• 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:
And of course we believe all those studies, most of which have been proven wrong. Please name for me one study, prediction, or projection that the Obama Administration has generated that has been accurate?

I don't believe I have ever met someone so afraid of keeping and spending more of their own money and being such a supporter of more money going to the Federal Govt. I don't get it and apparently never will, how people spending their own money can have such little affect on jobs. That isn't logical and no study can prove that to be the case. Cite your study?
Click to expand...

They ahve not been proven wrong. You certainly have not proven them wrong. Please feel free to try. ;)
 
Erod said:
And yet you support a party that will spend way beyond its means again and again and again. And still, you're there with bells on for them.
Click to expand...

um....what do you mean? nobody overspent during the clinton 8 years, now did they? that leaves ancient history........and now. so where do you get over and over and over again?
 
Erod said:
And yet you support a party that will spend way beyond its means again and again and again. And still, you're there with bells on for them.
Click to expand...

Any evidence republicans are any different? Both spend, and unchecked, will do so recklessly. Ture, I prefer my money spent on healthcare more than American imperialism and invading countries without just cause, but both spend. That's why I'm fine with a split government. the opposition has to have enough power to actual influence (not block). And we should support those who work with, using power to make concrete changes, and not those who merely block. And no nutters. Other than that, bring on griddlock.
 
Erod said:
And yet you support a party that will spend way beyond its means again and again and again. And still, you're there with bells on for them.
Click to expand...

President Bush spent more than any president before him, including Jimmy Carter, and this before the Democrats took control of congress in '07. The old school Republicans used to be a little more fiscally conservative but those days are gone.
 
liblady said:
um....what do you mean? nobody overspent during the clinton 8 years, now did they? that leaves ancient history........and now. so where do you get over and over and over again?
Click to expand...

And who was making policy during those years, eh? Clinton just smartly chose to go along for the ride.
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

See here...

Taboon said:
Heck, I'll even use a "conservative" link to debunk that.

The Tax Foundation - Five Myths about the Bush Tax Cuts



So, you've got a conservative tax foundation admitting that there is no correlation between tax reductions and tax receipt revenue growth. Hmmmmmm
Click to expand...
 
Johnny DooWop said:
See here...
Click to expand...

The Tax Foundation needs to tell the checkbook of the United States that the revenue collected after the tax cuts is wrong. Why don't you take up that role and give them a call. The actual factual information shows differently. From the checkbook of the United States

Tax revenue by year. the Bush tax rate cuts went into effect July 2003

2000 3,132
2001 3,118
2002 2,987
2003 3,043
2004 3,265
2005 3,659
2006 3,996
2007 4,197
2008 4,072
 
Johnny DooWop said:
See here...
Click to expand...

There's a lot more to the economic trends of the country than where tax rats are. We're fighting a war, sorting through a subprime lending crisis, as well as a myriad of other factors home and abroad.

The smartest economists in the world don't understand all the factors that make the economy sway to and fro.

But it's basic common sense that if you lessen risk for business, and less the tax burden on individuals, than expansion and consumerism will increase. File this under "duh".
 
Conservative said:
The Tax Foundation needs to tell the checkbook of the United States that the revenue collected after the tax cuts is wrong. Why don't you take up that role and give them a call. The actual factual information shows differently. From the checkbook of the United States

Tax revenue by year. the Bush tax rate cuts went into effect July 2003

2000 3,132
2001 3,118
2002 2,987
2003 3,043
2004 3,265
2005 3,659
2006 3,996
2007 4,197
2008 4,072
Click to expand...

I guess The Tax Foundation conveniently ignored that bit of hard evidence. LOL
 
Erod said:
I guess The Tax Foundation conveniently ignored that bit of hard evidence. LOL
Click to expand...

Hard evidence always confuses people, I just want to know why actual numbers are trumped by other sites. Can't figure out why these other sites don't tell the U.S. Treasury that they are wrong.
 
liblady said:
um....what do you mean? nobody overspent during the clinton 8 years, now did they? that leaves ancient history........and now. so where do you get over and over and over again?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that Republicans controlled the Congress during the Clinton years? Did Bill Clinton sign budgets more or less than he proposed?
 
Statement

Erod said:
There's a lot more to the economic trends of the country than where tax rats are....The smartest economists in the world don't understand all the factors that make the economy sway to and fro.
Click to expand...

Blatant contradiction to the poster's own statement.

Erod said:
But it's basic common sense that if you lessen risk for business, and less the tax burden on individuals, than expansion and consumerism will increase. File this under "duh".
Click to expand...

Apparently you're smarter than the smartest economist in the world.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
The Tax Foundation needs to tell the checkbook of the United States that the revenue collected after the tax cuts is wrong. Why don't you take up that role and give them a call. The actual factual information shows differently. From the checkbook of the United States

Tax revenue by year. the Bush tax rate cuts went into effect July 2003

2000 3,132
2001 3,118
2002 2,987
2003 3,043
2004 3,265
2005 3,659
2006 3,996
2007 4,197
2008 4,072
Click to expand...

Total Federal Tax Revenue by year
2000 236.2
2001 128.2
2002 -157.8
2003 -377.6
2004 -412.7
2005 -318.3
2006 -248.2
2007 -160.7

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
 
Conservative said:
Do you realize what you just posted from CBO? I posted total tax revenue for the years in question, what did you just post. Read the chart again.
Click to expand...

Oh snap. Brain fart. Wrong figures. I'm trying to write a mid-term paper on loose nuclear weapons and argue with you at the same time. I have the data I want to show you, just gotta go find it again.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Total Federal Tax Revenue by year
2000 236.2
2001 128.2
2002 -157.8
2003 -377.6
2004 -412.7
2005 -318.3
2006 -248.2
2007 -160.7

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
Click to expand...

I prefer non tinkered with sources....

Lawmakers often cite CBO figures as holy writ and use them in arguments supporting or opposing proposed measures. But can the CBO estimate costs of complex programs down to the last billion dollars? Do CBO numbers present an accurate picture to legislators and to the American people?

“Everyone should know that any number will be either too high or too low,” Donald Marron, a former CBO deputy director told The Daily Caller.

There are a number of problems associated with CBO’s estimates. Some have to do with the games Congress itself plays with numbers.

Congressional Budget Office consistently wrong on health-care estimates | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Click to expand...

The CBO is like a computer...Garbage in, garbage out.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I prefer non tinkered with sources....



The CBO is like a computer...Garbage in, garbage out.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Amazing, isn't it how CBO, The Congressional Budget Office, is cited as being the gospel but only when it comes up with the numbers that a particular party wants yet all ignore that it is seldom accurate with their projections and are never held accountable for their failures.
 
Ok Neo-Con, I looked at the figures again, and you are right. Touche. (Unlike you I am man enough to admit when someone else is right). Where the confusion was is that I was looking at tax revenues relative to the GDP, which still haven't returned to the 2000 peak. But as for just tax revenues, yes, they increased. However, as has already been pointed out by many other members, that does not reflect a positive for the economy because when you consider GDP, unemployment, deficit, etc., it is clear the tax cuts did not help the economy. Also, figures of course show that tax revenues would have increased even more had the tax cuts not been implemented. However there is no point arguing this because you said this...

Conservative said:
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...

You have admitted that you will never accept facts, even if they prove tax cuts aren't good for the economy, based on your conservative bias. Therefore, there is no point arguing facts with you. However, I actually agree with part of your statement "Individuals keeping more of what they earn puts the power where it belongs with the American consumer, not the govt. bureaucrats." I guess your reasoning is, neither democrats or republicans are going to cut spending, so the options are, either pay higher taxes to fund our out of control spending, or pay lower taxes, thus keeping more of our money and let the chips fall where they may. I actually agree with your reasoning. Its "the lesser of two evils" so to speak. But we must understand, that position is a philisophical one, not an economic one. Philisophically, I agree, Americans should be keeping more of their money even if the feds don't stop spending, economically however, it appears low taxes and high spending are bad for the economy.
 
Boo Radley said:
We don't live in that century. The founding fathers allowed for change and growth. It is ahrdly as clear as you think that they would not have grown with us, and done exactly the same or even more.
Click to expand...

"Change & Growth"???

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a social welfare state; which is what we have and what has run us into the ditch. And those so-called loans made by force of government were nothing more than an extension of the welfare state.

Those founding docs aren't some kind of suggestion list. They're the contract they set between the government and the people. There are rules of what can be done by who.

Judicial fiat isn't in their plans. Judicial activism was not in their plans. Autonomous, unelected bureaucrats shoving law down our throat without going through the legislative process wasn't in their plans. The Federal Government forcing the people to buy healthcare was not in their plan.

A limited government, strong where it should be strong (national security & equal justice), and weak where it should be weak (taxes/burdens/programs... playing Mommy Dearest) was their idea.

.
 
Last edited:
Johnny DooWop said:
Ok Neo-Con, I looked at the figures again, and you are right. Touche. (Unlike you I am man enough to admit when someone else is right). Where the confusion was is that I was looking at tax revenues relative to the GDP, which still haven't returned to the 2000 peak. But as for just tax revenues, yes, they increased. However, as has already been pointed out by many other members, that does not reflect a positive for the economy because when you consider GDP, unemployment, deficit, etc., it is clear the tax cuts did not help the economy. Also, figures of course show that tax revenues would have increased even more had the tax cuts not been implemented. However there is no point arguing this because you said this...



You have admitted that you will never accept facts, even if they prove tax cuts aren't good for the economy, based on your conservative bias. Therefore, there is no point arguing facts with you. However, I actually agree with part of your statement "Individuals keeping more of what they earn puts the power where it belongs with the American consumer, not the govt. bureaucrats." I guess your reasoning is, neither democrats or republicans are going to cut spending, so the options are, either pay higher taxes to fund our out of control spending, or pay lower taxes, thus keeping more of our money and let the chips fall where they may. I actually agree with your reasoning. Its "the lesser of two evils" so to speak. But we must understand, that position is a philisophical one, not an economic one. Philisophically, I agree, Americans should be keeping more of their money even if the feds don't stop spending, economically however, it appears low taxes and high spending are bad for the economy.
Click to expand...

Refute actual numbers and facts then you will have something. Anyone that has a problem with the people keeping more of their money is part of the problem not part of the solution. The fact remains we have 16 million people unemployed today and the number is growing. Raising taxes does nothing to put these people back to work and 16 million people paying little if any Income taxes is causing a shortfall in revenue.

It really isn't that difficult, not like liberals have brainwashed you into believing. It is the people's money first, not an expense to the Federal govt. There is a reason that Democrats are fighting so hard against that basic reality, they want the control and that gives them the power. You keeping more of what you earn means you need that so called liberal help and that scares the hell out of the elite.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Ok Neo-Con, I looked at the figures again, and you are right. Touche. (Unlike you I am man enough to admit when someone else is right). Where the confusion was is that I was looking at tax revenues relative to the GDP, which still haven't returned to the 2000 peak. But as for just tax revenues, yes, they increased. However, as has already been pointed out by many other members, that does not reflect a positive for the economy because when you consider GDP, unemployment, deficit, etc., it is clear the tax cuts did not help the economy. Also, figures of course show that tax revenues would have increased even more had the tax cuts not been implemented. However there is no point arguing this because you said this...



You have admitted that you will never accept facts, even if they prove tax cuts aren't good for the economy, based on your conservative bias. Therefore, there is no point arguing facts with you. However, I actually agree with part of your statement "Individuals keeping more of what they earn puts the power where it belongs with the American consumer, not the govt. bureaucrats." I guess your reasoning is, neither democrats or republicans are going to cut spending, so the options are, either pay higher taxes to fund our out of control spending, or pay lower taxes, thus keeping more of our money and let the chips fall where they may. I actually agree with your reasoning. Its "the lesser of two evils" so to speak. But we must understand, that position is a philisophical one, not an economic one. Philisophically, I agree, Americans should be keeping more of their money even if the feds don't stop spending, economically however, it appears low taxes and high spending are bad for the economy.
Click to expand...

good or bad for the economy is not the only argument or basis for argument

for example, lots of things the government does is bad for the economy-such as all the welfare payments.

but cutting taxes did nothing bad and helped those who already paid too much taxes.

low tax revenues and high spending are bad. low taxes are not always the same as low tax revenues
 
TurtleDude said:
low taxes are not always the same as low tax revenues
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary as proven over and over. Low taxes foster higher revenues. Democrats once believed this too... but that was long, long ago. Before most here were born.

.
 
zimmer said:
Quite the contrary as proven over and over. Low taxes foster higher revenues. Democrats once believed this too... but that was long, long ago. Before most here were born.

.
Click to expand...

afflicting the comfortable to buy the votes of the envious is what drives the dems these days
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom