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 35 of 45 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 443

Thread: Do The Rich Need Saving?

  1. #341
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and no one has been able to establish his tax hikes caused that

    They cobviously didn't hurt the economy, OTOH:

    The misinformers’ claim is that tax cuts pay for themselves and thus do not impact the deficit negatively. They claim that lower tax rates stimulate the economy and job growth so much that you wind up with more tax revenues at lower rates than you do at higher rates. While President Bush was telling the public that tax cuts pay for themselves, his 2003 Economic Report of the President, pages 57-58, told a very different story:
    "Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run), it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity."
    If the President’s own report is not convincing, here’s a sampling of leading economists’ opinions, all of whom have impeccable Republican and/or conservative credentials:
    Greg Mankiw​, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan​, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”
    Martin Feldstein​, a Harvard economist, chairman of President Reagan​’s Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to John McCain​’s 2008 campaign, quoted in a New York Times article: “It is not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don’t lose as much.”

    Andrew Samwick​ was chief economist to the Bush CEA, and is now at Dartmouth. He wrote the following New Year’s message to his former colleagues in the Bush White House: “You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues … You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.”
    Alan Viard, a former Bush White House Economist, said in a Washington Post article: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that.”
    Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said in that same Washington Post article, "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves."
    Ed Lazear​, chief economic adviser to President Bush and a member of Bush’s Tax reform advisory panel, was quoted in the Washington Times: "We do not say the tax cuts pay for themselves."

    Henry Paulson​, Bush’s Treasury Secretary, at his confirmation hearing in the Senate: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."
    David Stockman, director of OMB for President Reagan, wrote in a recent NY Times Op-Ed: "The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."
    And finally, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s Budget Outlook, January 2007:
    "The expiration of tax provisions as scheduled has a substantial impact on CBO’s projections, especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire. Some of those provisions were enacted many years ago and have been routinely extended. Almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues. If the expiring provisions were extended rather than allowed to expire, future revenues would be significantly lower than under the baseline projections that assume current law."
    You can argue the deficit battle must wait until the economy is on more solid footing, but you cannot argue that the tax debate does not have significant impact on the deficit.


    News Headlines

  2. #342
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Obama admitted last monday that the rich don't benefit from government spending
    Admitted? I admitted Turtle Dude doesn't know what he's talking about. So it must be true. That's your logic at work TD. Think about it for just a moment or three.

    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.

  3. #343
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by ElCid View Post
    The rich need to SPEND THEIR MONEY, to stimulate the economy. Class warfare is despicable.
    Do we have to post the study again that showed they don't spend the money from tax cuts?

    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.

  4. #344
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    because they earned their wealth and their success is not the fault of the seniors
    According to the Turtledude's economic ideology to be sure:

    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

  5. #345
    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 ElCid View Post
    The rich need to SPEND THEIR MONEY, to stimulate the economy. Class warfare is despicable.
    LOL! Because that worked so well the last decade!
    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

  6. #346
    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 winston53660 View Post
    They cobviously didn't hurt the economy, OTOH:

    The misinformers’ claim is that tax cuts pay for themselves and thus do not impact the deficit negatively. They claim that lower tax rates stimulate the economy and job growth so much that you wind up with more tax revenues at lower rates than you do at higher rates. While President Bush was telling the public that tax cuts pay for themselves, his 2003 Economic Report of the President, pages 57-58, told a very different story:
    "Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run), it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity."
    If the President’s own report is not convincing, here’s a sampling of leading economists’ opinions, all of whom have impeccable Republican and/or conservative credentials:
    Greg Mankiw​, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan​, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”
    Martin Feldstein​, a Harvard economist, chairman of President Reagan​’s Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to John McCain​’s 2008 campaign, quoted in a New York Times article: “It is not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don’t lose as much.”

    Andrew Samwick​ was chief economist to the Bush CEA, and is now at Dartmouth. He wrote the following New Year’s message to his former colleagues in the Bush White House: “You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues … You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.”
    Alan Viard, a former Bush White House Economist, said in a Washington Post article: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that.”
    Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said in that same Washington Post article, "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves."
    Ed Lazear​, chief economic adviser to President Bush and a member of Bush’s Tax reform advisory panel, was quoted in the Washington Times: "We do not say the tax cuts pay for themselves."

    Henry Paulson​, Bush’s Treasury Secretary, at his confirmation hearing in the Senate: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."
    David Stockman, director of OMB for President Reagan, wrote in a recent NY Times Op-Ed: "The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."
    And finally, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s Budget Outlook, January 2007:
    "The expiration of tax provisions as scheduled has a substantial impact on CBO’s projections, especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire. Some of those provisions were enacted many years ago and have been routinely extended. Almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues. If the expiring provisions were extended rather than allowed to expire, future revenues would be significantly lower than under the baseline projections that assume current law."
    You can argue the deficit battle must wait until the economy is on more solid footing, but you cannot argue that the tax debate does not have significant impact on the deficit.


    News Headlines

    Excellent post Winston!
    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

  7. #347
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Admitted? I admitted Turtle Dude doesn't know what he's talking about. So it must be true. That's your logic at work TD. Think about it for just a moment or three.

    that is stupid-as usual. Obama said that most americans will sacrifice by having less government spending and the rich need to sacrifice by paying more taxes

    that clearly is a statement that the rich won't face sacrifices when government spending is cut

    Its a logical argument and its what is called an admission against interest

    If you ever tried a case in a court of law you might understand what that means



  8. #348
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    According to the Turtledude's economic ideology to be sure:

    cause and effect seems to be beyond comprehension for you.



  9. #349
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    LOL! Because that worked so well the last decade!
    70 years of progressive taxes has created a massive amount of voters who demand more and more government because the Progressive tax system means they really don't have to pay much if anything-of the taxes that pay for all that government



  10. #350
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that is stupid-as usual. Obama said that most americans will sacrifice by having less government spending and the rich need to sacrifice by paying more taxes

    that clearly is a statement that the rich won't face sacrifices when government spending is cut

    Its a logical argument and its what is called an admission against interest

    If you ever tried a case in a court of law you might understand what that means
    Nope. No one can admit for someone else. No can admit anything that takes the palce of actual and factual data. Your argument is so flawed that if you were in a formal debate, you'd be laughed off the stage. This is not the type of thing any one can admit to. Sorry.

    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.

Page 35 of 45 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... 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
  •