• 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!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

Conservative said:
Keep up this game, we agree to disagree. I will never accept that people keeping more of their money doesn't stimulate spending and thus demand for goods and services thus jobs. Nor will I ever accept that the Federal govt. will be responsible with getting more revenue and not spend it. Individuals keeping more of what they earn puts the power where it belongs with the American consumer, not the govt. bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

It's not a game. It's about your claim that tax cuts create jobs. When cornered, you change your claim and then try to sneak in back in later.
 
Taxes are not the be all and end all.

If they were, Canada would be in the sink hole right now. And while things aren't exactly dandy up here, they're far better off then you guys, and our taxes are higher.

There are a billion factors, taxes is a relatively small one.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Taxes are not the be all and end all.

If they were, Canada would be in the sink hole right now. And while things aren't exactly dandy up here, they're far better off then you guys, and our taxes are higher.

There are a billion factors, taxes is a relatively small one.
Click to expand...

Exactly. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not a game. It's about your claim that tax cuts create jobs. When cornered, you change your claim and then try to sneak in back in later.
Click to expand...

Yep, a game to you is people keeping more of what they earn and spending it as they see fit. I like that game.
 
Tax cuts create demand. Demand creates jobs. Right?

Let's look at tax rates and unemployment rates in the US and Europe? They, for one, say so. Canada, the exception (and who really knows what the hell those people do anyway :) ), does not make the rule.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Tax cuts create demand. Demand creates jobs. Right?

Let's look at tax rates and unemployment rates in the US and Europe? They, for one, say so. Canada, the exception (and who really knows what the hell those crazy people do anyway), does not make the rule.
Click to expand...

Ask a liberal who they think has the role of creating jobs, the govt. or the private sector? Who pays for the public sector jobs?
 
Conservative said:
You just destroyed my entire weekend telling me that I lost this debate, wow, the disappointment that you were the one judging the debate and claimed I lost. What am I to do! Wonder how a true debate instructor would judge this debate. There is quite a difference claiming that the GOP defeated Prop 8 rather than individual supporters of the GOP along with other political party supporters voted for Prop 8. Regardless, the people spoke and you didn't like the outcome thus you went to the courts to overturn the will of the majority. That is what liberals do.

Yes, Bush signed the 2008 bailout, I was against it, but "your" President supported it. Bush and Obama on the same side of the issue yet it was Obama that lied about the inherited deficits. Deficits aren't inherited they are yearly and thus created. What did Obama do with the payback of the TARP money?
Click to expand...

You're really flailing in this debate. I'm honestly starting to feel embarrassed for you. You argue numbers much better than you do political science. I'll do you favor and switch the debate back to numbers because I'm feeling a little bad for you right now. So here is an article I was reading in the Washington Post about the tax cuts, I'd like to hear your biased opinion on it.

"“Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time. Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.
 
You think it is the role of the govt. or the private sector to create jobs? Who pays for the public sector jobs?
Click to expand...

I'm way-right economically. See my intro thread "Ecofarm" (it's closed). I'm a "national defense force only" kinda guy, economically.

I believe tax cuts not only create jobs but also growth and eventually revenue. Further, they create innovation and helping a society to avoid technological and cultural stagnation.

Tax cuts are so good, we should have them all the time and if the government runs out of money it can stop providing services (the private sector will take care at appropriate levels, no worries).
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You just destroyed my entire weekend telling me that I lost this debate, wow, the disappointment that you were the one judging the debate and claimed I lost. What am I to do! Wonder how a true debate instructor would judge this debate. There is quite a difference claiming that the GOP defeated Prop 8 rather than individual supporters of the GOP along with other political party supporters voted for Prop 8. Regardless, the people spoke and you didn't like the outcome thus you went to the courts to overturn the will of the majority. That is what liberals do.

Yes, Bush signed the 2008 bailout, I was against it, but "your" President supported it. Bush and Obama on the same side of the issue yet it was Obama that lied about the inherited deficits. Deficits aren't inherited they are yearly and thus created. What did Obama do with the payback of the TARP money?
Click to expand...

Johnny DooWop said:
You're really flailing in this debate. I'm honestly starting to feel embarrassed for you. You argue numbers much better than you do political science. I'll do you favor and switch the debate back to numbers because I'm feeling a little bad for you right now. So here is an article I was reading in the Washington Post about the tax cuts, I'd like to hear your biased opinion on it.

"“Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time. Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.
Click to expand...

i think you both need a cookie and a time out.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
You're really flailing in this debate. I'm honestly starting to feel embarrassed for you. You argue numbers much better than you do political science. I'll do you favor and switch the debate back to numbers because I'm feeling a little bad for you right now. So here is an article I was reading in the Washington Post about the tax cuts, I'd like to hear your biased opinion on it.

"“Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time. Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your concern, I really appreciate it but please get some facts and explain to me how your income is an expense to the Federal Govt. Further please explain to me how total debt grew with surpluses? Interesting logic on the part of those who don't seem to have a grasp on what makes up the debt. Obviously you ignored the information I posted on public debt and intergovt. holdings. You continue to ignore anything that refutes your opinions or what you want to believe.

Obama has increased the debt 3 trillion in two years, where is your outrage?
 
Johnny DooWop said:
You're really flailing in this debate. I'm honestly starting to feel embarrassed for you. You argue numbers much better than you do political science. I'll do you favor and switch the debate back to numbers because I'm feeling a little bad for you right now. So here is an article I was reading in the Washington Post about the tax cuts, I'd like to hear your biased opinion on it.

"“Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time. Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.
Click to expand...

No. you're the one flailing.

Yes, in a country where the government provides everything for its citizens, a la communism, raising taxes is necessary. In your world, unemployment is irrelevant because who needs to work anyway.

But in a country where you want citizens to work and succeed, you need government to get out of its way. You cut taxes and take pressure off of industry, which in turn can hire people, who can spend money, which will raise revenue for the very same industries.

That means more workers to tax and more revenue to tax. So tax cuts actually lead to much, much, much higher tax revenue collected.

Again, would you rather have 35 percent of $100 bucks, or 20 percent of $1,000. That is really the argument.
 
Erod said:
So tax cuts actually lead to much, much, much higher tax revenue collected.

Again, would you rather have 35 percent of $100 bucks, or 20 percent of $1,000. That is really the argument.
Click to expand...

Who ever said I support higher taxes genius? Do you think anyone actually wants higher taxes? LOL. All I'm saying is that cutting taxes is great, but you have to cut spending and be in the right economy to do so. What happens when you cut taxes but don't cut spending and then start two wars? Huge deficits and a messed up economy. If I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd rather be in a stable economy with higher taxes than the sh*thole we are in now with low taxes. I thought conservatives were supposed to be fiscally responsible? Of course the ultimate solution would be to cut government spending (which neither democrats nor republicans do) adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like our Founding Fathers and then cut taxes. You guys are supporting reckless and irresponsible financial policies.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Who ever said I support higher taxes genius? Do you think anyone actually wants higher taxes? LOL. All I'm saying is that cutting taxes is great, but you have to cut spending and be in the right economy to do so. What happens when you cut taxes but don't cut spending and then start two wars? Huge deficits and a messed up economy. If I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd rather be in a stable economy with higher taxes than the sh*thole we are in now with low taxes. I thought conservatives were supposed to be fiscally responsible? Of course the ultimate solution would be to cut government spending (which neither democrats nor republicans do) adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like our Founding Fathers and then cut taxes. You guys are supporting reckless and irresponsible financial policies.
Click to expand...

You are all over the place, doubt that any debate moderator would be giving you any points at all. As the Treasury Dept shows govt. revenue increased AFTER the tax rate cuts why increase taxes as all you would have to do is cut spending but that doesn't make any sense to a liberal. We have 16 million Americans unemployed, 4 million more than when Obama took office. how are you going to put them back to work by raising taxes?

When are you or anyone else going to actually address the issues and govt. spending. You blame the wars for the deficits yet refuse to tell us how much those wars cost on a yearly basis since deficits are yearly.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Who ever said I support higher taxes genius? Do you think anyone actually wants higher taxes? LOL. All I'm saying is that cutting taxes is great, but you have to cut spending and be in the right economy to do so. What happens when you cut taxes but don't cut spending and then start two wars? Huge deficits and a messed up economy. If I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd rather be in a stable economy with higher taxes than the sh*thole we are in now with low taxes. I thought conservatives were supposed to be fiscally responsible? Of course the ultimate solution would be to cut government spending (which neither democrats nor republicans do) adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like our Founding Fathers and then cut taxes. You guys are supporting reckless and irresponsible financial policies.
Click to expand...

OK, we agree slightly more than I thought. Still, there is but one way out of this. Generate more tax revenue by spurring business and subsequently lowering unemployment. Obama wants to raise taxes, and I believe, to cause greater economic collapse and create more government dependency.

Funny, while Europe is trying to be more American these days, Obama want to make us more European.
 
Conservative said:
The surpluses Clinton supporters claim existed, then explain to me how you keeping more of your money is an expense to the govt?
Click to expand...

National debt and budget suprpluses/deficits are different things. And as for keeping more of my money being an expense to the federal government, let me put it like this: How is keeping more of your money an expense to your family and household? Well, if you have a car note, a house note, insurance, cell phones, taxes, utilities, etc. and then you start keeping more of your money without cutting out the expenses, you will be in debt, will you not?
 
Conservative said:
I am really concerned about how leftwing the West Coast has become as it doesn't matter what the results are the people there will keep smoking or drinking the "strange" stuff. Anyone that would insinuate that the Founding Fathers were split on how much power the Central Govt. should have doesn't really know much about history and our Founding Fathers. There were a FEW who believed in a large Central Govt. but that wasn't in the original Constitution which by its words stated the kind of govt. they were creating. Using the words in the Preamble "Provide" and "Promote" as they did says it all. PROVIDE for the Common Defense and PROMOTE the Domestic Wefare answers your question as to the role of the Central Govt. and what our Founders envisioned.

States united for the common defense and a govt. promoting through policy domestic welfare tells it all. Do you really want a bureaucrat in D.C. telling the people of Washington what to do about a welfare issue. Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the people of Washington? The problem is power corrupts and Congressional Representatives have the power and have expanded the role of the govt. way beyond its original intent.

Seems you run when challenged, still waiting for a response on the Clinton surplus and a response to the facts about the U.S. Debt.
Click to expand...

I'll repeat, the founding fathers were split on the amont of power that the central government should have and their writings confirm it. Adams and Hamilton (among others) were in favor of a strong central government an Jefferson was mostly for a federated government.

What is interesting is that when any of the founding fathers served as President, they tended to want have their way, even if it might have been seen as an extension of the power of the federal government. For example, Jefferson was perfectly happy to go ahead with the Louisiana Purchase even though there was no mention in the Constitution of the power to expand the size of the country under its control.

You left out the parts of the preamble covering the creation of a more perfect union and establishing justice. It speaks, for example, to the right of the central government to prevent a local bureaucrat, even one in Washington state, from denying someone the right to vote. So, yes, I do want the federal government to be able to prevent abuses of power by the states when the state is infringing on my rights as a citizen under the Constitution.

The fonding fathers were educated men of their time. They did something extraordinary but they were not gods. If they had the misfortune of being transported 200 years into their future (i.e. our present), after they adapted to the technology changes, they would find that the political landscape is very much as it was in their latter years and they would be just as divided about the powers of the federal government as the rest of us.

Finally, I'm not sure which of your posts that I'm running from. I know that you published some numbers about the national debt which doesn't accurately track the budget because of off budget items. So, even though Clinton (and the CBO) could claim that there was a budget surplus during the latter years of the the Clinton administration, it is possible for the national debt to increase at the same time. Is that the rant that you claim I'm running from?
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
OK, we agree slightly more than I thought. Still, there is but one way out of this. Generate more tax revenue by spurring business and subsequently lowering unemployment. Obama wants to raise taxes, and I believe, to cause greater economic collapse and create more government dependency.

Funny, while Europe is trying to be more American these days, Obama want to make us more European.
Click to expand...

Yea but all Mccain and Bush want to do is lower taxes without lowering the spending. That is equally atrocious. I'm just going for the lesser of two evils here, that's why I'm "slightly liberal". Republicans have started this myth that they are fiscally conservative and financially responsible when they spend just as much money as democrats and even more so when you take in defense spending. They fool people by saying "But look, we'll lower your taxes!" My mom used to say "You can't have your cake and eat it to", well you can't have low taxes with an agressive military foreign policy, it just simply doesn't work. I have never heard of a country lowering taxes during war time except the U.S.
 
Conservative said:
You are all over the place, doubt that any debate moderator would be giving you any points at all. As the Treasury Dept shows govt. revenue increased AFTER the tax rate cuts why increase taxes as all you would have to do is cut spending but that doesn't make any sense to a liberal. We have 16 million Americans unemployed, 4 million more than when Obama took office. how are you going to put them back to work by raising taxes?

When are you or anyone else going to actually address the issues and govt. spending. You blame the wars for the deficits yet refuse to tell us how much those wars cost on a yearly basis since deficits are yearly.
Click to expand...

Well tell the debate moderator my thesis is this: The Bush tax cuts spurred the economy in the short run but did more harm in the long run. Tax cuts in general are harmful if spending isn't cut along with them. The best situation would be to cut spending, make the government smaller, and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy, then cut taxes. Cutting taxes without doing all that is completely irresponsible.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Yea but all Mccain and Bush want to do is lower taxes without lowering the spending. That is equally atrocious. I'm just going for the lesser of two evils here, that's why I'm "slightly liberal". Republicans have started this myth that they are fiscally conservative and financially responsible when they spend just as much money as democrats and even more so when you take in defense spending. They fool people by saying "But look, we'll lower your taxes!" My mom used to say "You can't have your cake and eat it to", well you can't have low taxes with an agressive military foreign policy, it just simply doesn't work. I have never heard of a country lowering taxes during war time except the U.S.
Click to expand...

Hence, the tea party emergence among the Republican party. Conservatives need to start acting like conservatives.

Cut spending drastically, cut taxes (further in my opinion), and let the free market dig us out of this hole.

The problem is, what power has the government ever released over us once it had obtained it? Obama wants to increase it ten-fold, second term be damned.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Yea but all Mccain and Bush want to do is lower taxes without lowering the spending. That is equally atrocious. I'm just going for the lesser of two evils here, that's why I'm "slightly liberal". Republicans have started this myth that they are fiscally conservative and financially responsible when they spend just as much money as democrats and even more so when you take in defense spending. They fool people by saying "But look, we'll lower your taxes!" My mom used to say "You can't have your cake and eat it to", well you can't have low taxes with an agressive military foreign policy, it just simply doesn't work. I have never heard of a country lowering taxes during war time except the U.S.
Click to expand...

Compared to what we have now almost anyone would be more fiscally responsible even McCain who has never taken an earmark. Bush spent too much money with the help of a receptive Congress but Obama has put Bush spending on steroids as evidenced by the amount of the U.S.Budget fiscal year 2010 vs. 2010. Where is the 2011 budget?
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Well tell the debate moderator my thesis is this: The Bush tax cuts spurred the economy in the short run but did more harm in the long run. Tax cuts in general are harmful if spending isn't cut along with them. The best situation would be to cut spending, make the government smaller, and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy, then cut taxes. Cutting taxes without doing all that is completely irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't agree, tax cuts never hurt the individual and that is key to economic growth and results. How do you explain tax revenue growing after the tax rate cuts?
 
Conservative said:
Compared to what we have now almost anyone would be more fiscally responsible even McCain who has never taken an earmark. Bush spent too much money with the help of a receptive Congress but Obama has put Bush spending on steroids as evidenced by the amount of the U.S.Budget fiscal year 2010 vs. 2010. Where is the 2011 budget?
Click to expand...

the only earmarks mccain ever took were from his wife.
 
liblady said:
the only earmarks mccain ever took were from his wife.
Click to expand...

Great, now how did that affect you as a taxpayer? Sounds a little jealous to me? I really don't care where someone else gets their money as long as it isn't from the taxpayer, why do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom