• 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!

They did it on purpose

Did Democrats cause the super committee to fail on purpose?

  • No, they actually thought a trillion dollar tax hike in a recession was reasonable

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • No, it was a bi-partisan failure

    Votes: 25 62.5%

  • Yes, the plan from the beginning was to fail

    Votes: 10 25.0%
  • Total voters
    40
Now I am not very familiar with the situation in America, but my naive opinion is that cutting taxes and giving handouts (subsidies of any kind, social systems, etc) are just two sides of the same medal: Populist actions by politicians who want to buy votes, which are irresponsible when the budget situation is stressed and when this policy results in more debts.

We see it in Europe: Certain governments used to buy votes prior to elections, by spreading money, extensive social welfare and handouts, subsidies, taxcuts -- and suddenly, the debt was too high to be paid back. Too bad.

Bush jr. did the same with his tax cuts. Buying off voters against good economic interest. On top of burning more than a trillion in Afghan and Iraqi sand, that meant playing away the good budget situation Clinton had left him. And I am sure Obama did it too, to some extent (although I am really not enough into the details of, say, healthcare reform to name it).

But for some reason, many Democrats seem to believe tax cuts are worse than unnecessary spending, and many Republicans somehow don't like spending, but are fine with tax cuts -- although both are different means to the same end in the political game, the two sides of the same medal of buying votes.

/rant off
 
Thunder said:
with Bush's tax-cuts, revenue increased an astounding 28%.....from when Bush was elected.

with Clinton's tax-increases for the 1%, revenue increased a measely 75%..from when he was elected.

Clearly, tax-increases are better for growing Federal revenue..than tax-cuts.
Click to expand...

can't agree (absolutely)
the laffer curve - while unspecific - tells us that excessive taxation causes investors to throttle back on their investments because the projected reward no longer exceeds the aggregate of risk and tax burden
to exemplify my point with an admittedly extreme example, if the tax rate were 99%, you can see there is no longer an incentive to expand one's business exposure
while that did not come into play for the clinton of shrub administrations, there is some indefinite point at which tax increases are no longer beneficial for growing federal tax revenues
 
Thunder said:
please explain how Clinton got revenue to increase by 75%.
Click to expand...

Because Clinton started at 1.15 trillion and Bush started with 1.99 trillion. Bush had a recession to deal with, too. Seems he inherited a ****ed up economy, too.

The bottom line, is that the Libbos have been claiming that tax cuts don't work, the facts tell a much different story.
 
German guy said:
Now I am not very familiar with the situation in America, but my naive opinion is that cutting taxes and giving handouts (subsidies of any kind, social systems, etc) are just two sides of the same medal: Populist actions by politicians who want to buy votes, which are irresponsible when the budget situation is stressed and when this policy results in more debts.

We see it in Europe: Certain governments used to buy votes prior to elections, by spreading money, extensive social welfare and handouts, subsidies, taxcuts -- and suddenly, the debt was too high to be paid back. Too bad.

Bush jr. did the same with his tax cuts. Buying off voters against good economic interest. On top of burning more than a trillion in Afghan and Iraqi sand, that meant playing away the good budget situation Clinton had left him. And I am sure Obama did it too, to some extent (although I am really not enough into the details of, say, healthcare reform to name it).

But for some reason, many Democrats seem to believe tax cuts are worse than unnecessary spending, and many Republicans somehow don't like spending, but are fine with tax cuts -- although both are different means to the same end in the political game, the two sides of the same medal of buying votes.

/rant off
Click to expand...

No, they're not. Tax cuts allow people to keep their money, that they earned by their own efforts. A government handout is money that is taken from one person's pocket, who actually earned the money and giving it to someone else, who didn't do **** for it.
 
apdst said:
No, they're not. Tax cuts allow people to keep their money, that they earned by their own efforts.....
Click to expand...

you forgot to include corporations. and the fact is, corporations have a HUGE excess of funds..and still aren't using that money to grow the economy or hire more workers.

if corporations won't use their money to help the economy, then maybe the govt. should instead.
 
apdst said:
No, they're not. Tax cuts allow people to keep their money, that they earned by their own efforts. A government handout is money that is taken from one person's pocket, who actually earned the money and giving it to someone else, who didn't do **** for it.
Click to expand...

No, taxes are your contribution to pay for the services the state offers you (and you have had a say in establishing these services, by participating in the free political process). Enjoying public service, but refusing to pay for it, is theft, plain and simple. You get something, but refuse to pay for it.

So when you are part of the government, and you cut taxes, although you know the government cannot really afford to miss these revenues, it's a populist means to buy votes, just like giving handouts and subsidies.
 
apdst said:
...The bottom line, is that the Libbos have been claiming that tax cuts don't work, the facts tell a much different story.
Click to expand...

revenue date from 2000-2008 paints a very different picture.

Bush's tax-cuts grew revenue by 28%, which sucks compared to Clinton's 75% with tax-increases.
 
apdst said:
It shot up because of spending, not because of tax cuts. Tax cuts have nothing to do with deficit spending.
Click to expand...

sure thing ... and if you worked only half the hours you do , that drop in income would have nothing to do with that either. ;):lamo
 
This is a can that both parties got a sigh of relief from when they kicked it down the road. The only mystery now is who can spin it to their advantage for the general election next year.
 
German guy said:
No, taxes are your contribution to pay for the services the state offers you (and you have had a say in establishing these services, by participating in the free political process). Enjoying public service, but refusing to pay for it, is theft, plain and simple. You get something, but refuse to pay for it.

So when you are part of the government, and you cut taxes, although you know the government cannot really afford to miss these revenues, it's a populist means to buy votes, just like giving handouts and subsidies.
Click to expand...

So, everyone who uses government services and doesn't pay for it, is stealing?

Look, Thunder liked your post, he must think that 47% of the country are thieves, too.
 
Thunder said:
revenue date from 2000-2008 paints a very different picture.

Bush's tax-cuts grew revenue by 28%, which sucks compared to Clinton's 75% with tax-increases.
Click to expand...

Is it possible for you understand that Bush had a larger baseline to start with, than Clinton did and how that effects the numbers game you're trying to play?
 
haymarket said:
sure thing ... and if you worked only half the hours you do , that drop in income would have nothing to do with that either. ;):lamo
Click to expand...

Which means, I would have to cut my spending.

Don't worry, you'll catch on eventually. ;)
 
apdst said:
So, everyone who uses government services and doesn't pay for it, is stealing?

Look, Thunder liked your post, he must think that 47% of the country are thieves, too.
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way: 1.) You need a state that provides certain services. 2.) These services cost something. Someone has to pay for it. 3.) Most will agree that those who use the services, shall pay for it.

Which services shall be established, how exactly they look like, and who has to pay how much of it, is open for the free, democratic political process to determine. When this process is legitimate, you are bound to its decisions, as you are part of it. Most people believe an open, free, democratic political process is legitimate.
 
apdst said:
Are you sure you want to use a graph that includes two years of Libbo ownership of the government?
Click to expand...
Yes, because that is just another brain dead right wing talking point; it convinces no one of any intelligence or modicum of knowledge about the situation. Limbaugh fans no doubt eat it up, but I'm not interested in trying to present an argument to figurative intellectual turnips.
 
German guy said:
Let me put it this way: 1.) You need a state that provides certain services. 2.) These services cost something. Someone has to pay for it. 3.) Most will agree that those who use the services, shall pay for it.

Which services shall be established, how exactly they look like, and who has to pay how much of it, is open for the free, democratic political process to determine. When this process is legitimate, you are bound to its decisions, as you are part of it. Most people believe an open, free, democratic political process is legitimate.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir, pard. At no time did I suggest that we should abolish taxes. I don't even know where you're going with this.
 
German guy said:
No, taxes are your contribution to pay for the services the state offers you (and you have had a say in establishing these services, by participating in the free political process). Enjoying public service, but refusing to pay for it, is theft, plain and simple. You get something, but refuse to pay for it.

So when you are part of the government, and you cut taxes, although you know the government cannot really afford to miss these revenues, it's a populist means to buy votes, just like giving handouts and subsidies.
Click to expand...

theft is a bunch of people who don't pay taxes getting together and jacking up the taxes on a minority that already pays a huge share of the taxes
 
Thunder said:
revenue date from 2000-2008 paints a very different picture.

Bush's tax-cuts grew revenue by 28%, which sucks compared to Clinton's 75% with tax-increases.
Click to expand...

yeah that big dot com bubble. clinton lucked out that he had that fortunate occurrence-otherwise his tax hikes would have cost the government revenues
 
TurtleDude said:
theft is a bunch of people who don't pay taxes getting together and jacking up the taxes on a minority that already pays a huge share of the taxes
Click to expand...
The downtrodden rich should start their own civil rights movement. "Don't tax me, dude!" :neener
 
apdst said:
The middle class didn't do all alone. Someone had to put up the jack to pay for it. Gee! Where did that money possibly come from?
Click to expand...

Someone's grandfather?
 
Karl said:
The downtrodden rich should start their own civil rights movement. "Don't tax me, dude!" :neener
Click to expand...

you all would starve then
 
Karl said:
The downtrodden rich should start their own civil rights movement. "Don't tax me, dude!" :neener
Click to expand...

What about small business operators that the Libbos want to over-tax? Can we join that movement, too?
 
apdst said:
I never asked you anything. You're the one trying to bust my balls with your silly little equations to figure gross income.

:lamo...I'm sorry, but I can't help bu LMAO when I think about that.
Click to expand...

Laugh all you want, but you are the silly guy who thinks that revenues are not related to debt. You need to go to school. :lamo
 
whysoserious said:
Laugh all you want, but you are the silly guy who thinks that revenues are not related to debt. You need to go to school. :lamo
Click to expand...

I never said that revenue isn't related to debt. :lamo

When you look up that equation that figgers gross revenue, you can also look up, "debt", and, "deficit".
 
apdst said:
Which means, I would have to cut my spending.

Don't worry, you'll catch on eventually. ;)
Click to expand...

There are two sides to a budget. You learn that in week one of any basic accounting or bookkeeping course. Perhaps some attended a school where they could not afford to include all the information needed so the part about INCOME was cut out? That would certainly explain the ideology of the Grover Norquists of the land.:lamo;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom