• 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

How would you explain the unemployment rate? Obviously, businesses aren't hiring.

People aren't buying. Remember, the tax cuts are in place. Reform hasn't done anything. Heck, there was hiring before the reform bill even reached the floor for a vote. the economy went to **** long before Obama was even elected, let alone health care reform being passed.
 
It's all Bush's fault
 
It's all Bush's fault

As I've said repeatedly, no president controls the economy. They just can't. neither can congress for that matter. But if you're going to blame presidents, why I can't understand, you have to start with Bush on this one. It did go south when he was in office.

But I don't know why anyone is blaming presidents to start with.

Now if you want to talk deficit, line them all up for sometime past. Both parties play a huge role in the deficit.
 
People aren't buying. Remember, the tax cuts are in place. Reform hasn't done anything. Heck, there was hiring before the reform bill even reached the floor for a vote. the economy went to **** long before Obama was even elected, let alone health care reform being passed.

What tax cuts? Are you talking about that 13 bucks a week bull**** that Obama pushed through?

Also, there's a damn good reason that people aren't buying...LMAO!!!
 
As I've said repeatedly, no president controls the economy. They just can't. neither can congress for that matter. But if you're going to blame presidents, why I can't understand, you have to start with Bush on this one. It did go south when he was in office.

But I don't know why anyone is blaming presidents to start with.

Now if you want to talk deficit, line them all up for sometime past. Both parties play a huge role in the deficit.

They control legislation that either injects, or removes confidence in the private sector. The legislation of the past couple of years has removed a truckload of confidence in the private sector.
 
They control legislation that either injects, or removes confidence in the private sector. The legislation of the past couple of years has removed a truckload of confidence in the private sector.

Business is not that depended on anything the government controls, let alone controlling something like confidence. Business much more dependent on supply and demand, whihc is why we've seen business hire and grow despite things like taxes. I won't say business doesn't watch these things, but they do not dictate what business does. They adjust and are far more sensitive to spending and buying habits of the demand , government be damned.
 
What tax cuts? Are you talking about that 13 bucks a week bull**** that Obama pushed through?

Also, there's a damn good reason that people aren't buying...LMAO!!!

I was actually talking about the Bush tax cuts which are still in place. We lost jobs with those in place.
 
This shouldn't be this hard. I know you think it is proof, though I can't remember what you showed me, but as I know we've had a good economy during times with a high tax rate, and a poor economy with a low tax rate, and everything inbetween, I know there is no factual evidence supporting the claim. I need look no further then right now, as those tax cuts are in place, and yet other factors mean far more than taxes. We can see that right now. So while I am certain you think and believe you showed proof, I'm just as certain I explained why it failed to meet that burden. Just as j's opinion doesn't equal objective evidence.

And no, there is no objective evidence suggesting business is too scared. that too is little more than hyperbolic fear mongering opinion run amuck. Business hires when people buy. It really is that simple. It has seldom if ever trickled down; it more often trickles up.

Thanks for proving my point... I knew you would come through.....:lol:


gill said:
You're wasting your time. Boo will argue for days that white is black and black is white. The only REAL proof is his, all others are just opinions.
 
I did not say that cutting expenses wasn't part of the solution. I only said it isn't the only solution. You can't solve the budget problem without elements of each of 1) an improved economy; 2) expense constriction and 3) increased taxes. Anyone that isn't willing to see some budget cuts AND some tax increases isn't really serious about a balanced budget or is very naive about economics and politics.

Balanced budget is just a buzz word nowadays. There is no deficit, never was, the Fed reserve makes up the difference every year. The proof is that there's no carry-overdebt to the next year. My 2010 World Almanac shows the complete US budget from 2003 to 2008, and nowhere on all the long lists does it appear.

Makes sense, too, because the government has to pay all debts when they are due.

Don't take my word for it. Buy your own World Almanac and check it out for yourself...

ricksfolly
 
I was actually talking about the Bush tax cuts which are still in place. We lost jobs with those in place.

And, you think that raising taxes, now, is the cure for what ails us?
 
Actually, no it isn't. It's their OPINION. other's have a different OPINION. I've linked them earlier. What I'm speaking of is OBJECTIVE evidence. Like, with tax cuts in place right now, where are the jobs?

I'd say that it is more than Opinion, but rather informed opinion. In any case the "tax cuts" you speak of have been in place for long enough now that they have become the tax rate, therefore any change in them will be an increase by demo's.


j-mac
 
Business is not that depended on anything the government controls, let alone controlling something like confidence. Business much more dependent on supply and demand, whihc is why we've seen business hire and grow despite things like taxes. I won't say business doesn't watch these things, but they do not dictate what business does. They adjust and are far more sensitive to spending and buying habits of the demand , government be damned.


Are you in business Joe? Or are you still a union educator?


j-mac
 
Are you in business Joe? Or are you still a union educator?


j-mac

I've never belonged to a union. I have done about everything you can think of, including driving a truck. :) Took me a long time to settle into something. :neener
 
I'd say that it is more than Opinion, but rather informed opinion. In any case the "tax cuts" you speak of have been in place for long enough now that they have become the tax rate, therefore any change in them will be an increase by demo's.


j-mac

I hate to break it to, you but even informed opinion can be wrong, and as people with informed opinion disagree, I keep suggesting we ned ore than just an opinion we agree with. All I'm asking for is objective evidence. I don't see why this should be difficult if it is as clear as you think it is.
 
And, you think that raising taxes, now, is the cure for what ails us?

No. I think it is important concerning the deficit. One single place. it won't create jobs any more than having them will. It is one of two steps needed to address the deficit. We need to cut spending and raise taxes. Both need to be done. Doing both won't fix all our probnlems either, but it will likely lower the deficit.
 
Thanks for proving my point... I knew you would come through.....:lol:

Funny, I thought you proved mine. Unwilling to provide objective evidence, right? :neener
 
When would be the right time to raise taxes? There is no evidence that not raising them will help jobs. In fact, someone has a link to a study showing that it wouldn't. But not taxing will add to the debt. So, logically, based on this, what should we do? How much do we really care about the deficit?

Let's cut the budget first.
 
I see no reason not to ask for both at once. But I don't care which is first.

This is from a post I did early this morning on a slightly different Topic, but it will fit here nicely.

Depiction of the economy after all the deficit spending.

open-pit-mine.jpg


It is a mistake to think that a Tax cut will cost the Government Revenues. Because it's all about perception and in politics and the engine that drives economics everything is dependent on a positive perception.

The mere threat of a tax increase is enough to slow, stall, or reverse a trend in the stock markets.

The same threat will put doubt in the minds of executives who make the decisions to to expand a work force or to increase production or even expand the size of a business or manufacturing company.

FDR made a lot more mistakes than most people care to notice or remember, but one thing he was right about was his famous statement that "the only thing we have to fear is fear its self."

During past times of economic uncertainty and recession major tax cuts along with major reductions in spending caused the Tax revenues to increase along with the job market, the stock markets and in a short time consumer confidence was also restored and that brought about the need to manufacture more consumer goods because everyone's attitude had be adjusted in a positive direction.

The more product produced, grown, or manufactured the greater the economy expands and good news feeds off itself in a very positive direction, where bad news has just the opposite affects.

Some might think that if one mans taxes are cut someone else will have to make up the difference, but once the positive affects of a cut begin to take hold in peoples minds the expanding economy makes up the short term loss of revenues.

It's economics 101 and it's also basic human psychology 101. What goes around comes around is true in this case.

The sad fact is that is true about defect spending also it puts that doubt into play and everything then begins to suffer and the deeper that hole is dug the worse the economy gets because that vicious cycle will propagate itself.

So tax cuts are not only free they can if used in conjunction with balanced reduction in spending not deficit spending but over all spending to bring about more prosperity.

The key comes back to that old adage: If you want to work you way out of a hole the first thing you must do is stop digging.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything, or in this case fall into a deep dark hole of economic ruin.
 
I don't buy all that councilman. Instead of the rhetoric, I'm perfectly willing to look at objective evidence. Like I've pointed out before, we have tax cuts right now, have for sometime, and yet jobs have disappeared. When I look for evidence, I find that there is no objective evidence supporting the claim that taxes cost jobs or properity. Historically, we've had properity with a high tax rate, and lost jobs and seen the economy tank with a low tax base. And everything in between.
 
I see no reason not to ask for both at once. But I don't care which is first.

because every time we do that they screw us and go back on the "cutting the budget" part.
 
because every time we do that they screw us and go back on the "cutting the budget" part.

starving the beast appears to be the only way. Giving dems more of our tax dollars means they will use it to buy more votes for themseleves
 
That rate was there before the recession, long before, and during the good years with Clinton. So, supporting it is not that difficult. You also seem to misunderstand causal relationships. ;)

Can you show that the previous tax rate cause the recession Bush saw? And can you explain how the recession got worse with the Bush tax cuts in place, if tax rates are the major factor in these things?

I was referring to this, not suggesting that it was true that Bush was talking down the economy...besides, if it were possible to talk down the economy, democrats would have accomplished it some time between 2002 and 2006.
Talking Down the Economy

As for the cause of the 2000/2001 economic downturn, I would not say that the Clinton-era tax rates caused it. You seem to say that his tax increases in '93 caused the "good years", but I don't believe you can show that either. My suspicion is that the dot com bubble, major corporate scandals (Enron, Worldcom, etc), and the destruction of the World Trade Center got us to where we were economically at the end of 2001. I can show you with numbers (based on GDP growth rates) that the economy turned around rapidly shortly after the Bush tax cuts were passed and the trend continued until 2004.

It's not hard to explain why the economy took a dump in 2007, and it's got little to do with taxes. Maybe you should do a little reading on GSE's and see if you can figure out why we had a massive real estate bubble, then see if you can figure out what we've done to prevent the next one.
 
That's nonsense, as it relates to the question before us. I don't dispute the purpose of business. I dispute your three bullets have anything to do with what we're discussing. I dispute tax cuts crate jobs because there is no evidence they do. Business creates jobs when more people spend, suply and deamnd. Tax cuts have nothing to do with it.

I'm always bothered when a argument that is so illogcal as you present is thrown up. It show a complete lack of thought or logic. That's distrubing.

Boo, this is logic biting you on the ass. Can you feel it? Is it distrubing you?

The purpose of business is to make profit (you do not dispute this). Tax cuts mean more profit (I don't think you can dispute this). More profit leads to more jobs (not sure whether you dispute this, but I think history would preempt that effort). You say this is irrelevant to the discussion when it is the whole point of the discussion.:confused:

Now I'm distrubed.
 
I don't buy all that councilman. Instead of the rhetoric, I'm perfectly willing to look at objective evidence. Like I've pointed out before, we have tax cuts right now, have for sometime, and yet jobs have disappeared. When I look for evidence, I find that there is no objective evidence supporting the claim that taxes cost jobs or properity. Historically, we've had properity with a high tax rate, and lost jobs and seen the economy tank with a low tax base. And everything in between.

To think you can look at the current minor tax cuts and say they didn't help is right because half the job was left undone.

You don't have to go back into history to see that what I say is right just look at what the threats Obama has made to raise taxes and spend what we don't have on programs that don't work to create jobs that never came and the unemplotment rate is still at 9.6 Nationally and about 12.4 in California the biggest single economy and contributor to the Nations economy.

What is it you said? oh yes: "I'm perfectly willing to look at objective evidence." You say that but ignore the evidence that clearly shows Obama's " current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity."

That is my opinion but it is the words of Dr. Charles Krauthammer, MD who helped develop the "Reagan Doctrine" in the 80's that cut taxes dramatically hld spening down and turn the Nation back from the edge of desperation and the deep dark abyss Carter was pushing us into.
 
Back
Top Bottom