• 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

MaggieD said:
I want to state this in words so I'm sure I understand it. 48% of our current deficit is the responsibility of tax cuts....? Is that how this pie is interpretted? I see it's the CBO so . . .

I'd better be very careful here. I may just learn something.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts have really not helped as much as they are touted to have.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
9-27-06tax-f1.jpg
Click to expand...

wrong again-its spending that causes the deficits

you again fail since you assume that all government spending is necessary

that is a biased graph since again it assumes all that spending is needed. I deny that
 
TurtleDude said:
they helped those who got them

I voted for Bush because he promised tax cuts. He did what his supporters wanted. I voted against clinton because he raised taxes on those who already pay too much
Click to expand...

Which created a budget surplus they could have started to use to pay debt. The economy was booming.
 
disneydude said:
Take a look at the economic indicators. They are almost all moving in the right direction...albeit slowly. Stopping the decline and making small gains...I would call that progress....you don't?
Click to expand...

What proof it wouldn't have stopped anyway. When real job gains happen let me know.

Obama claims he created jobs i say that is bull.

Massive New Study Confirms Stimulus Spending On Road Construction Does Nothing To Lower Unemployment

Here's the full write-up of the study from the AP:

Ten months into President Barack Obama's first economic stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an Associated Press analysis has found.

Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn't matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama's argument that more road money would address an "urgent need to accelerate job growth."

Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress that relies in part on more road and bridge spending, projects the president said are "at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth."

Construction spending would be a key part of the Jobs for Main Street Act, a $75 billion second stimulus to revive the nation's lethargic unemployment rate and improve the dismal job market for construction workers. The House approved the bill 217-212 last month after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., worked the floor for an hour; the Senate is expected to consider it later in January.

AP's analysis, which was reviewed by independent economists at five universities, showed that strategy hasn't affected unemployment rates so far. And there's concern it won't work the second time. For its analysis, the AP examined the effects of road and bridge spending in communities on local unemployment; it did not try to measure results of the broader aid that also was in the first stimulus like tax cuts, unemployment benefits or money for states.

"My bottom line is, I'd be skeptical about putting too much more money into a second stimulus until we've seen broader effects from the first stimulus," said Aaron Jackson, a Bentley University economist who reviewed AP's analysis.
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong again-its spending that causes the deficits

you again fail since you assume that all government spending is necessary

that is a biased graph since again it assumes all that spending is needed. I deny that
Click to expand...

Well clearly since bush didn't cut spending the tax cuts increased the deficit/debt.. pretty clear that is how things went.

EDIT: Look the data is from CBO.. I didn't make it up.

EDIT: Obviously the tax cuts did not pay for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
Which created a budget surplus they could have started to use to pay debt. The economy was booming.
Click to expand...

I don't have much use of sacrificing individual rights and property for supposed benefits to the greater good. There is no evidence that the clinton tax hikes caused the boom. Its more reasonable to attribute that to the belt tightening under Bush I and the dot com bubble

does the right of the rich to keep their own property always melt to the "needs" of a greedy government?
 
Gabriel said:
Well clearly since bush didn't cut spending the tax cuts increased the deficit/debt.. pretty clear that is how things went.

EDIT: Look the data is from CBO.. I didn't make it up.

EDIT: Obviously the tax cuts did not pay for themselves.
Click to expand...

so tax revenues went down? or they would have stayed as high (as under Clinton) if there had been no tax cuts?

I know you cannot establish the second proposition.
 
TurtleDude said:
If you are so educated how come you need government handouts and I do not? doctor-heal thyself and I have yet to see a credible argument that the government taking more money and engaging in more idiotic spending designed to create more dem voters helps expand the middle class.
Click to expand...

You assume a lot of things that you simply don't know. Typical of your type. I am not, nor have I ever been on government assistance. However, I also do not buy into the more more more corporate greed/ mine mine mineselfish attitude that also comprise much of your type.
 
CBBP-fig1-portions_of_deficit.jpg
 
TurtleDude said:
tax cuts cost nothing-only government spending costs money. The rich pay too much already and those who clamor for more spending don't pay enough to get the message that we are going broke

does saving cost me money? of course not. does my saving cost you money? most likely--and that is why you are upset with tax cuts and I am not
Click to expand...

Taxes are the cost of the benefit of living in this great country. Why do you guys always expect people to be able to profit from the community without having to pay back?
 
ptif219 said:
What proof it wouldn't have stopped anyway. When real job gains happen let me know.

Obama claims he created jobs i say that is bull.

Massive New Study Confirms Stimulus Spending On Road Construction Does Nothing To Lower Unemployment

Here's the full write-up of the study from the AP:

Ten months into President Barack Obama's first economic stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an Associated Press analysis has found.

Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn't matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama's argument that more road money would address an "urgent need to accelerate job growth."

Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress that relies in part on more road and bridge spending, projects the president said are "at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth."

Construction spending would be a key part of the Jobs for Main Street Act, a $75 billion second stimulus to revive the nation's lethargic unemployment rate and improve the dismal job market for construction workers. The House approved the bill 217-212 last month after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., worked the floor for an hour; the Senate is expected to consider it later in January.

AP's analysis, which was reviewed by independent economists at five universities, showed that strategy hasn't affected unemployment rates so far. And there's concern it won't work the second time. For its analysis, the AP examined the effects of road and bridge spending in communities on local unemployment; it did not try to measure results of the broader aid that also was in the first stimulus like tax cuts, unemployment benefits or money for states.

"My bottom line is, I'd be skeptical about putting too much more money into a second stimulus until we've seen broader effects from the first stimulus," said Aaron Jackson, a Bentley University economist who reviewed AP's analysis.
Click to expand...

You guys are too funny....you sound like the old Stinger that used to be around here.

If the ecoomy had declined under Obama it would be Obama's fault.
Now that it is improving....oh its just the result of natural cycle.

Can you be any less predictable?
 
disneydude said:
And when exactly was this?
Click to expand...

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1]) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

* It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.
* It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
* The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
* Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
* The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
* The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
* Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments
 
disneydude said:
You guys are too funny....you sound like the old Stinger that used to be around here.

If the ecoomy had declined under Obama it would be Obama's fault.
Now that it is improving....oh its just the result of natural cycle.

Can you be any less predictable?
Click to expand...

I show it is doing nothing and refuse to address that
 
ptif219 said:
I show it is doing nothing and refuse to address that
Click to expand...

You posted a weak analysis that argues it didn't affect unemployment figures, which we know is not true. Unemployment is down, not by much but it is down.
What you don't address, however, is that ever other economic indicator shows the economy is responding.

But that's just "natural cycle".....right? LOL.....
 
Dav said:
Keeping the tax burden what it is is not lightening the tax burden; this is a failure of distinction I see way too often. And anyways, if the government are supposed to be "serving the aristocracy", they sure are doing a crappy job of it, considering the hugely disproportional share of the tax burden the wealthy* already have.

*not that $250,000 a year would necessarily make one "wealthy" by any means.
Click to expand...

The tax code suggests otherwise. Not to mention the patent laws. And how elections are funded.
 
disneydude said:
You assume a lot of things that you simply don't know. Typical of your type. I am not, nor have I ever been on government assistance. However, I also do not buy into the more more more corporate greed/ mine mine mineselfish attitude that also comprise much of your type.
Click to expand...

and you assume that I support corporate "Greed" by opposing a system where rich dem elites become richer by pandering to the parasite mentality and envy by jacking up taxes on people who already pay more than they should

want to talk about greed? greed is demanding others pay for your share of the load. That is far worse than opposing higher and higher taxes when you already pay too much

and yes, the top 1% pay way too much because they make 22% of the income yet pay 40% of the federal income taxes.
 
disneydude said:
Taxes are the cost of the benefit of living in this great country. Why do you guys always expect people to be able to profit from the community without having to pay back?
Click to expand...

why do you lie? No one has said people should not pay taxes (other than the dems who think that their voting block shouldn't pay taxes but the rich should pay more?) Its not the rich who don't pay back.
 
ptif219 said:
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1]) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

* It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.
* It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
* The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
* Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
* The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
* The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
* Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments
Click to expand...

Its amazing how ignorant some are about the Clinton era tax cuts and the fact that the magic Kenyan promised to restore the clinton tax hikes. Libs hate calling them tax hikes but the fact is-for more than half this country's history, any income tax was anathema and NORMALCY is no income taxes and certainly nothing like a 40% tax which (with all the other taxes) means the most productive citizens are keeping less than half of each additional dollar they make
 
disneydude said:
Taxes are the cost of the benefit of living in this great country. Why do you guys always expect people to be able to profit from the community without having to pay back?
Click to expand...

What was your tax liability for 2009? Or, did you qualify for the earned income credit?
 
MaggieD said:
I want to state this in words so I'm sure I understand it. 48% of our current deficit is the responsibility of tax cuts....? Is that how this pie is interpretted? I see it's the CBO so . . .

I'd better be very careful here. I may just learn something.
Click to expand...
How can 48% of our deficit be tied to tax cuts? That has no face validity. That pie graph that's been posted is sourced as coming from the CBO - it actually comes from CBPP which is anything BUT nonpartisan.
 
disneydude said:
Why would we stop blaming Bush for the things he is responsible for? Bush is the author and creator of the economy that we are beginning to pull out of. If we can't pull out of it in the next couple of years, then Obama deserves some blame as well....it doesn't mean that Bush is absolved.

BTW....this is DP, not twitter....its very easy to use the quote feature if you want to respond...you don't need the "@"....just a helpful hint.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, virtually everyone knows - especially voters - that this is utter BS.

Obama has tripled the spending of Bush in a year and a half, and there appears to be no end in sight. Time to cut his nuts off in November, watch him flutter in the wind for two years, and then oust the disaster in 2012.

Of course, the Republicans will probably be challenging Hillary by then because even Democrats are recognizing the joke they just elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom