• 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!

Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth?

megaprogman said:
This is true. A flat tax would be very regressive and harmful.
Click to expand...

it would be very harmful to the politicians who gain so much power by pitting net tax consumers against net tax payers by buying the votes of the many by engaging in tax hikes only on the top brackets
 
winston53660 said:
Because the rich are so gracious as to allow them to eat cake.
Click to expand...

Damn no wonder the obesity problem is so high in poor neighborhoods:mrgreen:
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I think the information regarding Ireland needs to be seriously updated
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
uh - we live in the USA - not Ireland and as others have said, Ireland is in deep doodoo right now.

Second, lets see the stats that prove that tax cuts lead to more jobs right here in the good old USA. That is the mantra we hear constantly from the right that if we give the rich more money to keep then they will create more jobs for the poor slobs underneath them. So lets see that please.
Click to expand...

Right now, Ireland is in trouble. I never once claimed that tax cuts are the be all, end all to economic recovery...I've been very careful about that. I have stated that they help to promote growth by not decreasing private capital. But private capital isn't the entirety of the economic formula. If you go back to the article I posted, it talks about how government spending is a factor, but private spending is roughly 2/3's of the economic equation. If you reduce government income in favor of private capital, you have a potential positive increase of 30%....but that increase is over and above what would have happened.If the economy is going down, tax policy can slow or reverse but you can't just cut taxes and expect 5% growth. Regardless of tax policy, consumers will behave according to their projections. If you cut some one's taxes, but they lose their job, they still don't have money to spend.

Good fiscal policy taxes less desirable behavior (i.e. imports), rewards desirable results (i.e. job creation and exports) and works with the forces associated with capitalism rather than against (Cap and Trade would be an example of working against).
 
Last edited:
from Turtle

Tell me (former?) dem operative. why do you spend so much time campaigning for the government to take more wealth of your fellow citizens?
Click to expand...

Actually most of my time lately was spent getting a person elected to public office and that was successful.

As for taking wealth from my fellow citizens, I want to give 100% of my fellow citizens extensions on the scheduled tax raises on their first $250,00.00 of their income. The 2% who will pay over that amount are a very tiny portion of the population and I care far more about the other 98% than I do that tiny minority and if they will have enough this year to purchase a gold plated bidet.
 
haymarket said:
from Turtle



Actually most of my time lately was spent getting a person elected to public office and that was successful.

As for taking wealth from my fellow citizens, I want to give 100% of my fellow citizens extensions on the scheduled tax raises on their first $250,00.00 of their income. The 2% who will pay over that amount are a very tiny portion of the population and I care far more about the other 98% than I do that tiny minority and if they will have enough this year to purchase a gold plated bidet.
Click to expand...

class warfare-the mantra and M.O. of the dem party is obviously the same for a dem operative. your hatred and spite towards those who already pay too much is well documented.

As long as only a tiny minority get screwed over I guess its ok, I will keep that in mind the next time liberals whine about death row inmates, gays in the military or gays wanting to marry. after all-they aren't that big a group and fairness only matters if it applies to a larger number.
 
Objective Voice said:
Thanks! I don't know why it's been so difficult for Conservatives to just tell it straight instead of spouting some obscure platitude, i.e., "correlation =/= causation".
Click to expand...

If you think that "correlation =/= causation" is an "obscure platitude," then that proves my point better than anything else I've said in this thread.
 
And when I saw that RightinNYC had posted again in this thread I was hoping he finally was bringing the evidence of tax cuts on the rich producing jobs. Instead we just get a repetition of repetition which said nothing in the first place.
 
haymarket said:
And when I saw that RightinNYC had posted again in this thread I was hoping he finally was bringing the evidence of tax cuts on the rich producing jobs. Instead we just get a repetition of repetition which said nothing in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with a relatively simple concept.
 
Screw the concept.

Show us the jobs created by the Bush tax cuts.
 
TurtleDude said:
class warfare and hatred of those who prosper is common among that party
Click to expand...

It's more a common talking point among those on the right who cannot formulate real arguments. When you cannot outdebate people, demonize them.
 
Asking those who have been the most blessed to help the rest of the American people is hardly class warfare. It amuses me that such folks like Turtle and others whine about it but it is their policies and ideas which lay the foundation for class resentments in the first place.
 
haymarket said:
Screw the concept.

Show us the jobs created by the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that they created jobs.

I'm claiming that it's idiotic to argue that because the economy grew slower than average, the tax cuts must not have caused growth.

This is incredibly basic logic and should be understood by anyone with a modicum of intelligence and a high school education. I'm neither your parent nor your tutor, so I don't give enough of a **** to try to explain this to you any further.

Have a good night.
 
from RightinNYC

I'm not claiming that they created jobs.
Click to expand...

Then you are alone on the rightwing in that regard.
 
haymarket said:
from RightinNYC



Then you are alone on the rightwing in that regard.
Click to expand...

No he's not. I went through three or four posts explaining exactly how it affects the economy. You just chose to ignore that and create a straw-man argument that you thought you could easily knock. But don't take my word for it, let's see the official Republican Platform from 2000 when they ran on tax cuts:

Cut taxes to stimulate economy and help families
Budget surpluses are the result of over-taxation of the American people. The weak link in the chain of prosperity is the tax system. It not only burdens the American people; it threatens to slow, and perhaps to reverse, the economic expansion: We therefore enthusiastically endorse the principles of Governor Bush’s Tax Cut:
Replace the five current tax brackets with four lower ones, ensuring all taxpayers significant tax relief while targeting it especially toward low-income workers.
Help families by doubling the child tax credit to $1,000, making it available to more families, and eliminating the marriage penalty.
Encourage entrepreneurship and growth by capping the top marginal rate, ending the death tax, and making permanent the Research and Development credit.
Promote charitable giving and education.
Foster capital investment and savings to boost today’s dangerously low personal savings rate.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000

Republican Party on the Issues
Click to expand...

They never say if you cut taxes the economy will magically grow. They say the economy will be helped, promoted, stimulated, etc. Your straw-man is debunked.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No he's not. I went through three or four posts explaining exactly how it affects the economy. You just chose to ignore that and create a straw-man argument that you thought you could easily knock. But don't take my word for it, let's see the official Republican Platform from 2000 when they ran on tax cuts:



They never say if you cut taxes the economy will magically grow. They say the economy will be helped, promoted, stimulated, etc. Your straw-man is debunked.
Click to expand...

Budget surpluses are the result of over-taxation of the American people. The weak link in the chain of prosperity is the tax system. It not only burdens the American people; it threatens to slow, and perhaps to reverse, the economic expansion:
Click to expand...

This part here is a real hoot.

Note in line #46 of my link that 1999 and 2000 there was no borrowing from Chinese, from the year there is a steady stream of debt.Kinda looks like the repugs brought the prosperity that we now face doesn't it?The ones in red with the -is the years we had to borrow to pay for the bush taxcuts.:2wave:

Net lending or net borrowing 1999= 95.0/ 2000=184.7/ 2001=-34.2/2002=/2003=-278.0/2004=-422.2 2005=-426.8/ 2006=-352.4/2007 -247.2/2008-315.0


U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
 
donc said:
This part here is a real hoot.

Note in line #46 of my link that 1999 and 2000 there was no borrowing from Chinese, from the year there is a steady stream of debt.Kinda looks like the repugs brought the prosperity that we now face doesn't it?The ones in red with the -is the years we had to borrow to pay for the bush taxcuts.:2wave:

Net lending or net borrowing 1999= 95.0/ 2000=184.7/ 2001=-34.2/2002=/2003=-278.0/2004=-422.2 2005=-426.8/ 2006=-352.4/2007 -247.2/2008-315.0


U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Click to expand...

Who said anything about spending? Spending and Taxes are only related in that they are on the same balance sheet. The rest is unrelated.
 
Redress said:
It's more a common talking point among those on the right who cannot formulate real arguments. When you cannot outdebate people, demonize them.
Click to expand...

and when leftwingers cannot reply rationally they make stuff up. I have never argued the jobs angle and you know that. So the strawman is worthless and yes, haymarket has engaged in class warfare based arguments.

You fail
 
from Turtle

No he's not. I went through three or four posts explaining exactly how it affects the economy. You just chose to ignore that and create a straw-man argument that you thought you could easily knock. But don't take my word for it, let's see the official Republican Platform from 2000 when they ran on tax cuts:
Click to expand...

I have little doubt that you are more than happy to cut taxes even if there is no evidence of creating jobs. You do not have to prove that to me. Your many posts have shown quite clearly where your allegiances and concerns are. However, there are plenty of Republican politicians, conservative think tanks, and right wingers who sold us this bogus bill of goods back in 2001 and 2003 and are now trying to sell it to us again.
 
haymarket said:
from Turtle



I have little doubt that you are more than happy to cut taxes even if there is no evidence of creating jobs. You do not have to prove that to me. Your many posts have shown quite clearly where your allegiances and concerns are. However, there are plenty of Republican politicians, conservative think tanks, and right wingers who sold us this bogus bill of goods back in 2001 and 2003 and are now trying to sell it to us again.
Click to expand...

wrong poster-try again
 
RightinNYC said:
If you think that "correlation =/= causation" is an "obscure platitude," then that proves my point better than anything else I've said in this thread.
Click to expand...

And what "proof" might that be?

Even here you're deflecting again instead of giving a straight answer which I find somewhat disturbing coming for you, a poster I generally respect for his intellect, tact and honesty, when you make such commentary as this:

RightinNYC said:
I'm not claiming that they created jobs.

I'm claiming that it's idiotic to argue that because the economy grew slower than average, the tax cuts must not have caused growth.

This is incredibly basic logic and should be understood by anyone with a modicum of intelligence and a high school education. I'm neither your parent nor your tutor, so I don't give enough of a **** to try to explain this to you any further.

Have a good night.
Click to expand...

Haymarket asked a very simple question that even Conservative should be able to do with his "at-the-ready cut-N-paste" answers - show evidence that tax cuts did, in fact, create the jobs that Republicans/Conservatives claim they should/would have. As far as I'm concerned, the Bush tax cuts failed. America's evidence is the recession and the high unemployment rate we're still trying to get control over.
 
Last edited:
donc said:
This part here is a real hoot.

Note in line #46 of my link that 1999 and 2000 there was no borrowing from Chinese, from the year there is a steady stream of debt.Kinda looks like the repugs brought the prosperity that we now face doesn't it?The ones in red with the -is the years we had to borrow to pay for the bush taxcuts.:2wave:

Net lending or net borrowing 1999= 95.0/ 2000=184.7/ 2001=-34.2/2002=/2003=-278.0/2004=-422.2 2005=-426.8/ 2006=-352.4/2007 -247.2/2008-315.0


U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Click to expand...

There is little doubt that there was too much spending during the Bush administration but it should also be noted that he was struck by a few national disasters, 9/11 chef among them. Nonetheless, his party supporters felt there was too much spending (polls would reflect this) and this gave birth to the Tea Party movement, a group of Americans who want spending brought under some control.

Americans can give 90% of their income to the politicians but would this assure that the country is debt free? Of course not. They'll just spend more. If the government cannot follow ts own budget then why bother having one? And if they run out of spending money, as indeed they have, they''ll simply borrow more and raise more taxes.. Some Americans seem to be fine with this but any responsible government, or educated individual, would not be so lackadaisical regarding over the top spending.

Just sending more money to governments because they want it is irresponsible, and blaming one person or party for the problem is useless. Unless the American people themselves get serious about government spending then they'll have a problem from which they'll be unlikely to recover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom