• 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!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
TurtleDude said:
actually some have argued that higher taxes create more government jobs (which I don't see as a benefit)

so other than providing an excuse for the dems to spend more and appealing to class envy what do higher taxes do?
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...eal-without-tax-hikes-100.html#post1059653811

post 998
FilmFestGuy

You can apologize now
Click to expand...

So you're arguing that I believe tax increases creates jobs because someone else said it? :roll:
 
IMF bombshell: Age of America nears end

Commentary: China’s economy will surpass the U.S. in 2016

For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.

MW-AJ830_china__20110425083840_MD.jpg


IMF bombshell: Age of America nears end Brett Arends' ROI - MarketWatch
Click to expand...

High taxes, low taxes, the economy is the problem!
 
sangha said:
So you're arguing that I believe tax increases creates jobs because someone else said it? :roll:
Click to expand...


YOu seem confused as to who was talking to who
 
sangha said:
Yeah. Right. You responded to my post, and so it was my mistake in thinking you were responding to me. :roll:
Click to expand...

read post 1041

You questioned my claim that someone (read someone not you) had said increased taxes would increase jobs. I proved what I said was true.

You challenged my claim so I did respond to you

you just proved yourself to either have short term memory issues or that your post was dishonest
 
TurtleDude said:
read post 1041

You questioned my claim that someone (read someone not you) had said increased taxes would increase jobs. I proved what I said was true.

You challenged my claim so I did respond to you

you just proved yourself to either have short term memory issues or that your post was dishonest
Click to expand...

No, I posted the graphs that showed that tax cuts do not increase jobs growth, and you responded by referring to something someone else said. So i'll ask again

Are you arguing that I believe tax increases creates jobs because someone else said it?
 
sangha said:
No, I posted the graphs that showed that tax cuts do not increase jobs growth, and you responded by referring to something someone else said. So i'll ask again

Are you arguing that I believe tax increases creates jobs because someone else said it?
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read what you and I had posted earlier
 
sangha said:
Do you have any comments about the green line in the last graph, or is that Obama's fault too?
Click to expand...

The green line is wishful thinking. Without the military spending of the 80s, the fall of the USSR is questionable. Trade would have been much more restricted, and Clinton would not have balanced the budget without the slashes in military funding.
 
Taylor said:
The green line is wishful thinking. Without the military spending of the 80s, the fall of the USSR is questionable. Trade would have been much more restricted, and Clinton would not have balanced the budget without the slashes in military funding.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wishful about the fact that without the reagan/bush deficits, our current deficit (and debt) would be much lower.

And military spending went up under Clinton. Your other arguments are nothing but wishful thinking
 
Not in this reality. Even with the additional spending under Bush, we are still low by historical standards. Not 100% positive, but pretty sure.
 
Taylor said:
Not in this reality. Even with the additional spending under Bush, we are still low by historical standards. Not 100% positive, but pretty sure.
Click to expand...
Heh, even lower than I expected. With two wars and post 9/11 changes, we're still spending less than we were in the early 90's - in fact we've spent less on defense the last 16-17 years than at any time since WWII (other than a very brief dip just after the war).
 
cpwill said:
good point. we should look at all of them.

Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed.

and we should probably also look overseas to see what works in other industrial economies

In over 120 stimulus attempts spread over every nation in the OECD, the ones that succeeded were the ones that lowered business tax rates, whereas the ones that failed were the ones that relied on increased government spending.
Click to expand...

You do realize I too can post partisan opion pieces that say the exact opposite? Though I do think you changed the subject with these posts. In your mind, what were we addressing?
 
Boo Radley said:
You do realize I too can post partisan opion pieces that say the exact opposite?
Click to expand...

no, you cannot - because that is the math. what I am posting here is the history of these attempts. you are free to your own opinion - you aren't free to your own facts.
 
cpwill said:
no, you cannot - because that is the math. what I am posting here is the history of these attempts. you are free to your own opinion - you aren't free to your own facts.
Click to expand...

No, you posted an Op-ed piece, and it wasn't even on topic. That's what the other sentence was about.
 
This would be what we were talkng about:

Florida has the fifth lowest corporate income tax rate in the country at 5.5 percent, trailing only South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming and Nevada — states hardly in Florida's league. Yet Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average. Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.

It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.

Tax cuts don't create jobs - St. Petersburg Times

There's a lot on this. It is about the mistaken notion that tax cuts create jobs and that tax increases lose jobs. There's no evidence to support that.

is switching the subject yet another tactic of yours? :coffeepap
 
The Barbarian said:
Well good .. .then there should be no problem with cutting spending drastically seeing we are out of the recession .. . but everyone knows jobs are lagging .. . so it would still be best not to raise taxes .. until the job market improves right ??
Click to expand...

Yes, it is possible to raise taxes and increase jobs (See the Clinton Administration). Too bad the Republicans walked away from cutting $3 in spending for every $1 of tax increases. Their narrow ideology is more important to them than reducing the deficit, and the American people are witnessing it for themselves! :sun
 
Catawba said:
Yes, it is possible to raise taxes and increase jobs (See the Clinton Administration). Too bad the Republicans walked away from cutting $3 in spending for every $1 of tax increases. Their narrow ideology is more important to them than reducing the deficit, and the American people are witnessing it for themselves! :sun
Click to expand...

For me, the point is taxes aren't really the determining factor. I think people get confused because they make causal relationship errors in their thinking. They pick a point in time and say, oh, he decreased taxes and employment went up, therefore it must be the tax cut. However, they forget when that didn't happen, or when taxes went up and jobs growth occured. The fact is, job growth and reduction was likely due to other factors, likely more than one.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Yea...remember when we were told a 39.6% rate would destroy the economy? And that hiking the minimum wage would cause us to LOSE jobs.

God, the 1990s were SOOOO terrible. What an awful time to be in business. It was like you were under constant attack.
Click to expand...

They would call that socialism today! LOL! :sun
 
TurtleDude said:
tax increases do several things

1) they don't increase jobs

2) they fuel more reckless spending by the government

3) they convince many slackers that the government can continue reckless spending since there is "more revenue" and those slackers continue to demand more reckless spending

4) the dems can use it to fuel the class warfare and envy that gets many ne'er do wells to vote dem
Click to expand...


I think it is a hoot that you always number your personal opinions that you offer up in your lame attempts to "refute" someone else's documented facts! :sun
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom