• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are You Radical or Conservative?

Are you a Radical or Conservative

  • A definite Radical

    Votes: 14 56.0%
  • A definite Conservative

    Votes: 11 44.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Iriemon said:
We have been through this before. I'll demonstrate how the tax cuts caused tax revenues to plummet by showing that GDP increased 12% from 2000-2003; yet despite that growth in the economy, tax revenues fell by $242 billion annually, a 12% decrease. You'll say that explains nothing, there are a lot of other factors that affect revenues. I'll say what factors; and you'll say the stock market and employment. And I'll show those are marginal factors that affect less than 10-15% of overall tax revenues. Then you'll say the data proves nothing; but won't be able to explain why revenues fell so dramatically in 2000-2003. Do I have it about right?


I find it kind of tragic, what the Republicans/conservatives are doing to our country and our future by burndening the Govt with a huge debt. Do you think its funny because you are a Republican, Conservative, or neither?




Why do you think the Democrats (not the Republicans, the opposed it right down the line) passed a tax increase in 1993? Because they thought it would be a popular thing to do? So they could tell their constituents the great news that they have to pay more taxes? You think they thought that would make them more popular back home? The Democrats passed the tax increase in 1993 because the Reagan/Bush had left this country with a $4 trillion debt and huge deficits -- $320 billion in 1992.

The conservatives/Republicans are willing to live with deficits and debt as long as they get their tax deferrments. The liberals/Democrats believe that we should pay taxes now for what our Govt spends, not pass the buck to the next generation in the form of trillions of debt.

From what I've seen and heard there are only deficits because of the depression in the late 20's to early 30's. Did we ever really pay that shiz off? And it's not like welfare helps to reduce that deficit either.

Republicans They lower taxes, which increases the number of jobs. But you are only making as much dough as you were under a regime of...

Democrats They raise taxes, which decreases jobs. Thus only making as much as a republican regime.

See, it's a catch 22. As much as I "dislike" Slick Willy, he actually had some control over the economy, with unemployment around 4-6% (same as Bush). Really, from what I'm seeing is that the Bush/Clinton economies are almost identical, except that Clinton had higher taxes with a lower deficit (yes, there was a deficit) while Bush has lower taxes with a higher deficit.

So it seems that it doesn't matter how the economy is run (within reason) because we will probably always have a deficit. UNLESS we cut off all these petty little projects that don't matter. Let's spend the money on more important things, or better yet let's just stop spending some money (welfare would be a start). We could also end trade embargoes with some countries, such as Cuba. *Cuban cigars are still a hot item*
 
Donkey1499 said:
From what I've seen and heard there are only deficits because of the depression in the late 20's to early 30's. Did we ever really pay that shiz off? And it's not like welfare helps to reduce that deficit either.

We have had major deficits long after the Great Depression. You can see the deficits at CBO.gov historical data tables. The deficits really exploded in the 80s, started coming down in 93 and were eleminated by 2000, and have exploded since then. Not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between tax cuts being passed and deficits.

Republicans They lower taxes, which increases the number of jobs. But you are only making as much dough as you were under a regime of...

Democrats They raise taxes, which decreases jobs. Thus only making as much as a republican regime.

This is certainly a debatable proposition. Job growth in the 90s, a period of relatively higher tax rates, was higher than the 80s and much higher than the 00s, periods of relatively lower tax rates. Correspondingly, unemployment was around 9%, I believe, in 1992, down to 4% by '00. Jobs grew and unemployment fell in the 90s, a period of higher taxes.

See, it's a catch 22. As much as I "dislike" Slick Willy, he actually had some control over the economy, with unemployment around 4-6% (same as Bush). Really, from what I'm seeing is that the Bush/Clinton economies are almost identical, except that Clinton had higher taxes with a lower deficit (yes, there was a deficit) while Bush has lower taxes with a higher deficit.

I would agree that there are many things outside a president's control that affect the economy. A president has much more influence over the Govt revenues and expenditures and deficits. I basically agree with you, which is why it is so tragic that we squandered a historic opportunity to maintain the fiscal responsibility of the 90s, and pay down the debt, and leave the next gen an America that is not burdened by debt and strong for the future. Instead we are leaving our kids an America burdened by debt (the Govt already pays $200 billion a year in interest thanks to the debt that has been run up) at the same time the boomers are retiring.

So it seems that it doesn't matter how the economy is run (within reason) because we will probably always have a deficit.

I think that is overbroad. The acts of the Govt can affect the economy. I do think that a record of irresponsible fiscal policy will have a negative effect on the economy eventually.

We did not have a deficit in 1999-2000. We had a surplus, and actually paid down the debt. So it isn't necessarily true that we will always have a deficit. We will always have one as long as we have politicians who pander to the electorate instead of doing what is best for the country.

UNLESS we cut off all these petty little projects that don't matter. Let's spend the money on more important things, or better yet let's just stop spending some money (welfare would be a start). We could also end trade embargoes with some countries, such as Cuba. *Cuban cigars are still a hot item*

IMO, simply arguing we should cut spending is not a politically vaible alternative. You'd have to cut spending by $600 billion. It ain't going to happen. It would be political suicide, and the Conservatives/Republicans don't have the guts to do it.

Therefore the only alternative is a tax increase combined with spending restraint. Generally, I'd be in favor of holding the line on spending a couple years and putting taxes back at 90s levels. That would balance the budget in a couple years and put us on the path towards a stronger America.
 
Iriemon said:
We have had major deficits long after the Great Depression. You can see the deficits at CBO.gov historical data tables. The deficits really exploded in the 80s, started coming down in 93 and were eleminated by 2000, and have exploded since then. Not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between tax cuts being passed and deficits.



This is certainly a debatable proposition. Job growth in the 90s, a period of relatively higher tax rates, was higher than the 80s and much higher than the 00s, periods of relatively lower tax rates. Correspondingly, unemployment was around 9%, I believe, in 1992, down to 4% by '00. Jobs grew and unemployment fell in the 90s, a period of higher taxes.



I would agree that there are many things outside a president's control that affect the economy. A president has much more influence over the Govt revenues and expenditures and deficits. I basically agree with you, which is why it is so tragic that we squandered a historic opportunity to maintain the fiscal responsibility of the 90s, and pay down the debt, and leave the next gen an America that is not burdened by debt and strong for the future. Instead we are leaving our kids an America burdened by debt (the Govt already pays $200 billion a year in interest thanks to the debt that has been run up) at the same time the boomers are retiring.



I think that is overbroad. The acts of the Govt can affect the economy. I do think that a record of irresponsible fiscal policy will have a negative effect on the economy eventually.

We did not have a deficit in 1999-2000. We had a surplus, and actually paid down the debt. So it isn't necessarily true that we will always have a deficit. We will always have one as long as we have politicians who pander to the electorate instead of doing what is best for the country.



IMO, simply arguing we should cut spending is not a politically vaible alternative. You'd have to cut spending by $600 billion. It ain't going to happen. It would be political suicide, and the Conservatives/Republicans don't have the guts to do it.

Therefore the only alternative is a tax increase combined with spending restraint. Generally, I'd be in favor of holding the line on spending a couple years and putting taxes back at 90s levels. That would balance the budget in a couple years and put us on the path towards a stronger America.

Not that I don't believe ya, but I want some sources for the 99-00 years on the deficit. I just always thought there's been a deficit since the Great Depression.

You know what else I think? Maybe FDR should've waited on that other stuff (SS) and paid off the Depression deficit. You know, start at sqaure one, then add the stuff.

And I don't care what political affiliation they have, we don't have good spenders on capitol hill. I say just stay thecourse in Iraq, even though we should've waited until Afghanistan was done. Now we are fighting two wars: The War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

Do you believe in having too many taxes? What do you think is an agreeable average for the income tax?
 
Donkey1499 said:
Not that I don't believe ya, but I want some sources for the 99-00 years on the deficit. I just always thought there's been a deficit since the Great Depression.

That's alright, I don't expect people to believe me, I'm willing to cite the sources for my statements and opinions.

First, a point of definition. There are many ways the deficit is measured. You probably heard the administration and news talk about how the deficit last year was "only" 318 billion. That is a measure of the Govt's "total" deficit which includes SS tax receipts and expenditures. Since SS tax receipts are much greater than expenditures (about $175 billion last year), including SS in the general budget has the effect of making the deficit look smaller. Using this as the measure, there was a large surplus (236 billion) in 2000.

Source: CBO.gov http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

1995 -164.0
1996 -107.5
1997 -22.0
1998 69.2
1999 125.6
2000 236.4
2001 127.4
2002 -157.8
2003 -375.3
2004 -412.1
2005 -318.3

SS revenues are not supposed to be used for general budget operations, of course, they are supposed to be saved in a SS trust fund to pay for the boomers retirements. If we take SS out of the picture, we have the "on-budget" defict or surplus, representing the difference between what the Govt takes in and spends in its general operations (excluding SS). This shows larger deficits (and small surpluses):

[Same source]

1995 -226.4
1996 -174.1
1997 -103.3
1998 -30.0
1999 1.9
2000 86.6
2001 -33.3
2002 -317.5
2003 -536.1
2004 -567.4
2005 -493.6

Finally, even these figures do not represent the true picture, since certain "off budget" items (like the cost of certain wars or isolated expenditures) are not included. So another way of looking at the deficits is whether the total US debt has increased and how much. If there is a deficit, the Govt borrows more money to make up the difference, so we can measure the actual shortfall of revenues compared to expenditures by seeing how much the govt had to borrow.

This table shows the deficits basedon increase in total debt of the US Govt. The data is taken from data on the Dept of Treasury's public debt website.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

1995 -281.0
1996 -251.0
1997 -188.0
1998 -113.0
1999 -130.0
2000 -18.0
2001 -133.0
2002 -421.0
2003 -555.0
2004 -596.0
2005 -553.0

Using this as a measure, the US Govt never had a surplus in any fiscal year, the debt always went up, though in FY2000 it was about even. In Calendar year 2000, however, the total debt actually decreased by $116 billion; representing a budget surplus.

You know what else I think? Maybe FDR should've waited on that other stuff (SS) and paid off the Depression deficit. You know, start at sqaure one, then add the stuff.

According to the Treas Department public debt data, there were no deficits in the 20s; Govt debt was decreasing; being paid down. Deficits were in the $3 billion range in the 30s, as the Govt started spending money to try to kick start the economy.

And I don't care what political affiliation they have, we don't have good spenders on capitol hill. I say just stay thecourse in Iraq, even though we should've waited until Afghanistan was done. Now we are fighting two wars: The War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

I don't know what you mean by "good spenders."

Do you believe in having too many taxes? What do you think is an agreeable average for the income tax?

Like everyone else, I don't like paying taxes. I believe that our primary obligation, however, is that taxes be sufficient to cover whatever the Govt spends. IMO what the Govt is now doing -- supporting the tax cuts and spending by borrowing trillions from our future -- is wrong and immoral. The next generation will have enough problems without having to be encumbered by a huge debt because our generation passed the buck on paying taxes. Wrong wrong wrong.

This guy knows it is wrong too:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01

www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2003/debtpacket040803.pdf

He says it. He just doesn't act it.
 
Thanks for clearing some of that up, Iriemon. Now, about the "good spenders" I meant that we have people on Capitol Hill that spend money on just about everything just because it (the money) is there (of which it really isn't). Pork Projects, correct? Like I'd cut welfare, but still keep SS, unemployment (for 3 months, cuz if you can't find a job after 3 months than it's because you ain't tryin') and the money givin' to military families who lose loved ones in combat.
But I'd stop paying for projects like the one for the National Park Service. A $100,000 grant was given to study horse crap (Associated Press). And I ain't shittin' ya either. The NPS wanted to know how to combat the spread of weeds within CA's state parks. So researchers at the Dominican University in tthe San Rafael, CA will use the tax dollars to gather the equine droppings "from the trails and pastures... [and] test an assumption that seeds can pass through horses, leading to sprouts of invasive weeds."
[Source from the Jan. 2006 Limbaugh Letter on pg. 5]

We need to stop wasting dough! We could also cut politicians' salaries!

I also agree that we NEED to have taxes, cuz without em' how will our gov't operate? To NOT pay taxes is unpatriotic, and I stand by that comment.
 
Back
Top Bottom