View Poll Results: Did Democrats cause the super committee to fail on purpose?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, they actually thought a trillion dollar tax hike in a recession was reasonable

    9 12.68%
  • No, it was a bi-partisan failure

    28 39.44%
  • Yes, the plan from the beginning was to fail

    34 47.89%
Page 23 of 38 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 372

Thread: They did it on purpose

  1. #221
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder, replying to another View Post
    Clinton increased revenue by 75%.

    Bush increased revenue by 28%.

    Your reaction?
    One can call 2001 thru 2005 "the lost revenue years"... historically revenue increased nearly $100 billion per year during that time frame, which means starting 2006, when revenues finally began increasing again, we were nearly half trillion dollars behind the curve, and remain so today (e.g., the current $1.3 trillion deficit would only be $800 billion). Tragic.





  2. #222
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Yeah, the tax cuts killed revenue so much that we hit all time record revenue generation....
    with Bush's tax-cuts, revenue increased an astounding 28%.....from when Bush was elected.

    with Clinton's tax-increases for the 1%, revenue increased a measely 75%..from when he was elected.

    Clearly, tax-increases are better for growing Federal revenue..than tax-cuts.
    Last edited by Thunder; 11-22-11 at 08:04 PM.

  3. #223
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    One can call 2001 thru 2005 "the lost revenue years"... historically revenue increased nearly $100 billion per year during that time frame, which means starting 2006, when revenues finally began increasing again, we were nearly half trillion dollars behind the curve, and remain so today (e.g., the current $1.3 trillion deficit would only be $800 billion). Tragic.




    Are you sure you want to use a graph that includes two years of Libbo ownership of the government?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #224
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    with Bush's tax-cuts, revenue increased an astounding 28%.....from when Bush was elected.

    with Clinton's tax-increases for the 1%, revenue increased a measely 75%..from when he was elected.

    Clearly, tax-increases are better for Federal revenue..than tax-cuts.
    So, you honestly think that tax rates are the lone factor? Are you going to show us another equation to figger gross revenue?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #225
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    So, you honestly think that tax rates are the lone factor?...
    please explain how Clinton got revenue to increase by 75%.

  6. #226
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Now I am not very familiar with the situation in America, but my naive opinion is that cutting taxes and giving handouts (subsidies of any kind, social systems, etc) are just two sides of the same medal: Populist actions by politicians who want to buy votes, which are irresponsible when the budget situation is stressed and when this policy results in more debts.

    We see it in Europe: Certain governments used to buy votes prior to elections, by spreading money, extensive social welfare and handouts, subsidies, taxcuts -- and suddenly, the debt was too high to be paid back. Too bad.

    Bush jr. did the same with his tax cuts. Buying off voters against good economic interest. On top of burning more than a trillion in Afghan and Iraqi sand, that meant playing away the good budget situation Clinton had left him. And I am sure Obama did it too, to some extent (although I am really not enough into the details of, say, healthcare reform to name it).

    But for some reason, many Democrats seem to believe tax cuts are worse than unnecessary spending, and many Republicans somehow don't like spending, but are fine with tax cuts -- although both are different means to the same end in the political game, the two sides of the same medal of buying votes.

    /rant off
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  7. #227
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,155

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    with Bush's tax-cuts, revenue increased an astounding 28%.....from when Bush was elected.

    with Clinton's tax-increases for the 1%, revenue increased a measely 75%..from when he was elected.


    Clearly, tax-increases are better for growing Federal revenue..than tax-cuts.
    can't agree (absolutely)
    the laffer curve - while unspecific - tells us that excessive taxation causes investors to throttle back on their investments because the projected reward no longer exceeds the aggregate of risk and tax burden
    to exemplify my point with an admittedly extreme example, if the tax rate were 99%, you can see there is no longer an incentive to expand one's business exposure
    while that did not come into play for the clinton of shrub administrations, there is some indefinite point at which tax increases are no longer beneficial for growing federal tax revenues
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  8. #228
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    please explain how Clinton got revenue to increase by 75%.
    Because Clinton started at 1.15 trillion and Bush started with 1.99 trillion. Bush had a recession to deal with, too. Seems he inherited a ****ed up economy, too.

    The bottom line, is that the Libbos have been claiming that tax cuts don't work, the facts tell a much different story.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #229
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    Now I am not very familiar with the situation in America, but my naive opinion is that cutting taxes and giving handouts (subsidies of any kind, social systems, etc) are just two sides of the same medal: Populist actions by politicians who want to buy votes, which are irresponsible when the budget situation is stressed and when this policy results in more debts.

    We see it in Europe: Certain governments used to buy votes prior to elections, by spreading money, extensive social welfare and handouts, subsidies, taxcuts -- and suddenly, the debt was too high to be paid back. Too bad.

    Bush jr. did the same with his tax cuts. Buying off voters against good economic interest. On top of burning more than a trillion in Afghan and Iraqi sand, that meant playing away the good budget situation Clinton had left him. And I am sure Obama did it too, to some extent (although I am really not enough into the details of, say, healthcare reform to name it).

    But for some reason, many Democrats seem to believe tax cuts are worse than unnecessary spending, and many Republicans somehow don't like spending, but are fine with tax cuts -- although both are different means to the same end in the political game, the two sides of the same medal of buying votes.

    /rant off
    No, they're not. Tax cuts allow people to keep their money, that they earned by their own efforts. A government handout is money that is taken from one person's pocket, who actually earned the money and giving it to someone else, who didn't do **** for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #230
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: They did it on purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    No, they're not. Tax cuts allow people to keep their money, that they earned by their own efforts.....
    you forgot to include corporations. and the fact is, corporations have a HUGE excess of funds..and still aren't using that money to grow the economy or hire more workers.

    if corporations won't use their money to help the economy, then maybe the govt. should instead.

Page 23 of 38 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... 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
  •