• 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!

Federal government will be unable to pay all bills sooner than expected, due to new tax law

MSgt said:
That is not the history. That is the general idea of it.

Without Perot it is understood, as the numbers show, that Bush would have lost. Clinton, himself, was shocked when he beat Bush, because Bush was a WWII Veteran, a Reaganite, the Cold War ended, and had just came off of an 80% approval rating because of the Gulf War victory. But it came down to economy. Since Clinton couldn't touch Bush on foreign affair issues, he decided that he would make the presidency about "the economy, stupid."
With the recession, Bush went back on his promise about "no new taxes" and drove Reagan Democrats towards Clinton. The numbers that went towards Perot were insignificant and mostly were only some working class people who were unnecessarily worried about what NAFTA meant for their own jobs. Buchanan (R) used Bush's broken promise about "no new taxes" in the Primaries; and Clinton used it in the General. Without Perot, the numbers show the voters on Clinton's side. It was the Recession that pushed Clinton ahead.

There's your little bit of history.
Click to expand...

Clinton only got 43% of the votes. Without Perot splitting the Rep. vote, there is NO way he could have won.
 
Exactice said:
Again I cannot disagree with you. I will say this though.


These are projected anticipations right? Not Factual events. So only "time" will truly tell.


The second part with your example sure holds truth. 38% was the Corporate Tax, and been a while. After all is said and done sure the adjusted corporate tax "could" be about 18.5%. ( I dont really know) But I can say when I do my taxes (and or see my taxes) it all applies similar in fashion through deductions etc.


NOW 2 things happen. There is MORE money in my pocket then the Generic rate? lets say $100,000 normal tax rate is 25% (im just making stuff up bear with me) so $75,000 net, $25,000 in taxes... BUT we play the deduction games the effective taxable income is NOT $100,000 its now only lets say $75,000 so 25% of that ($18,975) in taxes compared to $25,000 so your 19% effective tax rate....The $6,025 savings from taxes goes where, Hoarded? now lets times those numbers by 100.... $602,500 tax sheltered for a BIG Business. Where is that money actually going? To an IRA, Money Market Account? Shares, New Boat, House for an executive or Over seas to a Swiss bank account? So now we change the rate from 38% to 21% and this number JUMPS substantially. Big Business now have 17% more money to play with you are saying they are going to hoard it? Not spend a dime? Nothing because that what they were doing before?

If they have figured out their base numbers.... they may put some of it away... but probably still use it to enhance their business or better yet PAY off their Debts? the makes the company itself stronger and more stable ensuring jobs for the everyday worker?


Again I am assuming as well. but until I see what actually happens.... because in all honestly I see BIG businesses responding. it may not be perfect but never heard out load in the last 10 years where companies openly boast about giving $1000 bonuses to employees?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Think about that. Why now? Why not when they were sitting on and growing almost $2 trillion over the last 10 years? Tax-cuts didn't encourage this one time present. This one time present encourages more tax-cuts. It's political and it encourages tax-cuts, despite the Great Recession proving that Trickle Down is a bust. I mean, while we concern ourselves with government social programs that "redistribute" the money, corporations receive tax-payer dollars through mass deductions, subsidies, bailouts, and tax-cuts. Still...the factories reside in China. It's a scam.
 
faithful_servant said:
Clinton only got 43% of the votes. Without Perot splitting the Rep. vote, there is NO way he could have won.
Click to expand...

Part of the votes Perot received were from Reagan Democrats (former Democrats who turned NeoCon). Most of the Reagan Democrats had already flipped back. This was because Clinton's campaign sought to win over the NeoCons by hitting on specific themes. He criticized Bush (and Cheney) for allowing Hussein to stay in power, leaving the Shi'a and the Kurds to a murderous fate. He criticized Bush for coddling China after Tiananmen Square. He criticized Bush for standing aside as genocide raged in the Balkans. He criticized Bush for not doing enough to support democracy in Russia. And with the NeoCon's message being about more engagement in the world, freedom, and democracy, these things resonated. Bush was painted as an American President that cared more about stability than Democracy.

In the meantime, Bush was advised that talking about foreign affairs would alienate people who only cared about the recession (polls are clear). Therefore, he strayed away from his strong suit, allowed Clinton to get away with the criticisms, and lost the NeoCons. In the mean time, the GOP's only real criticism towards Clinton hinged on him not serving in Vietnam. Conservative Democrats did flip. And many did vote for Perot. But without Perot....there was Bill Clinton, where the rest of the Reagan Democrats had gone. Of course, towards the end of the 1990s, NeoCons flipped once again towards Republicans and we would see them again in 2003 under a different Bush with the same old Cheney who now voiced for democracy in the Middle East.

Perot was a distraction. The common narrative is that "Bush would have won if I had not voted for Perot." But Perot is not why Bush had already lost so much of his support. Those Reagan Democrats who did go to Perot, because of "no new taxes" and foreign policy disagreements, would have followed the rest of their own over to Clinton's camp.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Part of the votes Perot received were from Reagan Democrats (former Democrats who turned NeoCon). Most of the Reagan Democrats had already flipped back. This was because Clinton's campaign sought to win over the NeoCons by hitting on specific themes. He criticized Bush (and Cheney) for allowing Hussein to stay in power, leaving the Shi'a and the Kurds to a murderous fate. He criticized Bush for coddling China after Tiananmen Square. He criticized Bush for standing aside as genocide raged in the Balkans. He criticized Bush for not doing enough to support democracy in Russia. And with the NeoCon's message being about more engagement in the world, freedom, and democracy, these things resonated. Bush was painted as an American President that cared more about stability than Democracy.

In the meantime, Bush was advised that talking about foreign affairs would alienate people who only cared about the recession (polls are clear). Therefore, he strayed away from his strong suit, allowed Clinton to get away with the criticisms, and lost the NeoCons. In the mean time, the GOP's only real criticism towards Clinton hinged on him not serving in Vietnam. Conservative Democrats did flip. And many did vote for Perot. But without Perot....there was Bill Clinton, where the rest of the Reagan Democrats had gone. Of course, towards the end of the 1990s, NeoCons flipped once again towards Republicans and we would see them again in 2003 under a different Bush with the same old Cheney who now voiced for democracy in the Middle East.

Perot was a distraction. The common narrative is that "Bush would have won if I had not voted for Perot." But Perot is not why Bush had already lost so much of his support. Those Reagan Democrats who did go to Perot, because of "no new taxes" and foreign policy disagreements, would have followed the rest of their own over to Clinton's camp.
Click to expand...

There's no way the Reagan Dems. could have made up the difference.
 
MSgt said:
Exactly. Think about that. Why now? Why not when they were sitting on and growing almost $2 trillion over the last 10 years? Tax-cuts didn't encourage this one time present. This one time present encourages more tax-cuts. It's political and it encourages tax-cuts, despite the Great Recession proving that Trickle Down is a bust. I mean, while we concern ourselves with government social programs that "redistribute" the money, corporations receive tax-payer dollars through mass deductions, subsidies, bailouts, and tax-cuts. Still...the factories reside in China. It's a scam.
Click to expand...

True, I am "reading" into it. Again though most of the assumptions and thats what they are will be found out in truly in about 2 years.


I know as a business and have been 1099 for the last 6years, prior W2, its been an interesting ride. NO wage increase. Hiring has been low, hardly any bonuses, Deteriorating infrastructure. There is JUST no money.

Inflation is surely part of it and health care cost is the other. The issue for the trickle down does not have to be substantial wages or bonuses. We should be happy we have JOBS to begin with? With automation and YES, business moving to cheap labor..... I mean we have states that WANT Minimum $15 an hour. That is ridiculous. NO business can survive that. The benefits already currently match the Salary...... the bottom line is cost across the board.


We first as a nation should learn to live within our means (opinion of course, that will never happen) Expectations and cost will decrease. Markets will then get scares or ultra competitive. And the reset button will get hit. Bail outs and subsidies are killing us I agree... put is that NOT "part" of Social services as well?

Probably the next biggest detriment? Multiple Natural Disaster recently.... 3 major Hurricanes, Wild Fires....Lets face it most middle class, have rainy day funds/ mattress/ freezer money..... But the US Government doenst. Its either print more money, raise taxes or raise debt ceiling....


So Corporations with inherent deductions, is a loophole, Subsidies is what we allow, THIS needs to be reviewed, SAME with Bail outs.... Company saving is one, but Golden Parachutes can kiss my......
 
faithful_servant said:
There's no way the Reagan Dems. could have made up the difference.
Click to expand...

It's a historical debate in which most social and political historians err on the side that Perot's Reagan Dems would have followed the rest of the Reagan Dems to Clinton.

And those who were not Reagan Dems were mostly just simple blue collar workers who were dismayed over the recession, Bush's new taxes, and his support for NAFTA (for which Clinton downplayed). There is an alternate history myth, which argues that Bush would have won were it not for Perot. But this is really only an academic theory that is used to discourage third party votes from our Two-Party system. This theory avoids the context of the times and the extreme likelihood of where Perot's voters would have gone.

As you can see with how NeoCons remained true to themselves from Carter, to Reagan, to Bush, to Clinton, and then to Bush, America was far less tribal then than it is right now. It wasn't just about the team back then. Blue collar loved Reagan because of his blue-jean image and positive rhetoric, not because he sported a red jersey. But as Bruce Springsteen was wise enough to point out, Reagan was more about those corporate interests, not that factory worker or farmer. It was because of Reaganomics that Bush had to raise taxes on the little guy. We are at the beginning of Trumpanomics <---coined! Somebody is going to have to pay and it won't be those whose tax-cuts don't expire. Anyway...

I appreciate the NeoCon theory of democracy. They were just too shallow and short-sighted in their theory. This is why they screwed up Iraq and couldn't make the proper arguments for the region.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
It's a historical debate in which most social and political historians err on the side that Perot's Reagan Dems would have followed the rest of the Reagan Dems to Clinton.

And those who were not Reagan Dems were mostly just simple blue collar workers who were dismayed over the recession, Bush's new taxes, and his support for NAFTA (for which Clinton downplayed). There is an alternate history myth, which argues that Bush would have won were it not for Perot. But this is really only an academic theory that is used to discourage third party votes from our Two-Party system. This theory avoids the context of the times and the extreme likelihood of where Perot's voters would have gone.

As you can see with how NeoCons remained true to themselves from Carter, to Reagan, to Bush, to Clinton, and then to Bush, America was far less tribal then than it is right now. It wasn't just about the team back then. Blue collar loved Reagan because of his blue-jean image and positive rhetoric, not because he sported a red jersey. But as Bruce Springsteen was wise enough to point out, Reagan was more about those corporate interests, not that factory worker or farmer Anyway...

I appreciate the NeoCon theory of democracy. They were just too shallow and short-sighted in their theory. This is why they screwed up Iraq and couldn't make the proper arguments for the region.
Click to expand...


WOULD love to have an honorable discussion with you on this LOL... just dont want to derail this thread........


WTF were we thinking....... Im prayed and was lucky I brought my team home safe to their families......
 
Rogue Valley said:
There was no overarching reason to cut taxes/revenue at this time. Unemployment is low. The economy is humming along nicely, not too robust or too sluggish.

There were two underlying objectives of the 2017 Trump/GOP tax creature...

1) The GOP gets to play Santa and give everyone a present. Especially their wealthy donors and corporations.

2) The GOP then uses point one (and its $1.5 trillion deficit/loss of federal revenues) to justify decimating the social safety-net programs ... Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

#2 has been a ########### of Republicans for many, many decades. The upshot?

The GOP gets to play both Santa and Scrooge during Trumps term ... thrilling GOP donors and mollifying ::ahem:: "fiscal conservative loyalists".
Click to expand...

The economy wasn't 'humming along'. It was limping, shackled by a decade of anti-business democrat policy, kept afloat by artificially low interest rates and record borrowing.
 
If the government can't pay its bills it will be because the Democrats shut down the government again because they care more about illegal aliens then the American people.
 
Indian Giver said:
If the government can't pay its bills it will be because the Democrats shut down the government again because they care more about illegal aliens then the American people.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you look at your TV guide, you might see that there are many, many channels that don't say Fox News. Form a thought of your own. Regurgitating the shallow nonsense of Washington D.C. is why the shallow nonsense of Washington D.C. persists.
 
Exactice said:
WOULD love to have an honorable discussion with you on this LOL... just dont want to derail this thread........


WTF were we thinking....... Im prayed and was lucky I brought my team home safe to their families......
Click to expand...

Any time. A lot of threads wind up derailed, but mostly because discussion is natural and the thread topic has run its course.

History does show that the NeoCon argument is sound However, it was shallow, orientalist in nature, and lacked perspective. And it certainly did not help that we had one of our history's worse SECDEFs (Rumsfeld) at the time. So when ready-made Democracy did not spring forward, those who blindly supported Bush (and loved my posts) grew bitter while those who blindly criticized Bush (and hated my posts) thought they were right. Both learned the wrong lesson because they denied their own American -and European- history, were (are) ignorant of Islamic and modern Middle East history, and were (are) led to misunderstand what was (is) happening in the MENA.

Anyway...another place.
 
Haven't we been hearing the same thing about Illinois for a long time? Somehow they get by...
 
jmotivator said:
It absolutely serves a purpose. It forces that we force a vote when budget and revenue continue to be out of whack for years at a time.

I mean, sure, if Congress would pass budgets that were less than revenue then they'd never have to vote on a debt ceiling again.
Click to expand...

It's redundant. The debt ceiling increase is required in order to keep functioning with spending already authorized by Congress. Voting on it again is just an opportunity for the minority party to play brinksmanship games to earn favors which only serves to hurt the nation.
 
Deuce said:
It's redundant. The debt ceiling increase is required in order to keep functioning with spending already authorized by Congress. Voting on it again is just an opportunity for the minority party to play brinksmanship games to earn favors which only serves to hurt the nation.
Click to expand...

Again, no, the debt ceiling operates as a buffer when revenue and budget dramatically diverge, and forces a reconsideration of priorities in the short and long term based on the reasons tat revenue is falling short of projection like, say, a recession or depression that is not assumed in a budget.
 
jmotivator said:
Again, no, the debt ceiling operates as a buffer when revenue and budget dramatically diverge, and forces a reconsideration of priorities in the short and long term based on the reasons tat revenue is falling short of projection like, say, a recession or depression that is not assumed in a budget.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It has never once served that purpose.
 
They can always borrow more. The printing machine is still there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom