• 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!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

conservativeguy said:
I am not certain he understands what normally happens when a denominator is lowered.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I'm not the least bit flattered that you choose to discuss me rather than the topic at hand.
 
apdst

The Bush tax cuts lowered taxes on all tax brackets.
Click to expand...

Yep, the bottom 20 % averaged a big ole cut of $107.:(
 
treedancer said:
America’s top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011, while the bottom 20 percent will get an average cut of $107.
Click to expand...

So $66,491 out of the hands of the Federal government and back in the pockets of the American people? *Lloyd Christmas voice* We'll take it!
 
Goldenboy219 said:
How is this relevant to the topic?
Click to expand...

Simply responding to a poster that 47% of income earning households paid zero Federal Income Taxes due to the Bush tax cuts which shows the benefited greater than those evil rich people and that destroys the liberal argument about tax cuts for the rich
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
So $66,491 out of the hands of the Federal government and back in the pockets of the American people? *Lloyd Christmas voice* We'll take it!
Click to expand...

Except that the Federal government did not cut back their spending as a result of putting the money back in the pockets of the American people. Instead, they increased it (on a yearly basis) by more than 50% by 2008.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Except that the Federal government did not cut back their spending as a result of putting the money back in the pockets of the American people. Instead, they increased it (on a yearly basis) by more than 50% by 2008.
Click to expand...

What did they increase spending in 2009-2011? Last Bush budget was 3.1 trillion dollars, what is the spending level today?
 
Conservative said:
Simply responding to a poster that 47% of income earning households paid zero Federal Income Taxes due to the Bush tax cuts which shows the benefited greater than those evil rich people and that destroys the liberal argument about tax cuts for the rich
Click to expand...

Pointing out whether or not someone is liberal (or not) ad hominem. Fallacies can only destroy ones credibility.
 
Conservative said:
What did they increase spending in 2009-2011? Last Bush budget was 3.1 trillion dollars, what is the spending level today?
Click to expand...

I am unsure how what happened in 2009-2011 has to do with what happened between 2001-2009.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Except that the Federal government did not cut back their spending as a result of putting the money back in the pockets of the American people. Instead, they increased it (on a yearly basis) by more than 50% by 2008.
Click to expand...

I'm aware, and I disagree with it. Although it was primarily driven by defense spending and increases in mandatory entitlement spending; barring Part D.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
I'm aware, and I disagree with it. Although it was primarily driven by defense spending and increases in mandatory entitlement spending; barring Part D.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that tax cuts were premature given the gift of hindsight?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Pointing out whether or not someone is liberal (or not) ad hominem. Fallacies can only destroy ones credibility.
Click to expand...

So does claiming that someone who isn't paying any Federal Income taxes because of the Bush tax cuts isn't benefiting from those cuts. That is a fallacy liberals love to ignore.
 
Conservative said:
So does claiming that someone who isn't paying any Federal Income taxes because of the Bush tax cuts isn't benefiting from those cuts.
Click to expand...

How is that a logical fallacy?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Would you agree that tax cuts were premature given the gift of hindsight?
Click to expand...

Tough question. I don't think the total cost of the war could have possibly be estimated in 2003. Also, we were fresh out of a recession so tax cuts were a great way to give the private sector the boom it got throughout the 2000's. Personally, I am always a fan of tax cuts but obviously I would like to see spending cut along with it. Bush's spending policies were always viewed very negatively by my conservative family and I. My far-right grandfather called him a liberal at the time. In hindsight I don't think the timing was premature as I can see no other point throughout the 2000's where the economy would have benefited more from it. The costs of the long, drawn out war really hurt the deficit and I don't think anyone in America envisioned it being so long and costly at the time.

I can understand the argument that they were premature due to the uncertainty regarding future spending on the war. But at the time we had just seen monthly private sector job losses go from -100k to around flat and the resulting boost in GDP allowed revenues to remain resilient.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
This is all great news. As a conservative I am thrilled that the private sector is adding jobs and the public sector is shedding them. You and Goldenboy completely ignoring the labor participation rate is overly-optimistic on your parts. If you looked at the charts I posted the LPR is at historic lows and must be taken into consideration when looking at decreases in the unemployment rate.

Of course like I said, Obama has already capitalized on this news as a political talking point. Just now on TV, he mentioned it and then criticized Republicans for blocking the payroll tax cut extension. I can't remember any President in history that has blamed the opposition party as much as Obama, but I digress.
Click to expand...
Do you mind responding to this video?

 
Rhapsody1447 said:
I can understand the argument that they were premature due to the uncertainty regarding future spending on the war. But at the time we had just seen monthly private sector job losses go from -100k to around flat and the resulting boost in GDP allowed revenues to remain resilient.
Click to expand...

Not only were the tax cuts stimulative, so were the increases in actual spending by the federal government. For more information, see this article.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
How is that a logical fallacy?
Click to expand...

On, I don't know, one year you are paying income taxes and the next year you aren't with the only thing changing being the Bush tax cuts. How is that not logical to credit the Bush tax cuts and claim someone not paying taxes benefited from those cuts?
 
Conservative said:
On, I don't know, one year you are paying income taxes and the next year you aren't with the only thing changing being the Bush tax cuts. How is that not logical to credit the Bush tax cuts and claim someone not paying taxes benefited from those cuts?
Click to expand...

In a discussion about fiscal policy, calling someone a liberal is a logical fallacy. However, in a discussion about fiscal policy, saying that you do not believe some people benefited from the said policy is not a logical fallacy. It is simply an opinion.
 
Gill said:
The list of things he doesn't understand is too lengthy for this thread.
Click to expand...

Another stalker. At least you are not alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom