• 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 Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?


  • Total voters
    41
You can bring up some examples of reduced spending helping get us out of a recession?

There are none.. it is a complete lie. What was supposed to happen is that private enterprise after seeing job creation not falling it would create a sense of confidence in the economy and encourage private stimulus. But private stimulus has been unfaithful and they are not doing enough to reduce unemployment numbers.. So now the government is forced to keep spending high to try to encourage the private sector and confidence. Spend away and let the neh sayers lose out till they get a clue.
 
Disregard the justifications for the Bush tax cuts and look at what effect they actually have. It's clear cut. They put a trillion plus dollars in the hands of people worth more than $10 million already and they increased our national debt by the same amount. What that amounts to is nothing short of a redistribution of wealth from the rest of us to the uberwealthy. Everybody in the US carries an equal share of that debt, but the benefits of the tax cuts only significantly effected an incredibly tiny number of people. What Bush did is force you to take out a loan for around $30,000 and he gave it to the uberwealthy in the form of tax cuts. He could have accomplished the exact same thing by just cutting them checks for millions or billions of dollars. It would have been exactly the same thing, but then even the folks on the right would have realized that they were being had... So he called it a tax cut instead... It's the most absurd blindspot ever on the right... If you want to give somebody $1 million and you call it a handout, they don't like that, but if you call it a tax cut, they love it...
 
Last edited:
Thank you! I was waiting for somebody besides me to say it!!

It's quite astounding so many Reps/Conservs continue to use tax cuts as their main economic strong point when on the complete opposite side of the economic spetrum you still have a deficit to get under control. Limiting spending will help, of course, but with so many people out of the workforce and so much of the business world still feeling uncomfortable about hiring, this country needs an infusion of any kind within the tax base right now. Therefore, if only makes sense to me to allow the tax cuts to expire for those who can afford to pay them. And if having another %3 in taxes taken from the wealthiest who can afford to pay it AND many among this same economic class have said they're willing to "pay their fair share", why not for the good of the country?

another 3% in taxes?

more spite and envy

if you pay 30% in taxes and your rate is increased to 33% that is a TEN PERCENT INCREASE IN THE TAXES YOU PAY

if you have dividend income you will see your taxes DOUBLED -at LEAST on that

I love those who don't pay enough taxes (to cover what they use) continually support more taxes on others with the lame routine that they can afford it

If some guy is single and you have a hot wife why don't you share her because after all, you get plenty and he's celibate?
 
Disregard the justifications for the Bush tax cuts and look at what effect they actually have. It's clear cut. They put a trillion plus dollars in the hands of people worth more than $10 million already and they increased our national debt by the same amount. What that amounts to is nothing short of a redistribution of wealth from the rest of us to the uberwealthy. Everybody in the US carries an equal share of that debt, but the benefits of the tax cuts only significantly effected an incredibly tiny number of people. What Bush did is force you to take out a loan for around $30,000 and he gave it to the uberwealthy in the form of tax cuts. He could have accomplished the exact same thing by just cutting them checks for millions or billions of dollars. It would have been exactly the same thing, but then even the folks on the right would have realized that they were being had... So he called it a tax cut instead... It's the most absurd blindspot ever on the right... If you want to give somebody $1 million and you call it a handout, they don't like that, but if you call it a tax cut, they love it...

the tax cuts helped everyone who actually pays taxes and the dem tax hikes start at 250K which is hardly the wealthy

and its NOT GIVING ANYONE ANYTHING

where do the statist socialists come up with that crap. a tax cut is not a handout. a handout is taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who did nothing so as to buy their votes
 
Thank you! I was waiting for somebody besides me to say it!!

It's quite astounding so many Reps/Conservs continue to use tax cuts as their main economic strong point when on the complete opposite side of the economic spetrum you still have a deficit to get under control. Limiting spending will help, of course, but with so many people out of the workforce and so much of the business world still feeling uncomfortable about hiring, this country needs an infusion of any kind within the tax base right now. Therefore, it only makes sense to me to allow the tax cuts to expire for those who can afford to pay them. And if having another %3 in taxes taken from the wealthiest who can afford to pay it AND many among this same economic class have said they're willing to "pay their fair share", why not for the good of the country?

I found this article from FinancialWeb.com that speaks directly to the Bush tax cuts. It reads in part:

The [Tax Relief Reconciliation] act was controversial because of the tax brackets it created. Those who made under $27,000 filing single, or $46,000 filing jointly would see no change in their brackets. Those making more than that would see a tax decrease of around 2%. Those who made over $300,000 yearly saw the largest break with a decrease of 3.6%. As an example, a family who brings in $80,000 a year would see a decrease of $1600 a year in their taxes. A family who made $300,000 would have seen a break of almost $11,000. The advantage for this was that almost everyone would see a tax break. The disadvantage was that the more money you made the more of a tax break you received. Many people also feel in to the category of no change. The people who seemingly needed the break the most wouldn’t be given any relief.

Tax changes will always benefit one group of people over another. In this case there was a lot of talk over whether or not the new act would actually spur growth in the economy. Those opposed to the taxes argued that giving wealthy individuals tax breaks would do nothing to help the economy, and that the people who needed the help the most were left out of the act all together. Those who supported it argued that allowing tax cuts to the wealthy would help to send more money in to the economy and those who were earning little paid very little in taxes anyhow.

Depending on your situation this act may or may not have affected you. For the most part, most people have benefited from this act. Whether or not it actually helped with growth in our economy remains to be seen.

And this from the website, TheBuzz.com:

...President Bush has stuck to his insistence on successive, sweeping tax cuts, despite the uncomfortable fact that the premise on which they were first proposed - a large government surplus - has evaporated.

Individually these policies involve bold risks. Together they represent a recklessness that could inflict lasting damage on the US economy.

Wrangling continues over the size of the tax cut. Bush wanted to axe $726bn (£444bn) over 10 years, but said he would accept $550bn (£336bn). The Senate has voted for $350bn (£214bn). Either way it would be one of the largest cuts in US fiscal history, all the more remarkable for having been passed at a time of war - not just one war, but several at the same time - and sharply rising government deficits.

The cuts defy conventional economics, which predict that a steep rise in government borrowing will push up interest rates and depress private investment, squeezing the economy dry.

So, unless someone can show concrete evidence that the Bush tax cuts actually helped this nation's economy (which obviously they will not otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now), I see no reason to extend them. MOreover, these tax cuts weren't given to large corporations as the talking heads would have us believe. They were given to individuals. So, I wonder if the CEO of AIG, for example, has used his multi-million dollar bonus to help stimulate the economy or if he put his hard earned cash in his pocket?

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm....?"
 
Last edited:
Nothing at all silly about it.
The future of our nation will include more socialism.
Its unpatriotic to deter progression,IMO..

socialism should be eliminated by any means necessary/

making people slaves of the government is not progress

its de-evolution

progress is making people free and less dependent

you want to create more slaves
 
I found this article from FinancialWeb.com that speaks directly to the Bush tax cuts. It reads in part:



And this from the website, TheBuzz.com:



So, unless someone can show concrete evidence that the Bush tax cuts actually helped this nation's economy (which obviously they will not otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now), I see no reason to extend them.

they helped those of us who pay taxes

of course socialists don't believe in individual rights so I can understand why you don't care. People like you would confiscate all wealth over a certain limit if you thought it would advance the power of your masters.
 
the tax cuts helped everyone who actually pays taxes and the dem tax hikes start at 250K which is hardly the wealthy

Not really. For example, Bush cancelled the estate tax. That only helped the uberwealthy since estate taxes didn't even start until $1m estates... Like 99% of the money went to the very wealthy.

and its NOT GIVING ANYONE ANYTHING

where do the statist socialists come up with that crap. a tax cut is not a handout. a handout is taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who did nothing so as to buy their votes

That's just the spin I am asking you to disregard... The effect is exactly the same whether you call it a tax cut or a handout. There is no actual difference... It's just that Republicans like one word, and not the other... The same people gain the same amount and the same people lose the same amount regardless of what you call it.
 
Not really. For example, Bush cancelled the estate tax. That only helped the uberwealthy since estate taxes didn't even start until $1m estates... Like 99% of the money went to the very wealthy.



That's just the spin I am asking you to disregard... The effect is exactly the same whether you call it a tax cut or a handout. There is no actual difference... It's just that Republicans like one word, and not the other... The same people gain the same amount and the same people lose the same amount regardless of what you call it.

you think a million dollar estae is mega wealthy? Dismissed as someone who has no clue about reality.

anyone who makes 75K a year and saves is gonna have a million dollar estate if they live to 75 and don't have bad investments or some really bad luck. the average GS 12 or 13 will die with a million dollar estate. many people who bought 150K homes in the 80s may well be millionaires now if they bought in the right places.

a tax cut is not the same as a handout. For more than half of our country's history no one paid income taxes and until the FDR administration, no one paid much of their income in taxes. ONly a person who believes all wealth belongs to the government can confuse a handout with a tax cut.

your logic is the same as saying that a robber who leaves half of your wallet's contents has given you that money.

do you believe that all wealth belongs to the government?
 
a tax cut is not the same as a handout. For more than half of our country's history no one paid income taxes and until the FDR administration, no one paid much of their income in taxes. ONly a person who believes all wealth belongs to the government can confuse a handout with a tax cut.

your logic is the same as saying that a robber who leaves half of your wallet's contents has given you that money.

Say you are the government and you want to give Joe Smith $10 million. You have two options. You can write him a check or you can cut his taxes by $10 million. He doesn't care which way you do it. The effect on him is the same. The effect on the budget is the same... Anything else is just spin... Don't fall for it.

do you believe that all wealth belongs to the government?

You keep asking that... As though that question meant something... It does not...
 
Say you are the government and you want to give Joe Smith $10 million. You have two options. You can write him a check or you can cut his taxes by $10 million. He doesn't care which way you do it. The effect on him is the same. The effect on the budget is the same... Anything else is just spin... Don't fall for it.



You keep asking that... As though that question meant something... It does not...




You keep asking that... As though that question meant something... It does not...[/QUOTE]

that is hilarious

in one case the man has 10 million

in the other the government has to take it from someone else

why cannot you answer that easy question
 
in one case the man has 10 million

in the other the government has to take it from someone else

You're not following... In both cases, the government has the $10 million. They want to give it to some dude. They can either give it to him with a tax cut or with a check...

Here, let me simplify it. Say that they want to give Joe Smith $10 million. They cut a check to his name. That's a handout in your book, right? Now say they write "tax refund" in the memo field. Then that's no longer a handout in your book, right? How does that make sense?

As for you question about does the money belong to the government... That's just empty rhetoric with no substance behind it... Does the money you spend on groceries "belong" to the grocer? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Does the water in the river belong in the ocean or in the cloud?
 
This is a common statement by Republicans, but in fact, there are quite a few fiscally conservative democrats in congress. One of them is mine. And, I'd have a little more respect for this perspective if the Republicans hadn't been subsidizing corporate America's welfare needs for the past 30 years.

It's called capitalism. What do you have against capitalism? It's why you have a job and can feed your family.
 
Yes. I'd say that it's an issue of presentation. Unlike you, Turtle didn't couch it in racial terms, i.e., "Obama is the new slavemaster on the plantation."

That's because slavery never was abolished. Obama is the slave master of the whites, now.
 
From that article

so - Since my husband makes far less than $250,000 - this won't affect me us at all . . . nor many others . . . and I fail to see the issue.

Well, I hope you're one never to call those who don't want taxes "Greedy" since you're entire reasoning is "It won't affect me at all so I see no issue with it".
 
You're not following... In both cases, the government has the $10 million. They want to give it to some dude. They can either give it to him with a tax cut or with a check...

Here, let me simplify it. Say that they want to give Joe Smith $10 million. They cut a check to his name. That's a handout in your book, right? Now say they write "tax refund" in the memo field. Then that's no longer a handout in your book, right? How does that make sense?

As for you question about does the money belong to the government... That's just empty rhetoric with no substance behind it... Does the money you spend on groceries "belong" to the grocer? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Does the water in the river belong in the ocean or in the cloud?

that is beyond silly.
 
This is a common statement by Republicans, but in fact, there are quite a few fiscally conservative democrats in congress. One of them is mine. And, I'd have a little more respect for this perspective if the Republicans hadn't been subsidizing corporate America's welfare needs for the past 30 years.

corporate welfare can mean alot of things

it can mean the mayor and council of a city offering a would be factory building business tax breaks so they choose that mayor's town rather than another for their new production facility. A tax break is nothing more than a quid pro quo to lure an entity that the politicians think will help the local economy such as diner owners who will have new factory workers to sell to etc.

In some cases it was like bailing out Chrysler so all those union workers wouldn't go on unemployment.

companies provide useful services and in many cases are in good bargaining positions. More companies means more jobs, more taxes, more jobs and more taxes from other operations that cater to that company. MOre companies almost always means more prosperity for those areas that have them.

expanding corporations doesn't hurt America

expanding the dependent class of welfare recipients hurts america but helps those who pander to them get elected.

Most of those most hurt by a company failing are those who work there because normally there are far more workers than owners and if its a company like GM-the stockholders are often Union pensions as major players
 
Well, I hope you're one never to call those who don't want taxes "Greedy" since you're entire reasoning is "It won't affect me at all so I see no issue with it".

that is the thinking that the left has banked on

At first the dems only targeted those who made ten million a year for confiscatory taxes and we didn't object because none of use made ten million a year

then they expanded their confiscatory taxes to those who made 5 million a year and we didn't object because we wished we made that much

then they decided a million a year was worthy of looting but again, how many people make that much

by the time the dems scheme started calling us rich, too many people were addicted to the dem class warfare we were unable to avoid being soaked
 
Well, I hope you're one never to call those who don't want taxes "Greedy" since you're entire reasoning is "It won't affect me at all so I see no issue with it".

I'm not going to give Bush a free pass: he put these cuts in place KNOWING they'd expire after he left office.

I'm not going to place fault and problem solely ON the Obama administration over what the BUSH administration/Congress decided to *do*

Nor am I giving businesses a pass when they've known for YEARS that these cuts *will end* and that they *were temporary*

Yes- it will have a horrible trickle down effect, I'm sure the cost of items will go up - businesses won't be able to adjust and they'll stiff the customers.

But you know what - the cuts should NEVER have been made to begin with. Wht are they SUPPOSE to do - keep it going FOREVER! It happened before I was even old enough to vote - but looking back I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with the cuts being put into swing in the FIRST ****ing place.

I do feel that the approach should be slow - so it's not a jarring SMACK all of a sudden, though. But maybe that's how they'll handle it? Right now they're just discussing "let it end or not" - they haven't put the process into writing or proposed if it will be done in steps - or anything at all of that nature, yet so we have no solid details to go into - all we have is 'end or no end' right now to debate.
 
they helped those of us who pay taxes

of course socialists don't believe in individual rights so I can understand why you don't care. People like you would confiscate all wealth over a certain limit if you thought it would advance the power of your masters.

I'm offended by those who keep throwing out this same BS! You lump those who disagree with your rational for fairness and equality (in this case on taxes) and think we're unpatriotic or that we hate capticalism and the free market system. We'll we don't!

I believe in capticalism. I believe that every man, woman and child has every right to go out into this world and if he works hard enough or gets lucky and either earns his keep or falls into a cash cow he or she deserves to reap the benefits of his wealth and prosperity. What I DON'T agree with is imposing taxes on those who can't afford them and giving large tax breaks to those who really don't need them.

The Conservative rational on tax cuts has always been that they create jobs. We'll, where they hell are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts? And if they are suppose to work so well to stimulate the economy, why did this country fall into a Recession? And if fiscal conservatism is such a big concern for the Right, why didn't they uphold their side in being responsible stewarts of the People's money and ensure that both wars (War in Iraq and in Afghanstan) were paid for?

SEVEN YEARS of tax cuts to those making +$300K/annually and what does this nation have to show for it?

Answer = A National/Global Recession

Now, I could understand if these tax cuts were for major corporations, but they aren't. They're for wealthy individuals. So, unless these people are puring their money back into their businesses instead of paying for their multi-million dollar homes, expensive cars or private jets, I fail to see how giving weathy individuals a tax break when such hasn't done a thing to spur the economy! The logic being used just doesn't appear to be very sound to me, and the evidence is all around us.

Businesses have closed.
People remain unemployed.
States are broke!
U.S. companies are still looking for ways to ship their business overseas taking much needed jobs with them.

Until you can show me that the Bush tax cuts will begin to work and VERY SOON, I see no reason to continue them.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to give Bush a free pass: he put these cuts in place KNOWING they'd expire after he left office.

I'm not going to place fault and problem solely ON the Obama administration over what the BUSH administration/Congress decided to *do*

Nor am I giving businesses a pass when they've known for YEARS that these cuts *will end* and that they *were temporary*

Yes- it will have a horrible trickle down effect, I'm sure the cost of items will go up - businesses won't be able to adjust and they'll stiff the customers.

But you know what - the cuts should NEVER have been made to begin with. Wht are they SUPPOSE to do - keep it going FOREVER! It happened before I was even old enough to vote - but looking back I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with the cuts being put into swing in the FIRST ****ing place.

I do feel that the approach should be slow - so it's not a jarring SMACK all of a sudden, though. But maybe that's how they'll handle it? Right now they're just discussing "let it end or not" - they haven't put the process into writing or proposed if it will be done in steps - or anything at all of that nature, yet so we have no solid details to go into - all we have is 'end or no end' right now to debate.

I see a lot of bitching and rationalizing but when it comes down to it I just keep going back to:

so - Since my husband makes far less than $250,000 - this won't affect me us at all . . . nor many others . . . and I fail to see the issue.

And you know something, nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously if later on you start talking about how anyone against tax increases are "greedy".
 
I see a lot of bitching and rationalizing but when it comes down to it I just keep going back to:



And you know something, nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously if later on you start talking about how anyone against tax increases are "greedy".

In this entire thread there's been nothing that details out how it will affect people . . . so, pray tell, how will it affect us?
 
We had a tax hike on businesses (that make over 250,000) in Oregon and we are doing fine. Nike is still here. Columbia sportswear is still here. (Just a few of those who fought 66&67) and IBM announced it is bringing 600 more jobs to Oregon.

Most of the big businesses that could take jobs away, do on a regular basis anyway because they can get cheap labor overseas. No amount of tax cuts is going to make up for the fact that the American worker needs to make over 50 cents an hour.



is that net or gross? You do realize most pizza shops fall in this category. /facepalm
 
you think a million dollar estae is mega wealthy? Dismissed as someone who has no clue about reality.

anyone who makes 75K a year and saves is gonna have a million dollar estate if they live to 75 and don't have bad investments or some really bad luck. the average GS 12 or 13 will die with a million dollar estate. many people who bought 150K homes in the 80s may well be millionaires now if they bought in the right places.

a tax cut is not the same as a handout. For more than half of our country's history no one paid income taxes and until the FDR administration, no one paid much of their income in taxes. ONly a person who believes all wealth belongs to the government can confuse a handout with a tax cut.

your logic is the same as saying that a robber who leaves half of your wallet's contents has given you that money.

do you believe that all wealth belongs to the government?

Let's not get twisted off into irrelevance. I do agree that $1M is not uber wealthy. In fact, it isn't all that much money. That said, the estate tax kicks in at $2M so the $1M is irrelevant. ...and that said, the issue is about the elimination of the estate tax most benefits the UBER wealthy. That statement is true. 85% of the wealth in this country is held by 20% of the people (and 35% by 1% of the people). Elimination of the estate tax most benefits the 1% of the population. This should not be a discussion about where the estate tax kicks in ($1M or $10M) but rather the value of an estate tax. The government should be after mega-estates, not families that have managed their financial affairs well.

IMHO, the absence of the estate tax grossly benefits a very small number of people, continues to bifurcate our society along economic lines (which will not have good long-term ramifications for its stability) and concentrates capital in the hands of those that did not earn it (non-productive members of our society... daddy funded welfare). The notion of that capital should be earned and not given (clearing the chips and returning people to go with $200) has some value to our society. Adjusting the minimum estate value subject to the tax is easy... raising the minimum from $2 to $5 or $10 million is not the same as eliminating estate tax.

This was a bad move by the Bush Administration (number 45 of the top 100 Bush blunders), at least for America. I am sure I got a few dinners paid for by some of his Texas oil buddies, especially those that died in 2010, but this did nothing for our economy except cut off tax revenues. Fortunately this bad idea terminates on its own.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom