• 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!

Would you support increasing taxes to pay down the national debt?

MrWonka said:
First, Obama supported TARP even though it was technically signed before he took office.

Second, while TARP did pass before Obama took office some of the most important things that were done with the money were chosen by President Obama. It was he who decided to help GM and Chrysler get through bankruptcy without having to shut down and lay off their entire workforce. The auto bailout, not the bank bailout was likely the single biggest thing done to help stop the bleeding and get things really going back in the other direction. That was 100% the doing of President Obama. Within just two years of the auto-bailout GM was back to being one of the most profitable auto-manufactures in the world.

Third, while the Bank bailout helped, it was ultimately based upon trickle-down thinking which is why it did not have the immediate effect that many predicted. It was the stimulus package as well as other choices that Obama made which had a more immediate impact.



This patently false. In fact, the first funds from the stimulus package started to make their way into the economy in June of 2009. That is the exact month that economists listed as the end of the recession.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget, Mitt Romney was against bailing out the auto industry, as were other notable Republicans. I think it was one of the biggest factors that led to Romney's loss in 2012.
 
No. Let them overhaul the waste and pet projects and pork and eliminate all that crap first before they take more.

Otherwise, as current, they'll just keep taking more and more.
 
Media_Truth said:
Household debt is not a good analogy. No bank in it's right mind would loan you the kind of money that would result in the same debt ratio as that of our country.
Click to expand...

You ever buy a house?
 
MrWonka said:
First, Obama supported TARP even though it was technically signed before he took office.

Second, while TARP did pass before Obama took office some of the most important things that were done with the money were chosen by President Obama. It was he who decided to help GM and Chrysler get through bankruptcy without having to shut down and lay off their entire workforce. The auto bailout, not the bank bailout was likely the single biggest thing done to help stop the bleeding and get things really going back in the other direction. That was 100% the doing of President Obama. Within just two years of the auto-bailout GM was back to being one of the most profitable auto-manufactures in the world.

Third, while the Bank bailout helped, it was ultimately based upon trickle-down thinking which is why it did not have the immediate effect that many predicted. It was the stimulus package as well as other choices that Obama made which had a more immediate impact.



This patently false. In fact, the first funds from the stimulus package started to make their way into the economy in June of 2009. That is the exact month that economists listed as the end of the recession.
Click to expand...

You can try to re-write history but you cannot change history. TARP was passed under Bush, 350 billion was released under Bush and the banks were recapitalized under Bush. TARP was a loan and repaid WITH interest. Interesting how you and others still want to prop up the Obama stimulus and Adminisration, why is that? The exact month we started out of recession was JANUARY but the Obama stimulus created the worst recovery in history
 
Do you purposefully mess up the formatting because of cowardice? You've been shown how to properly post a multi-quote response, so i can only assume you do this purposefully to avoid the notification system.

Conservative said:
what obsession, pointed out the meager economic growth and malaise in the Obama economy due to very poor economic policies
Click to expand...

Your deflection towards Obama is noted.

Actual data in context is what you ignore just like you ignore even your own human behavior, do you spend more when you have less take home pay? Logic and common sense escape you and the left
Click to expand...

It has already been addressed in this post.

Remember how you responded?

Conservative said:
Pretty charts.......
Click to expand...

In no way were you able to refute my statement. You just dismissed it and kept on talking your crazy stuff.

Never claimed the severity was due to Obama
Click to expand...

:lamo Really?

Conservative said:
The severity of the recession and slowness of recovery is the result of poor economic policies that you want to ignore.
Click to expand...

You don't even remember half the lies you say.

derivatives and swaps didn't start under Bush, they started under Clinton.
Click to expand...

Derivatives and swaps have been financial tools since the early 1980's. Not sure why you would claim they started under Clinton. Sure, the market was properly regulated under Clinton. But that because he directed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to actually regulate. Bush didn't let them regulate over-the-counter derivatives because... well... regulation is bad for economic growth. That worked out well!

The largest bailout in history was a LOAN that was paid back with Interest, where did that payback go since it didn't reduce the deficit. Seems another subject you don't understand the difference between a loan and a take over.
Click to expand...

You're just confused. The takeover of AIG and the GSE's was what i was referencing. TARP was a capital injection.
 
Conservative said:
Again, waiting for you to recognize the components of GDP, the magnifier effect and what impact tax increases have on consumer spending including your own? No economic activity then tax cuts would reduce revenue but that have never been the case and the fact that you aren't posting relevant data proves that. Your focus on corporate taxes ignored the basic reason for that reduction, expense increases that benefited the employee and the community
Click to expand...
Waiting for you to recognize the fact that after the corporate tax cuts corporate tax revenues fell 30%. I'm talking about the effect of corporate tax cuts on tax revenue. They clearly reduced tax revenue. You just keep trying to change the topic since your claim tax cuts increase revenues has been proven false.
 
Conservative said:
If it is so obvious why aren't you posting the Federal Income Tax revenue from Treasury? The fact that corporations aren't people makes their tax revenue irrelevant except to you who will never put the govt. on a diet or never recognize the multiplier effect tax cuts have on the economic activity, Your claim that the Corporate tax cut revenue is an issue ignores what the corporations did with that money, their hiring, their bonuses, the pay increases, their health insurance and pension enhancements, and record dividend payments. Most of these increase corporate expenses thus reduce taxable income, Accounting 101
Click to expand...
The numbers are from the Treasury.
 
Bullseye said:
And the month after recorded a huge gain.
Click to expand...

fredgraph.png


:lol:
 
Lakryte said:
Waiting for you to recognize the fact that after the corporate tax cuts corporate tax revenues fell 30%. I'm talking about the effect of corporate tax cuts on tax revenue. They clearly reduced tax revenue. You just keep trying to change the topic since your claim tax cuts increase revenues has been proven false.
Click to expand...

Which was more than offset by state, local taxes and other Federal tax revenue streams. You obviously have no understanding as to the role and responsibilities of the varous governments we have

You have posted no data supporting your claims yet you continue to make them
 
Why don't we ask Government to increase spending by 0% the next 10 years. Why can't we just have ZERO government growth!!!!

You increase taxes to pay down debt, it sounds good until a bunch of politicians have your money and decide they want to increase spending more!!!

Why don't we start a go fund me account that promises to give every dollar taken in goes to pay down government debt.
 
Conservative said:
Which was more than offset by state, local taxes and other Federal tax revenue streams. You obviously have no understanding as to the role and responsibilities of the varous governments we have

You have posted no data supporting your claims yet you continue to make them
Click to expand...
But the relevant revenue stream is corporate tax revenue, since that is what revenue stream corporate tax cuts would effect. And the corporate tax cuts decreased corporate tax revenues. Had the tax cuts not been enacted, corporate tax revenue would be higher, so total revenue would be higher. Again, this isn't that complicated.
 
CriticalThought said:
Simple question. Everyone loves to complain about the national debt, but who here would actually support a tax increase to pay it off?
Click to expand...

Not I. Tell the banks that they're not getting their interest.
 
MrWonka said:
No, not really because it isn't President Obama that opposed things like raising the minimum wage. President Obama had a grand total of 1 full year where he had a super majority in the Senate and could pass the types of legislation he wanted to pass. At that time he was in the middle of an economic catastrophe. He had to focus on putting out that fire, but also passed the ACA which gave millions of low-income Americans access to affordable subsidized health care that they've never had before. So while their wages may not have gone up thanks to the recession Obama was able to get them considerable assistance that they had been previously denied.

After his first year in office, however, Republicans gained enough power in the Senate to filibuster everything President Obama tried to do to help speed up the recovery and improve people's wages. He signed multiple executive orders to ensure that military and other public employees got pay raises, but without Republicans being willing to work with him in Congress there was nothing he could do to help the rest of the country.

That is again not President Obama's fault it is Republican's fault. There has never been a time in recent history where a proposal to increase the minimum wage has been shot down by Democrats.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Obama cared so much about the people that he brought bankers and financiers into the highest positions of his administration, people like Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, and Rahm Emanuel. Real champions of the people, eh?
 
phattonez said:
Yeah, Obama cared so much about the people that he brought bankers and financiers into the highest positions of his administration, people like Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, and Rahm Emanuel. Real champions of the people, eh?
Click to expand...

Tim Geithner was a civil servant all of his life, Hank Paulson was Secretary of the Treasury under Bush 43, and Rahm Emanuel is the current mayor of Chicago.
 
Lakryte said:
Already been done. Treasury data has been cited every time the numbers have been brought up by multiple posters. But here it is again. See page 63 (below is an image for you):
View attachment 67249880
Click to expand...
No sorry you are focused on corporate and not total revenue. Nothing is going to change your mind thus like most liberals a waste of time

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Lakryte said:
But the relevant revenue stream is corporate tax revenue, since that is what revenue stream corporate tax cuts would effect. And the corporate tax cuts decreased corporate tax revenues. Had the tax cuts not been enacted, corporate tax revenue would be higher, so total revenue would be higher. Again, this isn't that complicated.
Click to expand...
Right, no magnifier effect from tax cuts as you buy what you are told and ignore completely total revenue growth

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
No sorry you are focused on corporate and not total revenue. Nothing is going to change your mind thus like most liberals a waste of time

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I am focused on corporate tax revenue because we are discussing the impacts of corporate tax cuts.

You can keep circling around all you want, but the undeniable fact is that the corporate tax cuts reduced corporate tax revenue, as was predicted by virtually everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom