View Poll Results: Do The Rich Need Saving?

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 10.00%
  • No

    59 84.29%
  • Not Sure

    0 0%
  • Other/explain

    4 5.71%
Page 30 of 45 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 443

Thread: Do The Rich Need Saving?

  1. #291
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    "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

    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 by The Barbarian; 07-28-11 at 05:10 AM.

  2. #292
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Catawba; 07-28-11 at 05:30 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #293
    Educator DemonMyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA.
    Last Seen
    02-11-13 @ 12:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    727

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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 by DemonMyst; 07-28-11 at 05:52 AM.

  4. #294
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 07:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,441

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.

  5. #295
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by DemonMyst View Post
    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 by The Barbarian; 07-28-11 at 10:29 AM.

  6. #296
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    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

  7. #297
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by DemonMyst View Post
    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 by The Barbarian; 07-28-11 at 10:36 AM.

  8. #298
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    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.
    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.

  9. #299
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    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.


    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

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #300
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    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.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 30 of 45 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •