• 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!

Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

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


  • Total voters
    55
LOL

The deficit went up after the tax cuts were put in place and the deficit continues to skyrocket regardless of taxes in or out.

The deficit needs to be snipped in the bud - and the tax breaks continued.

If I can't keep hitting up my employer for more money because I keep going over budget then neither should the government.

Excellent post:applaud
 
Excellent post:applaud
Thanks, Navy.

Goobieman said:
That's exactly right.
Any claim that we "cannot afford" cutting taxes is based on the false premise that spending cannot be cut.

So true!
I've heard that before, too - out of the mouth of an addict when going through cessation on the way to breaking the addiction.
 
Last edited:
If the government didn't perpetually boost their budget and deficit we'd be just fine with the tax cuts.

Obama campaigned on complaints that Bush spent excessive money on all the wrong things - and Obama's just continuing what he pretended to be so against.

He is part of the same corruption. He was just a genious at hiding it and pretending otherwise.

Perhaps it is time for the US to dissolve into states again, and let them rule themselves, and then perhaps reunited under a different political system. Washington is rotten to the core.
 
If the government didn't perpetually boost their budget and deficit we'd be just fine with the tax cuts.

While I do not argue that spending cuts need to be made, especially in our bloated military budget and unfunded wars, you would still have the inequity created by the tax cut which places a greater burden on those of less wealth.
 
While I do not argue that spending cuts need to be made, especially in our bloated military budget and unfunded wars, you would still have the inequity created by the tax cut which places a greater burden on those of less wealth.

For those of *less* wealth.

It's the middle-class tax cuts that we're discussing, not the taxes of the rich. Are you suggesting that the poor are being cast a greater burden because I get a tax-break?

And what, pray-tell, is going to happen to the economy if they started taking *more* money away from people who are already barely scraping by?

Are they these taxed prospects going to be running out and hitting up Target and Macy's?
Nope - it'll only exacerbate the current problem we're in.

The less money people *have* means the less bills they can pay, the more mortgages that will be defaulted on and the less money flow that the economy will see. . .just like we're experiencing right now.

Right now - in the middle of an economic crisis - is not the time to consider taking more money from the wallets of those who are fortunate enough to still be employed and somehow managing to make ends meet.
 
Last edited:
For those of *less* wealth.

It's the middle-class tax cuts that we're discussing, not the taxes of the rich. Are you suggesting that the poor are being cast a greater burden because I get a tax-break?

Yes, those that make less than $250,000, and the capital gains tax cuts that predominantly benefit the wealthy.

And what, pray-tell, is going to happen to the economy if they started taking *more* money away from people who are already barely scraping by?

No one is proposing more taxing to those that make less than $250,000 (except the fair tax crowd).
 
Yes, those that make less than $250,000, and the capital gains tax cuts that predominantly benefit the wealthy.

No one is proposing more taxing to those that make less than $250,000 (except the fair tax crowd).

Well - if the tax *cuts* that are currently in place for the middle class are ended (by this I mean if they are *not extended*) - then the taxes that the middle-income people pay will go up.

Because that's what happens when you take *away* a cut - the overall amount of the tax then goes *up.*

So it would be a tax increase, in the end.
 
Well - if the tax *cuts* that are currently in place for the middle class are ended (by this I mean if they are *not extended*) - then the taxes that the middle-income people pay will go up.

You will have to document for me any plan to take away tax cuts from anyone making less than $250,000.

Obama's plan is to let the tax cut for the wealthy expire for those making more than $250,000.

Is there another plan out there I have not heard about?
 
You will have to document for me any plan to take away tax cuts from anyone making less than $250,000.

Obama's plan is to let the tax cut for the wealthy expire for those making more than $250,000.

Is there another plan out there I have not heard about?

If the democrats let the Bush tax cuts expire then that is a tax increase for everyone that pays taxes.........what part of that do you not understand?
 
Congress should preserve the modest tax cuts for hard-pressed poor and middle classes and let the unjust tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
 
Congress should preserve the modest tax cuts for hard-pressed poor and middle classes and let the unjust tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

Well contrary to Obama's lies that is not what they are going to do...You lefties crack me up...Hopefully you never ask for a job from someone making 250K
 
Well contrary to Obama's lies that is not what they are going to do...You lefties crack me up...Hopefully you never ask for a job from someone making 250K

Someone has to pay, why not those that can afford it? Those that aren't suffering from the effects of the recession caused by the rich.
Lefty? That's funny coming from someone that leeches off the government.
The truth is my socialist friend, I hope the republicans get power and eliminate your social security and medicare. It's time you commies take care of yourselves.
I am finished asking for a job from anyone.
 
Congress should preserve the modest tax cuts for hard-pressed poor and middle classes and let the unjust tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

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??
 
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??

Great post, thank you..........:applaud
 
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??

You do know that companies are downsizing and laying off, don't you? There is too much capacity in this country now due to reduced demand. Why in hell would they expand? Use some common sense, man. Expansion? Give me a break.

It's funny how you guys keep repeating talking points that don't make sense.
Rush said the exact same thing the other day. He is clueless about supply and demand too.
 
Too much capacity now. Companies are downsizing, not expanding. Demand is down. Hello?

Why the **** do you think that is????????????

You ever get a job offer from a poor person???
 
Why the **** do you think that is????????????

You ever get a job offer from a poor person???

Don't you know anything about economics?
Companies are laying off and downsizing because of reduced demand. They are not expanding. Hello? Giving them tax cuts will not spur demand so they will not hire or expand anyway. They already have too much capacity. All tax cuts for the rich will do is increase their bonuses.

Tax cuts should be focused where the people are hurting most. The middle class. The rich will survive just fine. They always do and they always get richer.
 
Don't you know anything about economics?
Companies are laying off and downsizing because of reduced demand. They are not expanding. Hello? Giving them tax cuts will not spur demand so they will not hire or expand anyway. They already have too much capacity. All tax cuts for the rich will do is increase their bonuses.

Tax cuts should be focused where the people are hurting most. The middle class. The rich will survive just fine. They always do and they always get richer.



I forgot more about economics then you will ever know...That said thanks to your daddy Obama we have a 10% uneemploment rate in this country.......We need to get people back to work and cutting taxes is not the answer....To get people back to work someone has to hire them and that is the people who make over 250K.........You take their money and they have none to hire anyone........People get jobs........they spend money..that stimulates the economy......what part of that do you not understand????
 
I forgot more about economics then you will ever know...That said thanks to your daddy Obama we have a 10% uneemploment rate in this country.......We need to get people back to work and cutting taxes is not the answer....To get people back to work someone has to hire them and that is the people who make over 250K.........You take their money and they have none to hire anyone........People get jobs........they spend money..that stimulates the economy......what part of that do you not understand????

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.
 
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? ;)
 
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..
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
Back
Top Bottom