• 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 to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

imagep said:
I don't remember every saying that you "lie".

But you do cherry pick the data which "proves" your point. As long as those particular facts are true, I can't directly refute them, other than to post similar cherry picked data which would lead one to believe that your overall point is incorrect. Likewise, that's all you can do to my cherry picked data. I do frequently post facts, but it just felt pointless, and I'm tired of doing it.
Click to expand...

I have cherry picked nothing but instead offered official govt. data. What data have I cherrypicked? Tell me exactly what Obama has done that shows positive leadership for this country? What has he done that you agree with especially on the economic front?
 
imagep said:
I have no clue, except to assume that he is pandering to the crowd that is worried about income disparity. But in all fairness, not only did he propose more capital gains tax revenue on the rich, he also proposed tax cuts for the middle class - Fox News accidently forgot to include that in their headlines.

I suspect he is also looking for bargaining chips, to get whatever it is he really wants.
Click to expand...

It is truly bizarre. If the government gets more money it will just waste it as it always does. What we need is a way to cut down its revenue big time while eliminating its borrowing power.
 
Declan said:
Apparently the anti-obama people think they can balance the budget, expand the military, and pay off the debt without raising taxes. Good luck with that. You have two years before you lose a chamber again.
Click to expand...

What? there hasn't been an attempt to balance a budget in my lifetime. But it can be done by spending less. The military doesn't need expansion. it needs less to do. There hasn't been a reduction in debt in my lifetime either. Give them more money and they just waste it. I hope we get back to gridlock in the congress next election. I'd hate to say both houses of congress and the white house from the same party. I think gridlock is our only temporary salvation from the government train wreck.
 
fmw said:
It is truly bizarre. If the government gets more money it will just waste it as it always does. What we need is a way to cut down its revenue big time while eliminating its borrowing power.
Click to expand...

If there was a connection between revenue and spending, then I would tend to agree with you. But there's not such a connection, as is evidenced by the existence of our deficit and debt.



The meme "starve the beast" is the idea that if we cut taxation, we can force the government to spend less. Historically, it's never worked that way, we've just run a larger deficit. If we desire our government to spend less, then we should be meeting with our congress critters about spending less, not about running a larger deficit.
 
imagep said:
If there was a connection between revenue and spending, then I would tend to agree with you.. . . .
Click to expand...

The lower the spending, the less need for revenue.

There is your connection.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
The lower the spending, the less need for revenue.

There is your connection.
Click to expand...

OK, so using that logic, spending is the controling factor, not revenue. And that's the point I am making. Decreasing tax revenue, is STUPID unless you cut spending.

The spending cut needs to come first (assuming that we need to cut spending, or have a balanced budget at all).
 
imagep said:
OK, so using that logic, spending is the controling factor, not revenue. And that's the point I am making. Decreasing tax revenue, is STUPID unless you cut spending.

The spending cut needs to come first (assuming that we need to cut spending, or have a balanced budget at all).
Click to expand...

Not really, less revenues can lead to spending cuts. Thus we had sequestration which lowered spending a bit. In your business, you would probably cut spending if revenues went down enough and you did not forsee an uptick (not equating individual spending to government- just an example).
 
TerryOfromCA said:
Don't feed the beast

The more you feed a beast the bigger it grows
Click to expand...

It grows REGARDLESS of whether it is "fed".

You haven't noticed that we have a huge deficit?

Reducing tax revenue ONLY makes for a bigger deficit.
 
imagep said:
It grows REGARDLESS of whether it is "fed".

You haven't noticed that we have a huge deficit?

Reducing tax revenue ONLY makes for a bigger deficit.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't if you slash spending by the same or more than the shrunken revenue....
 
washunut said:
Not really, less revenues can lead to spending cuts. Thus we had sequestration which lowered spending a bit. In your business, you would probably cut spending if revenues went down enough and you did not forsee an uptick (not equating individual spending to government- just an example).
Click to expand...

Business doesn't operate like government.

Can you document when the last time lower revenues resulted in spending cuts? Was that after the Bush tax cuts, or the Reagan Tax cuts?
 
j-mac said:
You shouldn't if you slash spending by the same or more than the shrunken revenue....
Click to expand...

Most people believe that history is the best predictor of the future.

Now exactly when in history did lower tax revenue result in less government spending?
 
imagep said:
Business doesn't operate like government.

Can you document when the last time lower revenues resulted in spending cuts? Was that after the Bush tax cuts, or the Reagan Tax cuts?
Click to expand...

When was sequestration. I guess you would call that after the Bush tax cuts.
 
washunut said:
When was sequestration. I guess you would call that after the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Sequestration didn't reduce spending, it was nearly a decade after the Bush tax cuts, and it was it in any way tied to revenues - revenues INCREASED that year.
 
imagep said:
Most people believe that history is the best predictor of the future.

Now exactly when in history did lower tax revenue result in less government spending?
Click to expand...

Isn't that the problem?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
Click to expand...

Reagan's deficits created 17 million jobs that grew FIT 60 Plus %, doubled GDP, and created a peace dividend. Debt was 50% of GDP. Bush added 4.9 trillion to the debt, grew FIT 35%, increased GDP by 4.5 trillion dollars and had debt at 73% of GDP. Want to compare what Obama has done?
 
imagep said:
If there was a connection between revenue and spending, then I would tend to agree with you. But there's not such a connection, as is evidenced by the existence of our deficit and debt.



The meme "starve the beast" is the idea that if we cut taxation, we can force the government to spend less. Historically, it's never worked that way, we've just run a larger deficit. If we desire our government to spend less, then we should be meeting with our congress critters about spending less, not about running a larger deficit.
Click to expand...

You're right about that. Starving the beast would also require eliminating or curtailing its ability to borrow. In time I think the lenders will probably do that. Then rather that starving the beast it will likely kill it. I guess that won't happen until the beast has sucked up all the available wealth. Too bad we don't start working on it now.
 
Conservative said:
Reagan's deficits created 17 million jobs that grew FIT 60 Plus %, doubled GDP, and created a peace dividend. Debt was 50% of GDP. Bush added 4.9 trillion to the debt, grew FIT 35%, increased GDP by 4.5 trillion dollars and had debt at 73% of GDP. Want to compare what Obama has done?
Click to expand...


Want to start by giving correct and honest #s ?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Want to start by giving correct and honest #s ?
Click to expand...

My numbers come from BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the U.S. Treasury websites. they are verifiable and easy to find. Refute them and prove those OFFICIAL sites wrong
 
Conservative said:
My numbers come from BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the U.S. Treasury websites. they are verifiable and easy to find. Refute them and prove those OFFICIAL sites wrong
Click to expand...

Debt was 84.51% of GDP at the end of Bush's FY run.
Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product - FRED - St. Louis Fed


GDP grew 75.5% under Reagan's FY
Gross Domestic Product - FRED - St. Louis Fed


federal revenues under reagan grew 60%, this includes more than income taxes


oh, and by the way
reagan's "peace dividend" created OBL,
and per your own words, government spending (and especially deficit spending, "creates jobs")



now on to the comparison

relative increase in debt/GDP
Reagan: 63.5%
GWB: 52.2%
Obama: 19.8% to date



Who is your fiscal conservative villain again?
 
j-mac said:
Isn't that the problem?
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I am saying that reducing tax revenue isn't a good idea, unless we first cut spending.

We have to depend on the same people in congress to do something, regardless of whether it is reducing tax revenue, or cutting spending. It's not like there is one group of people who are in charge of cutting taxes, and a different group that are in charge of spending.
 
Conservative said:
Reagan's deficits created 17 million jobs that grew FIT 60 Plus %, doubled GDP,
Click to expand...

Glad to see that you have now come to realize that deficit spending is stimulative to the economy. I didn't know you were such a Keynesian.

Anyhow, more jobs per year were created under Carter than Reagan.


Bush added 4.9 trillion to the debt, grew FIT 35%, increased GDP by 4.5 trillion dollars and had debt at 73% of GDP.
Click to expand...

That's pretty pathetic isn't it? Even Carter had better economic performance.

Want to compare what Obama has done?
Click to expand...

sure: Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing - Forbes

Heck, there have been more jobs created under Obama in the last two years, than during the ENTIRE Bush administration(s) (all three Bush terms combined).
 
Last edited:
SlevinKelevra said:
Debt was 84.51% of GDP at the end of Bush's FY run.
Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product - FRED - St. Louis Fed


GDP grew 75.5% under Reagan's FY
Gross Domestic Product - FRED - St. Louis Fed


federal revenues under reagan grew 60%, this includes more than income taxes


oh, and by the way
reagan's "peace dividend" created OBL,
and per your own words, government spending (and especially deficit spending, "creates jobs")



now on to the comparison

relative increase in debt/GDP
Reagan: 63.5%
GWB: 52.2%
Obama: 19.8% to date



Who is your fiscal conservative villain again?
Click to expand...


Interesting since BEA disagrees

I don't use inflation adjust numbers because it was debt and GDP at the time not in 2005 numbers and debt service isn't inflation adjusted numbers

Reagan took office with employment at 99 million and left it at 116 million

Reagan took office with GDP at 2.8 trillion and left it at 5.6 trillion

Reagan took office with FIT being at 250 billion at the end of 1980 and 450 billion after he left office in 1989

Seems research isn't a strength of yours as you don't really understand the numbers you post

That Peace Dividend allowed Clinton to create Bin Laden or did you forget the December 1998 PDB?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom