• 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 plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.

Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.

Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)

As I have posted sending more money to D.C. has never lowered the national debt so why do you believe it will happen now? Do you have a job or are you in school? If you have a job what do you do when you get to keep more of your money which tax cuts allow you to do? It is your money that creates jobs but apparently like Donc you seem to believe that rich people put their money under a mattress as does busineses. There are four components of GDP, do you know what they and the affect GDP has on govt. revenue? You seem to believe what you read in the media. I learned a long time ago to trust but verify. Try going to the U.S. Treasury site to learn about the budget process. Maybe there you can explain why there is a line item for Social Security since you and others seem to believe that SS is in a trust fund.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.

Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.

Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)

Doesn't it bother you that of the 3.8 trillion dollar budget only 1.4 trillion of it is discretionary spending and the rest entitlement spending? Tell you anything about the Congress and their spending habits. Can you imagine how quickly we could pay off the debt with the current tax rates and only spending on discretionary spending items? Take SS off budget where it belongs, Put Medicare into its own account and why is Medicaid a state program on the Federal Budget?
 
Conservative

You believe wrong. From the U.S. Treasury Dept.

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

To this question I got the above response.

I believe ti was during the Clinton years, which had a Republican majority in Congress that did something besides obstruct that did it.


I guess we will have to get “Obvious child” in here to explain the difference to you …again, the difference in debt and deficit. :2wave:

Here, look at the National Debt as a percentage of GDP. Notice that the last Republican that managed to put a _ in the column was tricky Dick.

Check the gippers numbers, two terms of red +followed by one term(George the 1st ) of red + followed by two terms of green _(Clinton ) followed by two super numbers of red +(George the 2nd ).

Are you seeing the pattern here conservative? Republicans come in a wreck the economy, then comes the Dems in to fix the damage. Hope that the wingers didn’t do so much damage that it is not reparable.:(

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.

Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.

Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)

wishful thinking on your part. there is no benefits to raising taxes on a small percentage of voters because the majority of people will have no incentive to force the government to curtail spending.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Did he actually say 95% of the population? or 95% of taxpayers?

What I keep hearing is that 95% of our citizens will get this tax relief. If he is using word games to trick people into thinking that he meant taxpayers he and the people saying it should be ashamed of themselves.

Either way it is cheap wedge politics. Change you can believe in? We don't have blue or red states but purple states. Sounds pretty cheap from a hack politician,
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

What I keep hearing is that 95% of our citizens will get this tax relief. If he is using word games to trick people into thinking that he meant taxpayers he and the people saying it should be ashamed of themselves.

Either way it is cheap wedge politics. Change you can believe in? We don't have blue or red states but purple states. Sounds pretty cheap from a hack politician,

true enough

but Obama is hiking taxes on the sector that pays more than half the income taxes. not hiking taxes on those who do not pay FIT is worthless though it sounds good.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

wishful thinking on your part. there is no benefits to raising taxes on a small percentage of voters because the majority of people will have no incentive to force the government to curtail spending.
The people have no power to force the government to curtail spending.

true enough

but Obama is hiking taxes on the sector that pays more than half the income taxes. not hiking taxes on those who do not pay FIT is worthless though it sounds good.
The tax breaks sunset at the end of the year as part of the law, he is not raising taxes.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

The people have no power to force the government to curtail spending.


The tax breaks sunset at the end of the year as part of the law, he is not raising taxes.

At the beginning of next year will you have more or less take home pay with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts?
 
To this question I got the above response.




I guess we will have to get “Obvious child” in here to explain the difference to you …again, the difference in debt and deficit. :2wave:

Here, look at the National Debt as a percentage of GDP. Notice that the last Republican that managed to put a _ in the column was tricky Dick.

Check the gippers numbers, two terms of red +followed by one term(George the 1st ) of red + followed by two terms of green _(Clinton ) followed by two super numbers of red +(George the 2nd ).

Are you seeing the pattern here conservative? Republicans come in a wreck the economy, then comes the Dems in to fix the damage. Hope that the wingers didn’t do so much damage that it is not reparable.:(

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why don't you explain it to me because the chart shows both? As you can see there was a deficit each year and the debt went up each year. Clinton's claims were a lie and you and the media bought it.

Wikipedia? LOL, my numbers came from the checkbook of the U.S. Mine are the official numbers.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

At the beginning of next year will you have more or less take home pay with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts?
I will not discuss personal finances including taxes on this forum, that information is between me and my wife. Got it?

The point I made was a valid one, the sunset date in the law has nothing to do with President Obama.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

I will not discuss personal finances including taxes on this forum, that information is between me and my wife. Got it?

The point I made was a valid one, the sunset date in the law has nothing to do with President Obama.

The sunset date doesn't but the unwillingness to extend them does. You are the one that said the expiration of the Bush tax cuts doesn't constitute a tax increase. Discuss it with your wife but don't tell us that having less take home pay after January 1 isn't a tax increase. Sounds like you have Clinton "depends on what the word is means" syndrome.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

The sunset date doesn't but the unwillingness to extend them does. You are the one that said the expiration of the Bush tax cuts doesn't constitute a tax increase. Discuss it with your wife but don't tell us that having less take home pay after January 1 isn't a tax increase. Sounds like you have Clinton "depends on what the word is means" syndrome.

You have to make it personal, don't you?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

You have to make it personal, don't you?

You divert from the question, how do you explain the reduction in your paycheck after January 1, 2011, a pay reduction by your employer?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

You divert from the question, how do you explain the reduction in your paycheck after January 1, 2011, a pay reduction by your employer?

Did you understand what I wrote eariler? I'M NOT DISCUSSING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Did you understand what I wrote eariler? I'M NOT DISCUSSING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL, you said that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts was not a tax increase. This isn't about discussing how much you make and never was, this was about a reduction or an increase in your take home pay after January 1, 2011. That is the answer to the question, if your take home pay goes down then it is a tax increase. If it goes up it is a tax decrease. Sounds like an easy concept to understand. To flatly say that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts isn't a tax increase is simply false.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

LOL, you said that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts was not a tax increase. This isn't about discussing how much you make and never was, this was about a reduction or an increase in your take home pay after January 1, 2011. That is the answer to the question, if your take home pay goes down then it is a tax increase. If it goes up it is a tax decrease. Sounds like an easy concept to understand. To flatly say that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts isn't a tax increase is simply false.
That's not what I wrote, I said "he" meaning Obama isn't raising taxes. Go read the Constitution, the President can do nothing until legislation reaches his desk.
 
Conservative

Why don't you explain it to me because the chart shows both? As you can see there was a deficit each year and the debt went up each year. Clinton's claims were a lie and you and the media bought it.

Wikipedia? LOL, my numbers came from the checkbook of the U.S. Mine are the official numbers.

Here, have a ball,the numbers on that wiki came from this link .If my memory serves me right this, was a link that you used in the past. :2wave:


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

That's not what I wrote, I said "he" meaning Obama isn't raising taxes. Go read the Constitution, the President can do nothing until legislation reaches his desk.

Now it is read the Constitution. Doesn't that same Constitution authorize Congress to appropriate the money, not the President. Doesn't that mean that President Bush alone didn't create the deficit and debt he is blamed for? Doesn't that also mean that since the Democrats controlled Congress since January 2007 that they were responsible along with Bush for the recession thus doesn't that mean that Obama didn't inherit anything that he didn't help create?

Yes, Congress raises taxes just like Congress proposed under Democrat control that the Bush taxes have a sunset provision? Has Obama proposed an extension? If the tax cuts expire aren't taxes going up?

Interesting how you use the Constitution at various times when you think it suits you to blame FORMER President Bush but ignores that Constitution when it comes to the current President. Democrat control of Congress implemented the Obama agenda. If Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts do you think that Congress will deny him that legislation? In fact if the Bush tax cuts expire it will be because neither Obama or the Democrat Controlled Congress offered the extension.
 
Here, have a ball,the numbers on that wiki came from this link .If my memory serves me right this, was a link that you used in the past. :2wave:


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Continue to spin, the fact is there was no balanced budget during the Clinton years and there was no reduction in debt. That was a lie that liberals have been telling for years now and the uninformed have been buying it. Now it is on to another subject, debt as a percentage of GDP which is contrary to the topic at hand, the debt and the deficit in actual dollars. The chart I posted shows both the debt and the deficit and comes right from the official numbers at the U.S. Treasury. During no year during the Clinton years was the debt reduced and there was no surplus to reduce that debt. Now you can continue to spin that but that spinning doesn't change the facts.

Now if you want to discuss debt as a percentage of GDP then you also have to look at the present. Obama has put Bush and Congressional spending on steroids. We will have the highest debt to GDP ration in history with the Obama budgets and in fact Debt will be 100% of GDP at this rate by the end of the decade. That is hardly a record you want to tout. As bad as you want to claim Repubican debt was Obama is going to set the record.
 
Here, have a ball,the numbers on that wiki came from this link .If my memory serves me right this, was a link that you used in the past. :2wave:


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

What exactly are you trying to show with that chart? All it does is prove what I posted, that debt went up every year of Clinton thus there was no debt reduction during his term
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Doesn't it bother you that many of the programs funded in that 3.8 trillion dollar budget are designed to "help" the 47% that don't pay any income taxes? think that was the intent of our Founders? Congressional social engineering and attempts to keep people from failing have led to the disaster we have right now.
Our granddaughter has an inoperable brain tumor, been on chemo 4 years, running out of options. Radiation is next, and that has terrible consequences for the rest of her brain. Luckily, her parents have good insurance that pays 100% after the annual deductible, but for a lot of little kids down at Phoenix Children's Hospital, their parents have to pay 20%, and that is enough to bankrupt them.
How we treat the unfortunate is a measure of our greatness as a country.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Our granddaughter has an inoperable brain tumor, been on chemo 4 years, running out of options. Radiation is next, and that has terrible consequences for the rest of her brain. Luckily, her parents have good insurance that pays 100% after the annual deductible, but for a lot of little kids down at Phoenix Children's Hospital, their parents have to pay 20%, and that is enough to bankrupt them.
How we treat the unfortunate is a measure of our greatness as a country.

Isn't that a community or charitable responsibility to assure that the children in your community get the best care vs letting a bureaucrat in D.C. administer it? My community does that quite well as my church constantly asks for donations to help someone with a significant expense mostly medical and as always the people in the parish have risen to the occasion.
 
To this question I got the above response.




I guess we will have to get “Obvious child” in here to explain the difference to you …again, the difference in debt and deficit. :2wave:

Here, look at the National Debt as a percentage of GDP. Notice that the last Republican that managed to put a _ in the column was tricky Dick.

Check the gippers numbers, two terms of red +followed by one term(George the 1st ) of red + followed by two terms of green _(Clinton ) followed by two super numbers of red +(George the 2nd ).

Are you seeing the pattern here conservative? Republicans come in a wreck the economy, then comes the Dems in to fix the damage. Hope that the wingers didn’t do so much damage that it is not reparable.:(

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cannot help but notice that you ignored the updated chart on Debt as a percentage of GDP so you excluded Obama's record. Obviously an honest oversight? Obama has a Democrat Congress, doesn't he and is now setting records for debt to GDP ratio. I also believe you ignored the Clinton record which was generated with a GOP Congress. I wonder if Clinton proposed more or less spending than the GOP Congress approved? How about doing some research and find out?
 
Back
Top Bottom