• 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
whysoserious said:
apdst thinks that revenues and deficits are not related. Why are we wasting time on this argument with him again?
Click to expand...

I never said that. Why do you keep insisting that I did?

Did you find that equation to figure gross revenue? :lamo
 
Thunder said:
except for the clear fact that Clinton's tax-increases on the wealthy in 1993 raised revenue during his administration by 75%.

how much extra revenue did Bush's tax-cuts raise? 28%.
Click to expand...

And tax increases were the only reason revenues increased?
 
German guy said:
I don't know. When the debts have surpassed a certain level, you might have no choice but raising taxes anyway to get the necessary revenue, because the window of opportunity to do it by other means is long gone already. Also, taxes in the US are relatively low, you still have a lot of leeway upwards before it really strains the economy too much.
Click to expand...

The first step is to keep debt under control.

Unlike over here in Europe, where taxes are already higher anyway.
Click to expand...

How are the Europeans economies doing with all those high taxes?
 
haymarket said:
You need a better understanding of the situation before the Congress. Nobody needs to do anything. Nobody will vote to raise taxes. That process has already been agreed upon unless affirmative action is taken to stop it. So nobody needs to "raise taxes" in order for the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire.
Click to expand...

There's not much difference between raising taxes and allowing tax cuts to expire. You need a better understanding of that.
 
apdst said:
The first step is to keep debt under control.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why you should raise taxes, if you have the leeway to do that, to increase revenue, along with cutting spending.

But as was said before, both will damage growth. That's the price of keeping debt under control. The trick is to find a reasonable, efficient balance between these different goals.

How are the Europeans economies doing with all those high taxes?
Click to expand...

Actually, not so bad. Germany at least. We have much lower debts than the US (which about is on the per capita level as failing Greece), and even unemployment has fallen to the lowest level in 20 years. Now the euro crisis may drag down the abyss along with the bankrupt southern states, but if that happens, it will not be because of higher taxes compared to the US.
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
Exactly. That's why you should raise taxes, if you have the leeway to do that, to increase revenue, along with cutting spending.

But as was said before, both will damage growth. That's the price of keeping debt under control. The trick is to find a reasonable, efficient between the different goals.



Actually, not so bad. Germany at least. We have much lower debts than the US (which about is on the per capita level as failing Greece), and even unemployment has fallen to the lowest level in 20 years. Now the euro crisis may drag down the abyss along with the bankrupt southern states, but if that happens, it will not be because of higher taxes compared to the US.
Click to expand...

It's not so bad that Greece and Italy are going belly up? It's fairely obvious that the tax and spend strategy isn't working.
 
apdst said:
It's not so bad that Greece and Italy are going belly up? It's fairely obvious that the tax and spend strategy isn't working.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am pretty sure per capita that our debt is as bad as Greece's. They have far better social services and receive far more awesomenesses.
 
apdst said:
It's not so bad that Greece and Italy are going belly up? It's fairely obvious that the tax and spend strategy isn't working.
Click to expand...

Well, as I said, that Germany is doing well is proof that it *can* work.

But I agree, what does not work is constantly, over a too long period, spending much more than your revenues allow you to.
 
apdst said:
There's not much difference between raising taxes and allowing tax cuts to expire. You need a better understanding of that.
Click to expand...

If you do not know the difference between an affirmative action where one takes actual steps towards the completion of an act which was not previous in play ... and something which is already in play and you simply do nothing to stop it ..... there is nothing I or anyone can do on this site to straighten you out. :lamo:mrgreen::lamo
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
It's not so bad that Greece and Italy are going belly up? It's fairely obvious that the tax and spend strategy isn't working.
Click to expand...

And those are states in the union... right????? ;):lamo
 
cpwill said:
:) static scoring is fun. :( unfortunately, people exist dynamically.
Click to expand...

then prove my math/position to be in error

i was only proving that your assertion, that an increase in the nominal tax rates would NOT increase tax revenues, was very wrong
 
haymarket said:
three points here
1) your own link says this

So your own article which you offer in evidence gives its main reason as something other than the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

no, it suggests it as a possibility, which alters the reality that the wealthy (just like everyone else) will seek to minimize their tax exposure; and when you give them extraordinary incentives to do so, they will take extraordinary measures.

2) people may be able to flee a state, but a national tax policy applies to all 50. Moving from Maryland to Virginia, or from Oregon or New York gains you nothing with a national tax.
Click to expand...

no, but altering the time and manner of your compensation does; which is what people have done in the past and will do in the future.

3)The Clinton years tax rates worked wonderfully both in collections and by increasing revenues significantly.
Click to expand...

you mean the years where revenues shot up, the years after he cut the capital gains tax rate, thereby encouraging investment and growth? well, that is correct. of course, so did the Bush tax cuts. because revenues are not directly tied to nominal rates; but rather to GDP and the relative size of government. hiking rates won't increase revenue - economic growth will increase revenue. the question is, will disincentivizing productive behavior help or hinder economic growth?
 
justabubba said:
then prove my math/position to be in error
Click to expand...

your math isn't in error - your assumptions are in error.

i was only proving that your assertion, that an increase in the nominal tax rates would NOT increase tax revenues, was very wrong
Click to expand...

well, if your argument were true, then wild variations in nominal tax rates would see wild variations in revenues. is that what we have seen?

wsj-tax-revenue-chart-ed-ah556b_ranso_20080519194014.gif


huh, no, in fact, it looks like significantly higher nominal rates have not brought in higher revenues. in fact, it looks like the higher revenues have come in the lower rate years! gosh, who'da thunk?
 
NO CP - you got it dead wrong. Your link clearly states that the majority of the decrease was due to the recession. I reprinted that for you and you saw fit to ignore what contradicted your own belief system. Here it is again for your benefit... for your own link

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession.
Click to expand...

you mention the Clinton taxes and the Bush tax rates. I noticed you failed to mention the percentage of revenue increase under each. Why was that?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
NO CP - you got it dead wrong. Your link clearly states that the majority of the decrease was due to the recession. I reprinted that for you and you saw fit to ignore what contradicted your own belief system. Here it is again for your benefit... for your own link
Click to expand...


So, if the government gets out of the way and let's people go to work, we'll see more tax revenue?

Maybe we should try that approach, before we just jack everyone's taxes up. yes?

you mention the Clinton taxes and the Bush tax rates. I noticed you failed to mention the percentage of revenue increase under each. Why was that?
Click to expand...

Two reasons: 1) Bush had a larger baseline to start from, than Clinton did and 2) Bush inherited a recession from Clinton.
 
Last edited:
friday said:
Here is my theory:
Democrats never wanted the super-committee to succeed. They came to the table with over a trillion in tax hikes in a recession, which not only is absolutely stupid, it is also a non-starter. But what have they lost? Now military spending has to be cut and they don't have to take responsibility for it.

What about Medicare cuts? Those cuts are to Medicare providers. Not only do Democrats not care about Medicare provider doctors, but they view this as a way to continue to destroy our healthcare system so that they can implement single payer.

But the best part for Dems on the super-committee failure is that Obama can run against a do-nothing congress in 2012. His biggest hope for re-election is that congress will have a lower approval rating and he can try to identify congress as Republicans, even though Reid still controls the senate where bills go to die.

As if to prove my point, Obama has sworn to veto any attempt by Congress to stop these draconian cuts to military and provider payments. The committee failure is all part of Obama/Biden 2012.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

So tell me....exactly what have Republicans done to make things better since they won so big in the midterms?
 
CriticalThought said:
So tell me....exactly what have Republicans done to make things better since they won so big in the midterms?
Click to expand...

They haven't passed a bill opening up all offshore drilling, so you do have a point.
 
cpwill said:
you won't get more revenue by jacking up nominal rates. you get more revenue by increasing growth and getting people back to work. and you will never get enough revenue to fund the federal government at it's current size.
Click to expand...

Here is the actual truth.

Sometimes you get more revenue by jacking up rates, sometimes not. Sometimes you'll get increased growth by cutting taxes, sometimes not.

It is complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom