• 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!

Tax Cuts Are A Bigger Problem Than Spending

KLATTU said:
Given the contractory effects of tax hikes on the economy, it's pretty clear what the problem is-spending.
Click to expand...

This isn't clear, as there hasn't been any evidence presented that confirms the bold.

Note how that interest number keeps gobbling up more of the pie.
Click to expand...

These are not pie charts, they are are reconstructions of CBO data by Veronique De Rugy, who is an adjunct scholar @ Cato.

A rather weak post.

Also- Note the explosion in major health care programs. Now image that number if Democrats get their wish- single payer.
Click to expand...

Also, note the aging of the U.S. population along with the decline in birth rate.
 
Kushinator said:
This isn't clear, as there hasn't been any evidence presented that confirms the bold.



These are not pie charts, they are are reconstructions of CBO data by Veronique De Rugy, who is an adjunct scholar @ Cato.

A rather weak post.


e.
Click to expand...

A rather weak reply. What does it matter who compiled it?

Interest on the debt continues to rise . True or false?
 
KLATTU said:
None, huh?
http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html
"Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent."
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be best if you actually understood the terminology and read the research prior to making matter-of-fact statements.

ea8709d319.png


Panel B:
afd1be6189.png


:lol::2wave:
 
Absentglare said:
What about "isn't clear" makes you think "None"?
Click to expand...

He rushed to google after reading my response, and picked up the first thing that he believed supported his position... without even understanding it! :lamo

This is one of the first clues (when they search for sources to confirm their opinion rather than deriving their opinion from data, knowledge, or fact) that the person you are debating did not receive a quality education.
 
I 'll have to hand to you liberals, you just never give up. Tax increases just have no negative effects on the economy and you won't have it any other way. LOL
 
KLATTU said:
I 'll have to hand to you liberals, you just never give up. Tax increases just have no negative effects on the economy and you won't have it any other way. LOL
Click to expand...

I never said that. Why not even an attempt to push the Romer and Romer working paper anymore? We know why.
 
KLATTU said:
I 'll have to hand to you liberals, you just never give up. Tax increases just have no negative effects on the economy and you won't have it any other way. LOL
Click to expand...

I like the defiant stupidity of your post. I already debunked this strawman of yours:

Absentglare said:
What about "isn't clear" makes you think "None"?
Click to expand...

Kushinator described it as not "clear" and you are DISHONESTLY trying to pawn that off as "Tax increases just have no negative effects on the economy."

Your dishonesty is obvious and laid bare for all to see. You are looking for a simple relationship to match your infantile level of economic comprehension: tax increases are either always good or always bad, it can't possibly be context or implementation dependent because that would be too complicated!
 
I'm not surprised we haven't discussed improper payments (not much to disagree on?).

a0876cd9ba.png
 
KLATTU said:
I 'll have to hand to you liberals, you just never give up. Tax increases just have no negative effects on the economy and you won't have it any other way. LOL
Click to expand...

I reject your premise. I find it purposefully overstated, in order to paint liberals as absurd people. However, liberals have no problems defending either leaving tax rates where they are, or increasing tax rates. There are weak, weak, arguments for tax cuts. When Trump, in his words, gives us, "the biggest tax cut ever." Deficits will soar, income inequality will widen, and I predict, revenue will slump. Trump won't even find 1/4 of the spending he would need to cut out of the federal budget to offset the missed revenue.
 
Winston said:
Look at countries like Germany and Sweden. They spend on a single-payer healthcare system. They also spend more on their citizens in general. But, they are taxed significantly higher than us. They provide more for their society without damaging their budget. Both countries run surpluses.

German budget surplus soars as economy motors ahead | Reuters

Conservative like to tell you spending is the problem. Yet we have so many outright refutations of their "spending is the boogeyman" talking point. The problem is the Tax CUTS!

That shows you the Bush Tax Cuts costed more than both wars Bush waged on the countries credit card. You guys don't realize that a tax cut that saves you two or three thousand per year, may feel nice and give you a cushion. But, the same legislation that gave you an extra two or three thousand, is giving the top an extra quarter million. A chunk of money they do not need and has no positive benefits for society from they're acquiring it. That's money that could've been used to build roads, schools, or provide healthcare to our citizens.


Once again, Germany high tax, high spending, runs a surplus. The problem is the tax cuts. Not the spending.

Also very boneheaded and deceptive move cutting HUD and Community Development Block Grants. It's not saving you any money, because those cuts in spending will be eviscerated by giant tax cuts coming.
Click to expand...
My biggest issue with the Bush tax cuts was that they were supposed to end when there was no longer a surplus*. It was sold to us as the responsible thing to do. Well, the surplus ended, and... the tax cuts didn't.

*- We never really had a surplus, it was smoke-and-mirrors, but that's another topic for another thread.
 
Winston said:
I reject your premise. I find it purposefully overstated, in order to paint liberals as absurd people. However, liberals have no problems defending either leaving tax rates where they are, or increasing tax rates. There are weak, weak, arguments for tax cuts. When Trump, in his words, gives us, "the biggest tax cut ever." Deficits will soar, income inequality will widen, and I predict, revenue will slump. Trump won't even find 1/4 of the spending he would need to cut out of the federal budget to offset the missed revenue.
Click to expand...

I think you may have misunderstood my post.I'll restate . I wasn't advocating tax cuts. I was saying we can't tax our way out of the mess . The increase in taxes necessary to right the ship would be so large that they would have a negative effect on the economy. ( apparently some people seem to think there is no negative effect assocaited with tax increases?)

There must be some type of spending reform.


There
 
Winston said:
Look at countries like Germany and Sweden. They spend on a single-payer healthcare system. They also spend more on their citizens in general. But, they are taxed significantly higher than us. They provide more for their society without damaging their budget. Both countries run surpluses.

German budget surplus soars as economy motors ahead | Reuters

Conservative like to tell you spending is the problem. Yet we have so many outright refutations of their "spending is the boogeyman" talking point. The problem is the Tax CUTS!


View attachment 67217813

That shows you the Bush Tax Cuts costed more than both wars Bush waged on the countries credit card. You guys don't realize that a tax cut that saves you two or three thousand per year, may feel nice and give you a cushion. But, the same legislation that gave you an extra two or three thousand, is giving the top an extra quarter million. A chunk of money they do not need and has no positive benefits for society from they're acquiring it. That's money that could've been used to build roads, schools, or provide healthcare to our citizens.


Once again, Germany high tax, high spending, runs a surplus. The problem is the tax cuts. Not the spending.

Also very boneheaded and deceptive move cutting HUD and Community Development Block Grants. It's not saving you any money, because those cuts in spending will be eviscerated by giant tax cuts coming.
Click to expand...

Of-course spending is the problem. We've been taking in record revenues and yet, our debt increased by 10 trillion over the last 8 years.

Add in the fact that Obama's economy was so anemic that it had to be propped up with 8 years of FED zero interest rates. There were substantial tax increases under Obama
Also, Germany is and has been exploiting the fact that the Euro's value is fixed to maintain a unfair export advantage over other EU states.

Instead of comparing a Western European Nation to the US, how about we compare the economies of 2 border States with comparable populations but very different tax and regulatory policies ?
Like Texas and California ?
 
Winston said:
I reject your premise. I find it purposefully overstated, in order to paint liberals as absurd people. However, liberals have no problems defending either leaving tax rates where they are, or increasing tax rates. There are weak, weak, arguments for tax cuts. When Trump, in his words, gives us, "the biggest tax cut ever." Deficits will soar, income inequality will widen, and I predict, revenue will slump. Trump won't even find 1/4 of the spending he would need to cut out of the federal budget to offset the missed revenue.
Click to expand...

The arguments FOR tax increases are standard left wing boiwingplate talking points.

The arguments for cutting taxes is based in real world examples and comparisons that absurd Liberals like to ignore or reject on principle

California lost 9000 Bussiness, HQs and expansions to Red States like Texas
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...a-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html
 
iguanaman said:
Who says we haven't let the U.S. fall into the hands of oligarchs already? Better we should worry about what happened to Russia as that seems to be where we are heading.
Click to expand...

The American Left spent decades trying to turn the USA into a balkanized eastern bloc nation.
 
TurtleDude said:
The American Left spent decades trying to turn the USA into a balkanized eastern bloc nation.
Click to expand...

Is that what you call countries with a strong middle class? The largest and most affluent middle class in the world was made with the blueprint provided by FDR and Democrats have continued his lead. The right wing has waged war on the middle class since Reagan and it appears that they will not stop until they are all gone.
 
Fenton said:
The arguments FOR tax increases are standard left wing boiwingplate talking points.

The arguments for cutting taxes is based in real world examples and comparisons that absurd Liberals like to ignore or reject on principle

California lost 9000 Bussiness, HQs and expansions to Red States like Texas
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...a-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html
Click to expand...

The arguments for cutting taxes have been debunked every time it is tried. The reality is that tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich are the least effective and most expensive method for "growing the economy" or increasing job growth imaginable. The results from the Bush tax cuts illustrate that in spades. It is pure fantasy to say that "this time it will be different" and that is also the definition of insanity .
It is hard to find even a reputable conservative economist willing to say anything good these days about President Bush’s tax and economic policies. In 2009, the Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson said he saw no redeeming features in them.

In 2011, the economist Alan Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told Bloomberg News, “The effects of the Bush tax cuts on growth were ambiguous at best.” He added, “They were not much of a poster child for pro-growth tax policy.”

Even Mr. Hubbard now seems unwilling to defend the tax cuts he shepherded into law. Earlier this year, he was asked by The New York Times what he thought about the repeal of many of the Bush-era tax cuts on Jan. 1. He said many of those tax cuts were no longer relevant to our tax and economic problems.

Mr. Hubbard even suggested that higher revenues, long a Republican no-no, were not a bad thing. “We need a tax system that can promote economic growth and raise the revenue the American people want to devote to government,” he said.
Click to expand...

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/the-bush-tax-cut-failure/?_r=0
 
KLATTU said:
I think you may have misunderstood my post.I'll restate . I wasn't advocating tax cuts. I was saying we can't tax our way out of the mess . The increase in taxes necessary to right the ship would be so large that they would have a negative effect on the economy. ( apparently some people seem to think there is no negative effect assocaited with tax increases?)

There must be some type of spending reform.


There
Click to expand...

Give me a break. We could raise the taxes of the top 5% with little damage to the economy and the top 1% we could raise even more. Tax rates are near all time lows already and our GDP grew faster when top rates were over double what they are now. I am tired of feeding the hogs in hopes they will lay golden eggs. They are just hogs and they are ****ting all over us.
 
iguanaman said:
The arguments for cutting taxes have been debunked every time it is tried. The reality is that tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich are the least effective and most expensive method for "growing the economy" or increasing job growth imaginable. The results from the Bush tax cuts illustrate that in spades. It is pure fantasy to say that "this time it will be different" and that is also the definition of insanity .


https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/the-bush-tax-cut-failure/?_r=0
Click to expand...

Debunked ?? Not so much. For example, Texas offered Toyota a 40 million dollar tax break to move their headquarters from California to Texas.

Libs raged, and then Toyota moved and spent 300 million in the Texas economy building their new headquarters.

Thats called a " investment " and what tax increases on the rich ( investors and corporations and the wealthy ) wind up doing is driving away capital investment, and businesses and jobs.

The " Rich and their money are mobile, and Texas's low tax bussiness friendly environment and growing economy and surplus proves that.
 
iguanaman said:
Is that what you call countries with a strong middle class? The largest and most affluent middle class in the world was made with the blueprint provided by FDR and Democrats have continued his lead. The right wing has waged war on the middle class since Reagan and it appears that they will not stop until they are all gone.
Click to expand...


the big middle class came mainly from the fact we were the only industrial power after WWII and american workers had no competition when it came to making stuff. Other countries didn't have the facilities to make much of anything. You seem to confuse the middle class with the lower class. or you buy into the nonsense that its the unions that create the middle class
 
Fenton said:
Debunked ?? Not so much. For example, Texas offered Toyota a 40 million dollar tax break to move their headquarters from California to Texas.

Libs raged, and then Toyota moved and spent 300 million in the Texas economy building their new headquarters.

Thats called a " investment " and what tax increases on the rich ( investors and corporations and the wealthy ) wind up doing is driving away capital investment, and businesses and jobs.

The " Rich and their money are mobile, and Texas's low tax bussiness friendly environment and growing economy and surplus proves that.
Click to expand...

class warriors seem to think the golden geese they want to pluck have a duty of staying in an area where they get plucked over rather than spreading their wings and flying to a more hospitable nesting area
 
TurtleDude said:
the big middle class came mainly from the fact we were the only industrial power after WWII and american workers had no competition when it came to making stuff. Other countries didn't have the facilities to make much of anything. You seem to confuse the middle class with the lower class. or you buy into the nonsense that its the unions that create the middle class
Click to expand...

We bought what we made because we had incomes that grew. It had nothing to do with Europe or Japan. We even had the money to help rebuild them. It was unpatriotic for companies to stiff their employees too. There was a different corporate mindset that all changed when the rich had their taxes cut in half. Suddenly all that mattered was to amass huge fortunes and tomorrow be damned. You have no clue what made this country unique. Here's a hint: it was not how rich a few of us got.
 
Most Canadians super proud of their single payer health.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom