View Poll Results: Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    35 55.56%
  • No, because...

    24 38.10%
  • um... wait...

    4 6.35%
Page 18 of 33 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 321

Thread: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

  1. #171
    Educator
    Australianlibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Geelong, Australia
    Last Seen
    02-07-13 @ 08:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,011

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman View Post
    Yeah? And where, pray tell will the business owners, investors, etc. get any money for expansion of the private sector when 75-85% of their money will be tied up in worthless government welfare programs??
    Who needs tax cuts, when the Federal Reserve can inflate the money supply, via low interests rates?

  2. #172
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Australianlibertarian View Post
    The unemployment that the US faces was not caused by Obama per se. In reality America's economice woes stem from a lax monetary policy within the Federal Reserve (and this has being going on for decades). Interests rates held at very low levels encouraged mal-investment and the break down of the pricing system that would normally signal to the market, which areas of the economy need increased or decreased investment.

    Secondly, the supply side economics brought under Reagan are dangerous because they still are premised on the importance of the state, and b) that the state can willy nilly spend like a drunken sailor, because the Laffer Curve of revenue will support everything.

    What America needs is less tax and less government spending. Because like it or lump it, America must pay back its debt. Thus cutting taxes while ignoring government spending, and the role of the Federal Reserve will only increase the debt of the United States.

    America needs to return to the economic virtues after WWII, where the U.S had the worlds largest savings and actually loaned money to other nations. I agree with reduced taxes, but this cannot be done unless Americans actually have the guts to reduce government spending at the same time. Supply side economics seems to be popular because it appeals to an infantile notion that one can have their cake and eat it to. Tax cuts by themselves without spending cuts will only exacerbate the U.S's debt problems.
    You can spin it anyway you want but in 2006 when the democrats took control of the congress unemployment was at 5.5%, in 2007 it was up to almost 7%, with his stimulus package Obama said it would not get above 8%, it has been as high as 10% and its almost there now and if you count the people who have stopped looking for work its up to 17%....That is the most pressing problem in this country...To get people back to work someone with money has to hire them......If you increase taxes on them that won't happen and the economy will be stagnent or worse.

    Those are the facts simplified for some of my left wing friends in DP..
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  3. #173
    Educator
    Australianlibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Geelong, Australia
    Last Seen
    02-07-13 @ 08:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,011

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can spin it anyway you want but in 2006 when the democrats took control of the congress unemployment was at 5.5%, in 2007 it was up to almost 7%, with his stimulus package Obama said it would not get above 8%, it has been as high as 10% and its almost there now and if you count the people who have stopped looking for work its up to 17%....That is the most pressing problem in this country...To get people back to work someone with money has to hire them......If you increase taxes on them that won't happen and the economy will be stagnent or worse.

    Those are the facts simplified for some of my left wing friends in DP..
    You are confusing correlation with causation.

    You are assuming that Democrat control of congress was the reason for the eventual change in the un-employment. To be fair, even if alternately the Republicans had remained in control of the congress, unemployment would have still reached 7%.

    However, Obama's stimulus policy has not helped unemployment, but I doubt that it has made it any worse. All Obama has done is increased spending on failed industries using borrowed money.

    You are right about taxes in that they reduce incentives to employ people. However you reduce can keep reducing taxes, but that in itself may not reduce un-employment, because the ultimate determining factor will be weather the company has the savings, efficiency and productivity to employ people or invest in new machinery, services etc.

    Now even with high taxes (which I may add I am not proposing), increases in employment can still occur, where technological increases in productivity allow increased efficiency and therefore savings. In such a situation, a company may re-invest and hire another worker to do another task that is required.

    However I still agree with the gist of what your are discussing. I just believe that tax cuts without spending cuts would send the U.S over the economic edge.

  4. #174
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    Congress should preserve the modest tax cuts for hard-pressed poor and middle classes and let the unjust tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
    Of course, that is the plan.

    "The House is unlikely to extend President George W. Bush’s cuts for taxpayers earning more than $250,000, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday.

    Hoyer said tax cuts for those making under $250,000 were likely to be extended.

    “I think we will continue the middle-class [tax cuts] but the brackets above $250,000 will not be continued,” Hoyer said."

    Hoyer expects House to let tax cuts expire on incomes over $250K - TheHill.com
    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. #175
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman View Post
    Yeah? And where, pray tell will the business owners, investors, etc. get any money for expansion of the private sector.......
    From the same place they got the money from during our Golden Era (from 1950 to Reaganomics) before Reagan drastically cut the tax rates for the top tax brackets.
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-11-10 at 10:43 PM.
    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. #176
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Australianlibertarian View Post

    You [Navy Pride] are confusing correlation with causation.
    .....
    He Really is!

    As with the BS Reagonomics, the economy (and Stock Market/1987) Crashed 7 years into the Borrowing Fest/'Good economy'.
    Anyone can lower taxes, but not spending, and create a good economy/low unemployment.

    In the Out years (6-8) the incremental stimulous of that years Immorality isn't big enough to outweigh the Cumulative deficits piled up in the first 6+.

    So Voila, History repeats.
    What a Shock.
    Thankfully I lived thru the first while worlking on Wall Street and got out. A simpler Deja Vu rarely happens.

    This one structurally a little worse as corporate, bank, and personal Irresponsibility all coincided .
    It Was 1929, we just knew what to do this time.

    It was Bush and 6 years of the GOP that ran up those deficits.. and are in large/most part responsible for all the bailout and stimulous money Obama has spent.
    Except for Health Care/under 10%, this was another Bush caused Budget Deficit and wouldn't have been much different under McCain. The Bailout was not optional.

    As to the OP? LOL
    Not only CAN'T we afford to extend the Bush tax cuts, rates will have to increase from pre-Bush rates.
    Social Security just crossed into deficit last month.

    Top Marginal rates are historically near the Bottom. They were 50%-90% when we were a "Communist" country (and had less income disparity) in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and early 80's.
    But most posters being young (not to mention hoodwinked).. simply don't remember.
    Any attempt to return to Historic NORMS, much less eliminate the extra Bush Pig-fest/Cap Gains/Divs/Estate tax cuts, is "Class warfare". Just ask Hannity.
    Class warfare, as Buffett has said, His side has already won.
    -
    Last edited by mbig; 02-12-10 at 12:06 AM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  7. #177
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can spin it anyway you want but in 2006 when the democrats took control of the congress unemployment was at 5.5%, in 2007 it was up to almost 7%, with his stimulus package Obama said it would not get above 8%, it has been as high as 10% and its almost there now and if you count the people who have stopped looking for work its up to 17%....That is the most pressing problem in this country...To get people back to work someone with money has to hire them......If you increase taxes on them that won't happen and the economy will be stagnent or worse.

    Those are the facts simplified for some of my left wing friends in DP..
    I think you mean oversimplified.

    I should tell you, if you take the facts out of context, you can project any image or conclusion you want. That seems to be your only tactic in a debate, and I must say, its pretty sad.

    The economy was still finishing its downward spiral when Obama took office, and it has leveled out a few months ago. If you take all the factors into account, unemployement was going to rise substantially regardless of who the president was, and what he/she did.

    In every case of a stimulus package, it is afflicted with what's known as a delay. First, there is a problem delay, where people figure out whats wrong. Next, there is the decision delay, where people decide what to do about it. Last, there is the implementation delay, where politicians take their sweet time in doing whatever it is they decided to do (I changed the names, but the delays are there nonetheless).

    After all these delays are taken into account, you have to realize that unemployement is also the last variable to be affected by a stimulus package. First, its inflation, along with the DJIA often enough. next, its manufacturing data, and consumer spending is next. After all these things happen, the job supplyers in the economy have finally gotten the effects of the stim package, and can increase employement, and expand their business.

    Thats how it has, did, and always will work. Don't even try to deny that.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  8. #178
    It's Just Boris.
    Bassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    West end of the Erie Canal (That's Buffalo, NY for those of you in Rio Linda)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,699

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    From the same place they got the money from during our Golden Era (from 1950 to Reaganomics) before Reagan drastically cut the tax rates for the top tax brackets.
    And how is that?? By exponentially jacking up prices on goods and services or cutting costs.


    11/8/16: A day of great relief for America

  9. #179
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman View Post
    And how is that?? By exponentially jacking up prices on goods and services or cutting costs.
    I think cutting profits was how they did it and it didn't seem to hurt us during our most prosperous period in history! And as a result during that period, the middle class still had enough money to buy the products. If your customers cannot afford your products , it creates the situation we are in today!

    The capacity is greater than the demand.
    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

  10. #180
    It's Just Boris.
    Bassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    West end of the Erie Canal (That's Buffalo, NY for those of you in Rio Linda)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,699

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I think cutting profits was how they did it and it didn't seem to hurt us during our most prosperous period in history! And as a result during that period, the middle class still had enough money to buy the products. If your customers cannot afford your products , it creates the situation we are in today!

    The capacity is greater than the demand.
    But that is the entire idea of entrepeneurship. Businesses do not exist to be social welfare agencies.


    11/8/16: A day of great relief for America

Page 18 of 33 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... 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
  •