• 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!

Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy from expiring

I have been saying the same for ages. None of the fans of progressive taxes has ever attempted to deal with this point.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft708.pdf

The hypothesis that decreases in taxes reduce future government spending is often cited as a reason for cutting taxes. However, because taxes change for many reasons, examinations of the relationship between overall measures of taxation and subsequent spending are plagued by problems of reverse causation and omitted variable bias. To derive more reliable estimates, this paper examines the behavior of government expenditures following legislated tax changes that narrative sources suggest are largely uncorrelated with other factors affecting spending. The results provide no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, the point estimates suggest that tax cuts may increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases. Examination of four episodes of major tax cuts reinforces these conclusions.
 
There is a cost of citizenship..... it isn't all yours....
There is a difference between paying taxes to provide for the things that the government is supposed to do and then paying taxes because certain people think that certain other people are entitled to the money that I earned.

My post referred to the latter, not the former. But then, you know that. And, as such, my statement stands.

Why do you believe that other peope are entitled to the money that I earned?
 
Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear getting crushed in November’s election.

It could mean a big reprieve for families earning $250,000 and above annually.

President George W. Bush’s tax cuts will expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts to delay their sunset.

Some Democrats are now arguing forcefully that a delay is a win-win plan that would help the federal budget without hurting the economy.

Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy from expiring - TheHill.com

That ought to set some hair on fire. They admit tax cuts help the economy at least.

I kinda admit that we need to lower all taxes across the board rather than just for those earning 250k and above, but that's just me.... At the same time, figure where we can cut frivolous spending just essentially clean out the dusts in the vents.....
 
you do understand the danger of a system where those who want more govenrment spending suffer no consequences or costs for voting for big spenders>? or at least no consequences until the whole shooting match collapses

It can go the other way, too. People listen to those who pay the bills. When "the rich," including corporations, foot the entire bill for the government, who do you think the government is going to tend to? Listen, then, to all the righteous wailing about "corporacracy."
 
Bush's tax cuts are a huge reason why the deficit exploded during his tenure, The government needs these valuable tax revenues to operate efficiently
 
Bush's tax cuts are a huge reason why the deficit exploded during his tenure, The government needs these valuable tax revenues to operate efficiently

True. I think the Issue is always. If you're gonna start raising taxes of any kind. You better be cutting spending too and making things more efficient and so on and so forth...

Means nothin if you raise taxes, while increasing spending.
 
Bush's tax cuts are a huge reason why the deficit exploded during his tenure, The government needs these valuable tax revenues to operate efficiently

Let's not forget two wars and 9/11, for heaven's sake. And this fact puts the two administrations in a slightly different light:

National debt when Bush took office: $5.66 Trillion; National debt when he left 8 years later: $10.69 Trillion = Increase of 5.03 Trillion.
National debt when Obama took office: $10.69 Trillion; National debt 20 months later: $13.31 Trillion = Increase of $2.61 Trillion.
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

So in 20 months President Obama has spent more than 50% as much as Bush spent in 48. That doesn't make me too comfortable. How 'bout you? Remember that interest on the national debt (certainly a part of the whole picture) has fallen dramatically during that time.

The CBO projects Obama's 2010 budget will add $9.7 trillion MORE to the national debt over the next ten years. And that's if all other spending remains constant. Fat chance. National debt to be higher than White House forecast, CBO says - washingtonpost.com
 
Bush's tax cuts are a huge reason why the deficit exploded during his tenure, The government needs these valuable tax revenues to operate efficiently
This is rich.
Tell us -- what's The Obama's excuse?
And then tell me what the debt would be w/o said tax cuts.
 
True. I think the Issue is always. If you're gonna start raising taxes of any kind. You better be cutting spending too and making things more efficient and so on and so forth...

Means nothin if you raise taxes, while increasing spending.

Sure, blame Bush's tax cuts, but right now at this recession, we need more tax cuts. When the economy rebound, then we can consider taxing and at the same time, cut government spending. Otherwise, you can't bleed a turnip.
 
Bush's tax cuts are a huge reason why the deficit exploded during his tenure, The government needs these valuable tax revenues to operate efficiently

nonsense. tax revenues increased.

oh my bad-you are being sarcastic. I should have seen that in "operate efficiently"
 
Back
Top Bottom