• 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?

Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing that prevents Buffet or any other liberal billionaire to send more into the Federal Govt. in the form of a "contribution" but they never do, why? I have always said that liberals regardless of how rich want to spread misery equally to everyone else.

You think it is Patriotic to demand more from someone else than others? If paying taxes is patriotic what does that make the 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes?
 
UtahBill said:
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..
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dude, really?

UtahBill uses the state of affairs in the Middle East to illustrate how bad things can get if you allow religious to be a benchmark in your government's politics and all you can do in reply is once again use your copy-N-paste antics on individual taxes imposed under Pres. to refute him? Pathetic!

Next time, try thinking outside the box for a change instead of duplicating rhetorical nonsense that's already been refuted - by me no less (not that I'm an authority on the matter, but the rationale behind the Obama taxes mentioned above are common-sense tax credits/cuts. It doesn't take a mathmatical genius to figure out why they were implemented.)

Conservative said:
There is absolutely nothing that prevents Buffet or any other liberal billionaire to send more into the Federal Govt. in the form of a "contribution" but they never do, why? I have always said that liberals regardless of how rich want to spread misery equally to everyone else.
Click to expand...

For starters, that little "$3 checkbox" on your federal tax return is hardly enough for any multi-millionaire to make a substaintial campaign contribution.

Second, this isn't a campaign contributions. It's about taxes!

Third, you are correct in that if the wealthy wanted to help out their fellow man, they could donate to charities, but I'm sure most already do that and, as such, the write that donation off on their taxes anyway. So, it's really not the same thing now, is it?

Forth, Buffet is talking about doing what's right here. He knows he and his peers have been the beneficiaries of tax laws that have been swung heavily in their favor for quiet some time. All he's saying is it's time for those who have benefitted from favorable tax laws and have become rich as a result to start giving back. And the best, sure-fire way to do that is for the federal government to increase their tax liability. And in these hard, economic times it only makes sense that "those who can, do!" I mean, how can someone like you who proclaims patriatism be so against this?

You think it is Patriotic to demand more from someone else than others? If paying taxes is patriotic what does that make the 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes?
Click to expand...

Once again, you get me wrong, sir. Who's "demanding" anything here? Mr. Buffet is saying, "I don't need the added tax benefit. I've benefitted mightily from the very generous tax breaks over the years, in particular the Bush tax cuts! It's time I and others like me to start giving back. Tax me!" So, if he and other wealthy individuals are saying this very same thing, why then do you have such a heartburn with the truth of which they speak?
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Dude, really?

UtahBill uses the state of affairs in the Middle East to illustrate how bad things can get if you allow religious to be a benchmark in your government's politics and all you can do in reply is once again use your copy-N-paste antics on individual taxes imposed under Pres. to refute him? Pathetic!

Next time, try thinking outside the box for a change instead of duplicating rhetorical nonsense that's already been refuted - by me no less (not that I'm an authority on the matter, but the rationale behind the Obama taxes mentioned above are common-sense tax credits/cuts. It doesn't take a mathmatical genius to figure out why they were implemented.)
Click to expand...

What I did was bring the comments back on topic. What exactly have you refuted? I gave you non partisan data and you counter with predictions and projections that have never been right. What the sites I gave you show is the affects of the Bush and Obama tax cuts that you want to ignore.

Only in the liberal world is it common sense for a liberal govt. to pick the winners and losers. That is why Obama took a shellacking on Nov. 2, and why his approval ratings today continue to drop.
 
Last edited:
I appreciated the tax cuts.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, it sure does, does your? Cite for me the separation of church and state for me.
Click to expand...

And you too sir have a problem with the way it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Apparently there is what is and there is what you wish it would be. But take comfort in that a certain witch in Delaware agrees with you.
 
haymarket said:
And you too sir have a problem with the way it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Apparently there is what is and there is what you wish it would be. But take comfort in that a certain witch in Delaware agrees with you.
Click to expand...

And you have a problem with religion, what are you afraid of. Choose to worship whoever or whatever you want but don't tell me that Freedom OF Religion is the same as Freedom FROM Religion.
 
Conservative said:
And you have a problem with religion, what are you afraid of. Choose to worship whoever or whatever you want but don't tell me that Freedom OF Religion is the same as Freedom FROM Religion.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with religion and am not afraid of it. I fully and completely support the First Amendment and all rights enumerated in it.
 
Conservative said:
And you have a problem with religion, what are you afraid of. Choose to worship whoever or whatever you want but don't tell me that Freedom OF Religion is the same as Freedom FROM Religion.
Click to expand...


I choose to be free of religion. Do you have some time to talk? I would love to witness you as to the salvation of being free from religion.:2razz:
 
Grant said:
The question eventually comes down to whether the government can handle finances more effectively than the individual. There seems to be those who feel that the government should have more money in order to create jobs, wealth, or some such thing. This argument appears to be that because tax cuts didn't create enough jobs taxpayers should send Washington more money and maybe it will happen this time. Maybe it will.

But the smart money says otherwise.
Click to expand...

Alright, I'll give you that our government wastes tons of our tax dollars every year, but a large part of that IS NOT from the social programs that the critics complain about. A vast majority of it comes from military/defense spending mostly under the heading of "national security". Take the Department of Homeland Defense, for example. Very few people are aware that in order to form this department, several government agencies had to be realigned, and in doing so they took their multi-billion budgets with them. Their budget for 2007 alone was over $44 billion! But what exactly has the DHS done with those billions since being enacted by law?

Don't get me wrong; I want the DHS to do well. I want them and all of their minor intelligence divisions to catch the bad guys. But if we're going to talk about wasteful government spending, let's really talk about it instead of laying blame on programs designed to help the poor and the distitude where most of the authority for such programs is levelled at the States, not the fed.
 
Hmmm interesting:

First, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2002b) now projects a 10-year baseline surplus of $1 trillion. These projections also show that outside the Social Security Trust Funds, the budget has a deficit of $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years; omitting the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund as well, the deficit amounts to $1.9 trillion. These figures represent astonishingly large declines from the forecasts made just 20 months ago. The projected outcome for the fixed time period of 2002 to 2010 deteriorated on a unified budget basis from a surplus of $4.7 trillion in January 2001 to essentially zero ($13 billion) in August 2002. The projected outcome for 2002 alone changed by $470 billion, from a surplus of $313 billion in January 2001 to a deficit of $157 billion in August 2002.

The Vanishing Budget Surplus: Interpreting CBO's New Projections and Fiscal Prospects - Brookings Institution
 
winston53660 said:
Hmmm interesting:

First, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2002b) now projects a 10-year baseline surplus of $1 trillion. These projections also show that outside the Social Security Trust Funds, the budget has a deficit of $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years; omitting the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund as well, the deficit amounts to $1.9 trillion. These figures represent astonishingly large declines from the forecasts made just 20 months ago. The projected outcome for the fixed time period of 2002 to 2010 deteriorated on a unified budget basis from a surplus of $4.7 trillion in January 2001 to essentially zero ($13 billion) in August 2002. The projected outcome for 2002 alone changed by $470 billion, from a surplus of $313 billion in January 2001 to a deficit of $157 billion in August 2002.

The Vanishing Budget Surplus: Interpreting CBO's New Projections and Fiscal Prospects - Brookings Institution
Click to expand...

LOL, amazing how some always hang on to CBO "estimates" when those estimates support their point of view. never mind that the accuracy of the CBO beyond 1 year is suspect and in fact inaccurate at best. Carry on.
 
The projected outcome for 2002 alone changed by $470 billion, from a surplus of $313 billion in January 2001 to a deficit of $157 billion in August 2002.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many here remember what happened on 9/11/01? Seems to me that once again the word PROJECTED is ignored or misunderstood. As has been reported over and over there only was a projected surplus but never an actual surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration and first years of the Bush Administration. Seems that many here continue to buy the rhetoric because that is what they want to believe and yet never verified with actual facts. Here is where you go to get the actual facts,

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

I always go to my bank account when I want the facts but others refuse to do the same thing with the Federal Govt. bank account which is located at the U.S. Treasury Dept.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, amazing how some always hang on to CBO "estimates" when those estimates support their point of view. never mind that the accuracy of the CBO beyond 1 year is suspect and in fact inaccurate at best. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Finally, something I can agree with is coming from Conservative...:2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
well, be quiet about it, I want to preserve some dignity here.
Click to expand...

It will be yours and my secret as I wouldn't want to do anything to damage your reputation by creating guilt by association. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
 
Objective Voice said:
Alright, I'll give you that our government wastes tons of our tax dollars every year, but a large part of that IS NOT from the social programs that the critics complain about. A vast majority of it comes from military/defense spending mostly under the heading of "national security". Take the Department of Homeland Defense, for example. Very few people are aware that in order to form this department, several government agencies had to be realigned, and in doing so they took their multi-billion budgets with them. Their budget for 2007 alone was over $44 billion! But what exactly has the DHS done with those billions since being enacted by law?

Don't get me wrong; I want the DHS to do well. I want them and all of their minor intelligence divisions to catch the bad guys. But if we're going to talk about wasteful government spending, let's really talk about it instead of laying blame on programs designed to help the poor and the distitude where most of the authority for such programs is levelled at the States, not the fed.
Click to expand...

No, they are just plainly unconstitutional and shouldn't even exist, efficient or not.
 
I have nothing to contribute to this riveting discussion other than I made an interesting observation that I never saw it before. When someone comes up with a damn good point as to why taxing the way we did before Regan worked, conservatives will try to redirect and ask why we need to have so many entitlement programs and won't directly answer why it does work when the evidence is given by people that have cold hard facts supported by non-partisan sources.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I have nothing to contribute to this riveting discussion other than I made an interesting observation that I never saw it before. When someone comes up with a damn good point as to why taxing the way we did before Regan worked, conservatives will try to redirect and ask why we need to have so many entitlement programs and won't directly answer why it does work when the evidence is given by people that have cold hard facts supported by non-partisan sources.
Click to expand...

it worked for those not getting gouged who really have no other option.

you libs never take into account that some people tire of being screwed over for the greater good (ie vote buying schemes by the dems)
 
TurtleDude said:
it worked for those not getting gouged who really have no other option.

you libs never take into account that some people tire of being screwed over for the greater good (ie vote buying schemes by the dems)
Click to expand...

Guess you have nothing to contribute either.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I have nothing to contribute to this riveting discussion other than I made an interesting observation that I never saw it before. When someone comes up with a damn good point as to why taxing the way we did before Regan worked, conservatives will try to redirect and ask why we need to have so many entitlement programs and won't directly answer why it does work when the evidence is given by people that have cold hard facts supported by non-partisan sources.
Click to expand...

What interesting observation? Tell us what the tax rates were that you want us to go back to as there have been many over the past 40 years and what was the tax policy during those times? Have you bothered to look at the budget growth over that period of time? Why focus on taxes when it is a spending problem we have, not a revenue problem? Having a 3.6 trillion dollar govt is unsustainable but that is never addressed. It is always look at the revenue side. In your own personal life where do you look first, revenue or expenses?

I keep hearing about those great Clinton years but what I don't hear much about is the 1994 election and what happened afterwards to those taxes Clinton raised? As Paul Harvey used to say, "now for the rest of the story"
 
The next time we the taxpayers gives a company tax breaks why don't we tie stipulations to them that they have to produce x amount of jobs for the US economy. They should have to prove to us that our tax money is being spent to increase the labor force and instead of improving their bottom line.We don't know if the companies that got tax breaks actually produced new jobs or used that money to buy more companies. Maybe even start a new plant in China or somewhere else. We just give them the money and walk away. They have number crunchers so they should have an idea of what x amount of dollars would do for them. Why should we as taxpayers subsidize they debts and we get nothing in return. All I'm trying to say if we give them tax dollars they should be responsible for producing jobs to help the economy. Period. If the primary purpose of the tax cuts is to spur growth then we should know in advance how much they expect to grow with our money.
 
bfg2009 said:
The next time we the taxpayers gives a company tax breaks why don't we tie stipulations to them that they have to produce x amount of jobs for the US economy. They should have to prove to us that our tax money is being spent to increase the labor force and instead of improving their bottom line.We don't know if the companies that got tax breaks actually produced new jobs or used that money to buy more companies. Maybe even start a new plant in China or somewhere else. We just give them the money and walk away. They have number crunchers so they should have an idea of what x amount of dollars would do for them. Why should we as taxpayers subsidize they debts and we get nothing in return. All I'm trying to say if we give them tax dollars they should be responsible for producing jobs to help the economy. Period. If the primary purpose of the tax cuts is to spur growth then we should know in advance how much they expect to grow with our money.
Click to expand...

Nothing very hard about that: jobs tax credits. Instead of tax rate cuts, you provide credits for jobs created. The multi-nationals would not likely partake, as they already pay zero taxes. Then again, big business doesn't create jobs; small business does and they are the also the ones that pay actually pay corporate taxes.

Obama should have used job tax credits as part of the stimulus. Instead, they had some convoluted scheme to grace some of the employer FICA.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom