• 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!

GOP 'Pledge' makes closing argument to voters

People provide their own incentives. They don't need government ot do it for them. Government does not control the economy, and that is just the way it is.

And whoever is in the CIC seat when the economy goes south gets the blame by those who don't understand how economics work and are partisan hacks.
 
And whoever is in the CIC seat when the economy goes south gets the blame by those who don't understand how economics work and are partisan hacks.

This is true, which is in part why they all try to do something, like the stimulus. Better to be seen doing something than nothing.
 
And whoever is in the CIC seat when the economy goes south gets the blame by those who don't understand how economics work and are partisan hacks.

So you don't believe the President has any impact on the economy? Alone that is true but with the help of Congress can do great damage as is evidenced right now. How can you claim that economic policy like Obamacare, Stimulus, elimination of tax cuts has no impact on the economy? Does your behavior change when you have less spendable income? If so how does a tax increase affect that spendable income?
 
You really don't even know how your mind works. Do you spend more money when you have less take home pay? Govt. sets tax policy and personal income growth or decline is a factor in economic performance.

I've barely notied any changes in taxes, so my spending hasn't been effected at all. And there is good information showing the wealthy don't change their habits either way as it concerns taxes. So, I'm looking for something more fact based than your supposing. ;)
 
I've barely notied any changes in taxes, so my spending hasn't been effected at all. And there is good information showing the wealthy don't change their habits either way as it concerns taxes. So, I'm looking for something more fact based than your supposing. ;)

Probably because you are one of the 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes thus little impact. Your belief that you know how rich people are going to react is just speculation based upon nothing other than your own opinions. What happened to state tax revenue when the states implemented a "millionaires tax? Did tax revenue go up or down?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html
 
Last edited:
Probably because you are one of the 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes thus little impact. Your belief that you know how rich people are going to react is just speculation based upon nothing other than your own opinions. What happened to state tax revenue when the states implemented a "millionaires tax? Did tax revenue go up or down?

Millionaires Go Missing - WSJ.com

I like the WSJ, and glad you use opinion pieces as well. Let me counter:

Hand the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it. Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody's Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.

Given Tax Cuts, Rich Americans Save Instead of Spend - BusinessWeek

Wealthy tend to save, not spend, tax windfalls | The Journal Gazette | Fort Wayne, IN
 
Hand the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.
You make it sound like the government is being magnanimous in "giving" people a break in their taxes. Cutting taxes is the right and proper thing to do regardless of the way in which people spend their money.

This type of thinking is most of the problem.
 
I like the WSJ, and glad you use opinion pieces as well. Let me counter:

Hand the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it. Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody's Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.

Given Tax Cuts, Rich Americans Save Instead of Spend - BusinessWeek

Wealthy tend to save, not spend, tax windfalls | The Journal Gazette | Fort Wayne, IN

So when someone saves money, where does that money go? Are you really this naive? Keep posting articles that ignore human behavior and the benefits to the economy that actual savings generates.

As for liking Wall Street Journal articles, obviously you don't like this one because it defeats your argument. Maryland implemented a "Millionaires" Tax and lost millionaires thus revenue and that explains human behavior. Rich people with higher taxes or who are punished for making money move. Then where does the revenue come from?
 
Last edited:
So when someone saves money, where does that money go? Are you really this naive? Keep posting articles that ignore human behavior and the benefits to the economy that actual savings generates.

Into savings. Not spent. Not creating jobs. Not helping the economy.
 
Into savings. Not spent. Not creating jobs. Not helping the economy.
What is it you think banks do with the savings? Keep all the money locked up in the vault?
 
What is it you think banks do with the savings? Keep all the money locked up in the vault?

Nope. But do you have any evidence they loan more with tax cuts?
 
Nope. But do you have any evidence they loan more with tax cuts?
Firstly, that isn't the point. Tax cuts are a good thing in and of themselves.

Secondly, you make it sound like the money put into a bank just sits there and collects dust. It doesn't. It makes no difference if the banks invest more, less, or the same amount with tax cuts; that money is still being put to use in the economy.
 
Firstly, that isn't the point. Tax cuts are a good thing in and of themselves.

Secondly, you make it sound like the money put into a bank just sits there and collects dust. It doesn't. It makes no difference if the banks invest more, less, or the same amount with tax cuts; that money is still being put to use in the economy.

In the context of the discussion, it does matter. As for in and of themselves, isn't that a subjective judgement? I mean, taxes don't sit in a vaccum either. They serve a purpose. If the tax cuts mean less roads built or repaired, or the military not getting what it really needs (not wants), or even if needed services are curtailed, one could easily make a subjective judgement that tax cuts are bad in and of themselves.

Again, the value and worth of a tax is in what it does and doesn't do. To most of mine and conservatives argument this centers on whether a tax cut does or does not stimulate the economy and produce jobs, or even reduce the debt. the evidence is lacking that tax cuts do any of that.

And I continue to argue that if we're really concerned with the deficit, we will argue to cut spending and raise taxes.
 
Last edited:
Ok, where does the savings go? Do you believe that sits in a bank vault?

banks invest that money in other investment vehicles that hopefully pay more than the bank pays out in interest. which, these days, is a little harder to do. or, they lend. at least they used to. deposit gathering hasn't led to greated credit availablity, however.
 
In the context of the discussion, it does matter. As for in and of themselves, isn't that a subjective judgement? I mean, taxes don't sit in a vaccum either. They serve a purpose. If the tax cuts mean less roads built or repaired, or the military not getting what it really needs (not wants), or even if needed services are curtailed, one could easiler make a subjective judgement that tax cuts are bad in and of themselves.

Again, the value and worth of a tax is in what it does and doesn't do. To most of mind and conservatives argument this centers on whether a tax cut does or does not stimulate the economy and produce jobs, or even reduce the debt. the evidence is lacking that tax cuts do any of that.

And I continue to argue that if we're really concerned with the deficit, we will argue to cut spending and raise taxes.
Taxes should represent what the government needs, not how much everyone should pay. Somewhere along the line the powers that be changed the argument into "fairness." Frankly I don't give a damn if the tax cut hurts the economy or helps it. This government needs to be reigned in, and about the only way to do it is to reduce the money coming into it.

Taxes and spending need to be cut, and for the same reason -- government has far outgrown its bounds and needs to be put back into its proper scope.
 
banks invest that money in other investment vehicles that hopefully pay more than the bank pays out in interest. which, these days, is a little harder to do. or, they lend. at least they used to. deposit gathering hasn't led to greated credit availablity, however.

yes, banks use the money for loans that benefit the economy and that is the point, whether an individual spends the money, saves the money, invests the money, or pays down debt it benefits the economy thus the need for people keeping more of what they earn.
 
Taxes should represent what the government needs, not how much everyone should pay. Somewhere along the line the powers that be changed the argument into "fairness." Frankly I don't give a damn if the tax cut hurts the economy or helps it. This government needs to be reigned in, and about the only way to do it is to reduce the money coming into it.

Taxes and spending need to be cut, and for the same reason -- government has far outgrown its bounds and needs to be put back into its proper scope.

That's another argument, but not new to this president or congress. We've had a progressive tax at least since WWII if not before. And as we are the government, I'm not sure I agree with you about usefullness and proper scope. Nothing today is really all that different than what it has been doing all along.

And most people really will not support loss of services they now rely on, no matter what they say (hence the tea party incoherent message).
 
That's another argument, but not new to this president or congress. We've had a progressive tax at least since WWII if not before. And as we are the government, I'm not sure I agree with you about usefullness and proper scope. Nothing today is really all that different than what it has been doing all along.
I really don't know how you can say a) that the government is in its proper scope in light of the Constitution, and b) that it isn't "really all that different" than it has been.
And most people really will not support loss of services they now rely on, no matter what they say (hence the tea party incoherent message).
Maybe, maybe not. At the current rate, everyone is going to have to endure loss of services when this bloated government finally goes tits up. That's hardly debateable, and that is why voting for the usual suspects is going to do nothing to make things better.
 
I really don't know how you can say a) that the government is in its proper scope in light of the Constitution, and b) that it isn't "really all that different" than it has been.Maybe, maybe not. At the current rate, everyone is going to have to endure loss of services when this bloated government finally goes tits up. That's hardly debateable, and that is why voting for the usual suspects is going to do nothing to make things better.

I can say it because people have always used government to tackle large problems. There is a reason for this. It is easier for a large number to carry and huge load, or to tackle bigger problems. This is not new, and it has been allowed all along. And challenges brought before the courts have often allowed this as well. Again, it is our hsitory.
 
I can say it because people have always used government to tackle large problems. There is a reason for this. It is easier for a large number to carry and huge load, or to tackle bigger problems. This is not new, and it has been allowed all along. And challenges brought before the courts have often allowed this as well. Again, it is our hsitory.
That all depends upon one's overall political paradigm, so arguing it isn't probably going to do much good. Suffice it to say I vehemently disagree. :shrug:
 
That all depends upon one's overall political paradigm, so arguing it isn't probably going to do much good. Suffice it to say I vehemently disagree. :shrug:

And I respect that. We're at a philosphical disagreement, which is fair. Conservative and I at a factual disagreement. ;)
 
House-Republicans-leader--006.jpg




LINK

While long, (8000 words), familiar and with obvious holes - this is a first step of "getting back to basics" by the GOP they're selling to voters. Critics on the Right however, are seeing it as watered down beltway business as usual.

Redstate says:

"At a time when America needs a bold, simple, fresh plan for putting America on the path to fiscal and constitutional sanity - we get instead an almost 8000 word term paper of inside-the-beltway regurgitation that lacks the one thing the American people seem to be dying to have… actual leadership. Harsh? Hardly."
I give credit to the GOP for seeing the writing on the wall left by the Tea Party: get back to basics or else. The GOP isn't jumping into that pool head first... they're wading in and they should. A vast swing to the right with some "bold" plan espousing cutting Social Security, Medicare and the Dept. of Ed. is a sure fire loser. The missing parts like a pledge to cut earmarks, to pass term limits, or to cut corporate tax to the levels the rest of the world uses is missing. Republicans need to understand however, they can't wade in the pool forever. This is a nice first step but it needs some concrete follow up and not on November 3rd --- sooner. We don't need a bold "let's change Washington into Conservative Utopia" - that's what Obama campaigned with a "Progressive Utopia" and we all know that hope and change went down the toilet quick.

Pledge to America - full text.

I'm not just singling out the GOP when I say this, but why would anyone believe lofty campaign promises anymore? Haven't people had enough of being lied to by transparently power-grabbing parties and their relentless sycophants?

I swear... the first party to actually be honest about what they can and cannot do will probably win the next Presidential election.
 
I'm not just singling out the GOP when I say this, but why would anyone believe lofty campaign promises anymore? Haven't people had enough of being lied to by transparently power-grabbing parties and their relentless sycophants?

I swear... the first party to actually be honest about what they can and cannot do will probably win the next Presidential election.

I agree. We should demand more form everyone running. We may still have to choose froma lessor of two evils, or the best possible option, depending on how you want to phrase it, but at least we shouldn't accept all this silliness as the gospel from either side.
 
I'm not just singling out the GOP when I say this, but why would anyone believe lofty campaign promises anymore? Haven't people had enough of being lied to by transparently power-grabbing parties and their relentless sycophants?

I swear... the first party to actually be honest about what they can and cannot do will probably win the next Presidential election.
Nah, the electorate has shown that it is more than happy to be lied to. We don't elect a leader of the executive branch any more, we elect a person we want to have unlimited powers to fix all the world's problems before dinnertime. If you think I'm wrong, go back and look at the **** Obama caught for not stopping the BP oil spill.
 
Back
Top Bottom