• 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?

from Grant




Taxes were low????? Tax rates coming out of World War Ii through the Fifties were high for the rich. The level of difference between the wealthy was much lower than it is today.

What changed? Just look at the level of unionized workers across the land when prosperity was riding high and compare it to what has happened to unions over the last twenty years. There is a major part of your answer.

The fact is this - when we were an agriculturally based economy, a person could be of limited intelligence but still make a decent life on the land. When we made the transition to a manufacturing economy, because of the labor movement, a person could be of limited or average intelligence and make a good living producing things in a plant or factory. Where is there a job in the modern economy for a person with an IQ of 80 to 90 who might be a decent honest and hard working person but is lost in todays market? How many people do we need to say "welcome to Wal Mart" or "do you want fries with that burger" and how much do they earn?

You asked what changed... and I laid it out for you. I suspect you will not like the answer.

I actually agree with this comment-being strong and dumb will no longer get you a big paycheck unless you are really strong and athletic and sign with the NFL (though most pro athletes are not morons).

So tell me what is the solution? taxing the rich isn't going to make dull people able to compete in the modern information age
 
I actually agree with this comment-being strong and dumb will no longer get you a big paycheck unless you are really strong and athletic and sign with the NFL (though most pro athletes are not morons).

So tell me what is the solution? taxing the rich isn't going to make dull people able to compete in the modern information age

In the modern information age we still need lots of people to produce things. The answer is to produce things here in the USA not outsource jobs elsewhere, to use American labor to do it and to respect the right of labor to organize and negotiate a living wage and something a middle class family can live on.
 
In the modern information age we still need lots of people to produce things. The answer is to produce things here in the USA not outsource jobs elsewhere, to use American labor to do it and to respect the right of labor to organize and negotiate a living wage and something a middle class family can live on.

good luck with ignoring the global economy. a "living wage" is one of those leftwing mantras that sound good to the unlearned and the pillow heads but is meaningless. Wages are designed to obtain the commodity known as labor for companies that need it. If they have to pay more for that commodity (or any commodity-be it labor, steel, energy, IT support etc) than the competition they are going to be at a huge competitive disadvantage.

to expect American Corporations to be able to compete while being forced to pay MORE for the SAME quality of labor is moronic
 
good luck with ignoring the global economy. a "living wage" is one of those leftwing mantras that sound good to the unlearned and the pillow heads but is meaningless. Wages are designed to obtain the commodity known as labor for companies that need it. If they have to pay more for that commodity (or any commodity-be it labor, steel, energy, IT support etc) than the competition they are going to be at a huge competitive disadvantage.

to expect American Corporations to be able to compete while being forced to pay MORE for the SAME quality of labor is moronic

If you climb into bed and spread your legs and end up pregnant, its half your own damn fault. There are far too many people on the right wing who suck up to the rich, are sycophants for the corporatists, they are the toadies of this 'global economy' and are enemies of the working man and unions. They are more than happy to commit economic treason against the American people and take their money offshore. And after they do all the damage they can do they then invoke its existence as if they had nothing to do with it and it just sprang up from the ground like a weed.

The Founding Fathers gave us a method to protect our nation from such a hell.
 
If you climb into bed and spread your legs and end up pregnant, its half your own damn fault. There are far too many people on the right wing who suck up to the rich, are sycophants for the corporatists, they are the toadies of this 'global economy' and are enemies of the working man and unions. They are more than happy to commit economic treason against the American people and take their money offshore. And after they do all the damage they can do they then invoke its existence as if they had nothing to do with it and it just sprang up from the ground like a weed.

The Founding Fathers gave us a method to protect our nation from such a hell.

Since when did you ever care about what our Founding Fathers said or did? they also promoted a small central govt, personal responsibility, and built this country on religious principles. The Founding Fathers knew that power corrupts and that is why they put the power in the states with the individuals. Bush tax cuts empowered people and generated strong economic growth. You and others love to point to the low job creation but ignore that Bush job creation was good excluding the recession he inherited and the 2008 which happened with the help of the Democrat Congress. Why don't supporters of Obama get the actual results instead of just selective cherrypicking of data?
 
Since when did you ever care about what our Founding Fathers said or did? they also promoted a small central govt, personal responsibility, and built this country on religious principles. The Founding Fathers knew that power corrupts and that is why they put the power in the states with the individuals. Bush tax cuts empowered people and generated strong economic growth. You and others love to point to the low job creation but ignore that Bush job creation was good excluding the recession he inherited and the 2008 which happened with the help of the Democrat Congress. Why don't supporters of Obama get the actual results instead of just selective cherrypicking of data?

My statement was not a measure of how much one "cares". It was a statement of fact. It was a product of the head and not the heart.

Your characterization of what the FF did is most interesting. I remember them as creating a much stronger national government than the one that preceded it. I remember strict divisions between church and state.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different nation than I am?
 
My statement was not a measure of how much one "cares". It was a statement of fact. It was a product of the head and not the heart.

Your characterization of what the FF did is most interesting. I remember them as creating a much stronger national government than the one that preceded it. I remember strict divisions between church and state.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different nation than I am?

Perhaps you didn't really study history but it came to you in a dream. Our Founding Fathers created a Constitution that you should really read as it is quite interesting and telling. Amazing how Promote the Domestic Welfare today means provide the Domestic Welfare. Amazing how there is no separation of church and amazing how marriage isn't defined in the Constitution as a civil right. Our Founders got it right, today liberals are destroying what they did.
 
If anybody thinks we need to do away with seperation of church and state, I would suggest you look at the middle east....
The LAST thing we need is a bunch of "holy" men mixing in with a bunch of politicians. The speed at which ordinary citizen becomes crook will triple overnight...it will be a contest as to which group corrupts the other group the most..
 
If anybody thinks we need to do away with seperation of church and state, I would suggest you look at the middle east....
The LAST thing we need is a bunch of "holy" men mixing in with a bunch of politicians. The speed at which ordinary citizen becomes crook will triple overnight...it will be a contest as to which group corrupts the other group the most..

Our Founders built this country on religious princples and to deny that is what has created the mess we have today. Today we have Freedom OF Religion not Freedom FROM Religion and where how far we carry that comes from the individual not a Central Govt. There is no separation of Church and State in the Constitution. Please review that and correct me where I am wrong.
 
My statement was not a measure of how much one "cares". It was a statement of fact. It was a product of the head and not the heart.

Your characterization of what the FF did is most interesting. I remember them as creating a much stronger national government than the one that preceded it. I remember strict divisions between church and state.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different nation than I am?

Here is a good article that refutes those so called "facts" of yours. What liberals want to focus on are those that did indeed believe in a strong central govt. NOT the govt. that was actually created. Only in the area of National Defense did our Founders empower a strong Central Govt.

Limited Government is Essential to Preserve Liberty - HUMAN EVENTS
 
Our Founders built this country on religious princples and to deny that is what has created the mess we have today. Today we have Freedom OF Religion not Freedom FROM Religion and where how far we carry that comes from the individual not a Central Govt. There is no separation of Church and State in the Constitution. Please review that and correct me where I am wrong.

There is also NO INCLUSION of church and state working together to govern....they had that in Europe, where the Pope had a huge say in govt affairs, and the churches did not care much about improving the plight of the peasantry. Donations came from the haves, not the have nots, so who do you think gets sucked up to....

Freedom FROM religion is included under Freedom OF religion....no religion has the right to force others to be part of it. Do you hear the calls to prayers over loudspeakers from your local mosque? Do you want local churches that you don't attend assessing you for obligatory donations?
Name one religious leader in the USA who you would trust to help run this country...
 
If anybody thinks we need to do away with seperation of church and state, I would suggest you look at the middle east....
The LAST thing we need is a bunch of "holy" men mixing in with a bunch of politicians. The speed at which ordinary citizen becomes crook will triple overnight...it will be a contest as to which group corrupts the other group the most..

The topic of this thread is "Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth" and the facts show that indeed they were.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Some love showing how bad things were in 2008 yet the economy actually grew until the end of the year and we still ended up with a 14.4 trillion dollar economy. Compare that to the end of 2009 and then compare the economic plan put into place by Obama vs that of GW Bush. Here is the comparison between tax cuts for both. Pretty easy to see why the Obama tax cuts didn't really benefit the economy, too targeted and actually ignores the private sector.

Obama Tax cuts

Total: $288 billion

[edit] Tax cuts for individuals

Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

Bush Tax cuts

Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.
 
There is also NO INCLUSION of church and state working together to govern....they had that in Europe, where the Pope had a huge say in govt affairs, and the churches did not care much about improving the plight of the peasantry. Donations came from the haves, not the have nots, so who do you think gets sucked up to....

Freedom FROM religion is included under Freedom OF religion....no religion has the right to force others to be part of it. Do you hear the calls to prayers over loudspeakers from your local mosque? Do you want local churches that you don't attend assessing you for obligatory donations?
Name one religious leader in the USA who you would trust to help run this country...

Who said there was? Freedom FROM Religion isn't the same as Freedom OF Religion, Freedom OF Religion gives you the right to worship as you want and that is the issue. Freedom FROM Religion isn't in the Constitution but Freedom OF Religion is.

Most of our Presidents were religious but not religious leaders. Most of the people in this country claim to be religious and believe in God, I certainly do but that is for another thread as is this discussion. Just had to respond to this off topic post. I trust those that believe in religion a lot more than those who don't as the basics of our country rely on discipline and laws neither of which are promoted by the non religious.
 
from Conservative in his lecture to me about the real meaning of the US Constitution

Amazing how there is no separation of church and amazing how marriage isn't defined in the Constitution as a civil right

Did you leave something out from that? "there is no separation of church and amazing .....". i will admit that I have been is some churches which are amazing - St. Patricks Cathedral in NY City for one - and in my copy of the Constitution they certainly do not mention 'church and amazing'.

If you are intending to say "church and state" there is a failed US Senate candidate now standing over a steaming cauldron who agrees with you. Take solace in that.
 
from Conservative in his lecture to me about the real meaning of the US Constitution



Did you leave something out from that? "there is no separation of church and amazing .....". i will admit that I have been is some churches which are amazing - St. Patricks Cathedral in NY City for one - and in my copy of the Constitution they certainly do not mention 'church and amazing'.

If you are intending to say "church and state" there is a failed US Senate candidate now standing over a steaming cauldron who agrees with you. Take solace in that.

What is amazing how you and others continue to promote that myth of "Separation of Church and State" which says it all. If I were you, I would be afraid of religion as well but carry on diverting from the Constitution that we have vs. the one the Liberal media and others want us to have. It must be a lonely world you live in that you have such little faith in anything. My faith gives me strength and a better understanding of personal responsibility and discipline. Carry on diverting from this thread topic.
 
The topic of this thread is "Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth" and the facts show that indeed they were.

.

you were the one to bring up religion.....then cut and run....
 
Conservative: Does your copy of the Constitution not have the entire First Amendment in it?
 
Conservative: Does your copy of the Constitution not have the entire First Amendment in it?

its right next to the pages that delegate power to the federal government to pass healthcare and social security
 
its right next to the pages that delegate power to the federal government to pass healthcare and social security

Perhaps your copy of the Consitution is organized differently than mine is? Article I,Section 8 which authorizes Congress to do those things comes a good deal ahead of the First Amendment in mine.
 
Perhaps your copy of the Consitution is organized differently than mine is? Article I,Section 8 which authorizes Congress to do those things comes a good deal ahead of the First Amendment in mine.

you just failed constitutional law 101

but I already knew that-when you cite that you pretty much prove to anyone with a law degree that you are clueless on this issue. If your claim was true, the tenth amendment would never had been penned because all congress would have to do is claim something was needed.

sadly for you I know this stuff back and forwards
 
seems to me that the litte turtle man has a big problem with the mean old US Supreme Court and their upholding of programs that he just doesn't like very much. Maybe the little turtle man needs to tell them how much he knows and in which direction his knowledge flows.

from Wikipedia

The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

Sounds a great deal in sympathy with our friend the turtle man. And his side lost that argument.

the turtle says with a big smirk

its right next to the pages that delegate power to the federal government to pass healthcare and social security
 
Last edited:
seems to me that the litte turtle man has a big problem with the mean old US Supreme Court and their upholding of programs that he just doesn't like very much. Maybe the little turtle man needs to tell them how much he knows and in which direction his knowledge flows.

why don't you take a couple hours and fashion a well reasoned argument in support of your position. and you can explain what caused the Supreme Court to Rule the way it did in Schecter Poultry and t hen completely reverse that after the 1936 elections and explain whether that rejection of precedent was based on honest legal reasoning or perhaps the threat of FDR to pack the court and then you can explain if the precedent set by that reversal is really and truly constitutionally sound or merely a bastard offspring of political reality and a power hungry administration

If you are as learned of the USC as you claim it should only take a couple hours

BBL
 
Your problem is with the US Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. Obviously you were not there to bowl them over with your voluminous knowledge of both their duties and the powers of Congress or we would not have any Social Security program today. But that is water under the bridge.

And i think its so cute you how have to pronounce people failing just because they disagree with you - even though history does also. ;)
 
The country was on "sound economic footing" before the entitlement programs began, and politicians began pissing the money away in order to get votes. If Warren Buffet wants to give away money to the politicians in Washington, good for him. But it would be just as insane as Ted Turner giving his money to the United Nations.

We're not talking about the man making political contributions to one political candidate or a political party. Buffet is just saying that over the last decade (at least) the wealthy have been given tax breaks and, as such, have amassed great wealth. They've had their opportunity to become even more successful and do what Republicans have claimed 'trickle-down economics" should have done, but now it's time for those who benefitted most from generous tax laws to start giving back more for the sake of their country.

Republicans/Conservatives talk all this talk of patriatism, but the moment someone whom they've supported (i.e., a wealthy individual) speaks out against one of their core political mainstays (i.e., don't tax the rich, give them tax relief so that they can create jobs) and is proven wrong about it, suddenly this individual's credibility is called into question and the message becomes, "screw him! If he wants throw his money away, let him". That's a rather weak and pathetic line to take for someone of a weathy class your party claims to support.
 
Back
Top Bottom