 years . we are going to get our fiscal house in order ... . we are going to cut spending .. and for 30 years it hasn't happened .. So now myself and many other Americans are saying .. show me you can rein in the spending, show me you are will to fix broken programs and make them less exspenive and more efficient, show me that you are willing to revise SS and Medicare to ensure that future generations will have them .. do that .. show me progress in that direction .. and I will be all for tax hikes to help get us out of this mess .. because we do agree on that part of it .. spending cuts alone will not get us out of this mess.

Nope, I am for immediate spending cuts, lets bring our troops home immediately saving $150 billion a year and cut military spending in half, back to the 90's levels and save another $350 billion a year.
 
Back
Top Bottom