• 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!

Do conservatives think massive debt created by upper class tax cuts is okay?

Finally, an honest response.
I know both parties are corrupt and working for the rich and powerful not the people. Well the rich and powerful people. Trump has his work cut out trying to drain a swamp of this magnitude. I think they will kill him eventually. At the very least stop him with the government and media they own. 1 man against a sea of corruption. This should be interesting to watch.
 
yet you probably vote republican who have a much worse record of increasing the debt than democrats. You are probably like most hypocritical conservatives, the deficit only matters when a dem is in power. When billionaires and millionaires get handouts and tax breaks, and we are murdering brown people across the world, no problem with deficit spending
I repeat 1- that Democrats tax and spend, Republicans spend but don’t tax; 2- there is a flawed but defensible supply side theory that tax cuts in general but esp. at the top will fuel economic growth, unsurprisingly supported by the right, corresponding to the opposite approach an unsurprising theory on the left, demand side, which favors those lower on the economic scale getting more and fueling growth.
 
I know both parties are corrupt and working for the rich and powerful not the people. Well the rich and powerful people. Trump has his work cut out trying to drain a swamp of this magnitude. I think they will kill him eventually. At the very least stop him with the government and media they own. 1 man against a sea of corruption. This should be interesting to watch.

We may agree on the problem, not the solution. I don't think Trump will shrink the government in a way that hurt his golfing buddies. A billionaire will chose his fellow billionaires over the poor and the working class.
 
That is why we need business men to run things who understand the bottom line. Trump is putting them in charge of the problem.
 
Upper class tax cuts??? Excuse me but everyone got tax a cut ....If you earn money and pay tax's at ANY level....you got a tax cut.

Obviously the tax cut amounts to more dollar wise...the more money you make...But everyone got it!

I run a small business and have about 35 employees that earn between $35,000 and $70,000 per year. They all got a tax cut which they saw on there very first check stub after the tax cut was enacted.

I'm so ****ing sick of people like you spreading this disinformation about tax cuts for the rich!!!!

Let me guess....you suffer from wealth envy????
So you're saying that withholding changed automatically due to the tax cut?

That seems a little odd.
 
That is why we need business men to run things who understand the bottom line. Trump is putting them in charge of the problem.
That's a classic category error.

Government is not a business.

Do you also want plumbers to perform surgery? Or dentists to fix your toilet?
 
That is why we need business men to run things who understand the bottom line. Trump is putting them in charge of the problem.

What do you expect him to do? Trump understands the bottom line, using the government to help his rich buddies means they will throw business his way. The bottom line at his company will get bigger. You can't expect a rich man to solve a problem created by rich men.
 
The point is, at least in the US, income tax cuts generate revenue.
Believing that tax cuts net increase revenue is like believing you've just invented free energy.
1733771335800.png
The point you still attempting to avoid is that in the US income tax cuts do generate new revenue.
As I've said in this post. The money comes from somewhere. Now, for what it's worth I'm for tax cuts, especially on those in the bottom 80%-90% of US private sector households, but the idea that this will magically generate more tax revenue long term is not consistent with the evidence.

If it were true that tax cuts increase revenue, why was the growth in tax revenue higher under Obama?
1733774137573.png

Further, revenue is a reflection of spending. Was spending increasing under Obama? Would that explain higher year-over-year revenue increases when compared with Trump?

I indexed the numbers to make them easily comparable. Let's see what we get?

1733774564750.png

So from 2008 to 2015 we see higher rates of growth of tax receipts, even though from 2011-2014 government expenditures fell as the deficit decreased year-over-year. I extended the blue lines so we could compare the trajectories with the 2018-2020 period.

Despite higher rates of government spending during Trump administration (and taxes paid on that spending) government revenue growth was slower than the Obama period when spending was declining and receipts were increasing at a faster pace.

The additional tax receipts came from higher government spending, not from tax cuts.
 
If you aren't convinced that higher spending results in higher government revenue, I give you the Biden period.

1733775467456.webp
 
Do conservatives think massive debt created by upper class tax cuts is okay?

I reject the false premise of your question. That being all monies are property of the government.

Massive debt is created by far too much spending.

The other "dirty little secret" is that there are not enough "rich" to cover current and future costs. The pro-government crowd will keep redefining "rich".
 
Looking at Trump tax cuts vs the 2009-2014 Obama period looks even worse when compared to the Trump tax cut period.

1733776867920.webp
 
Massive debt is created by far too much spending.
Massive debt is created by a massive economy that requires the debt to create wealth.

US debt
1733777111573.webp


Results in US assets
1733777153800.webp

I'm just not seeing the problem here folks.

Any company with a ratio of assets to debt that the US economy has would be called a succuss. Somehow, people feel guilty about debt while ignoring 100's of trillions of dollars in assets.
 
We may agree on the problem, not the solution. I don't think Trump will shrink the government in a way that hurt his golfing buddies. A billionaire will chose his fellow billionaires over the poor and the working class.
Trump will likely crash the economy on purpose so that he and his buddies (as you put it) will be in a place to buy up defaulted property at pennies on the dollar and in general take advantage of desperate Americans who need work.
 
Massive debt is created by a massive economy that requires the debt to create wealth.

US debt
View attachment 67546444


Results in US assets
View attachment 67546445

I'm just not seeing the problem here folks.

Any company with a ratio of assets to debt that the US economy has would be called a succuss. Somehow, people feel guilty about debt while ignoring 100's of trillions of dollars in assets.
OK. I stipulate the point you are making.

I guess the question is : How much better could it be?
 
I reject the false premise of your question. That being all monies are property of the government.

Massive debt is created by far too much spending.

The other "dirty little secret" is that there are not enough "rich" to cover current and future costs. The pro-government crowd will keep redefining "rich".

Okay, I am getting a little sick of asking this, but I suppose this is the first time I asked you this:

If that is true, why didn't Republicans reduce the debt from 2002 to 2006 or from 2016 to 2018? Did the Bush or the Trump tax cuts pay for themselves?
 
Last edited:
None of these measures appear to address the underlying issue I see, which is healthcare being a for-profit industry.

What we need is a solution or set of solutions that creates a situation where, if someone who resides in our nation is sick, they can be absolutely sure that if they reach a location providing care, they will get care for the health issue they are having, and not face unreasonable financial costs as a result.
Ideally, this would mean any and all necessary care is free and paid for entirely by taxes, IMO.



As for the policy guidelines you propose:

I do not understand option 1. Does companies purchasing health insurance for all employees somehow increasing prices? Why would forbidding it change things? How

I think option 2 is trying to make healthcare providers show their books so we know how much profit they are making? Please clarify. Maybe not exactly that.

The issue I have with option 3 is that forbidding service should not be on the table as an option, at all.

I'm not sure allowing purchasing health insurance from in another state would clash with regulations in the state you live in. How would this reduce costs?

HSA's only help if you have the money to contribute to them, and some idea what your costs will be. It also does nothing to lower the costs, just makes paying them less impactful on a budget.

For point 6, are you saying we need to cut down on the number of lawsuits healthcare providers face, because they are driving up their costs and thus their prices? Might be feasible, depending how it's done.

Point 7 is all well and good, but you run into the issue where food deserts and small budgets mean good diets are unaffordable.
I’ve figured out why we disagree. I believe that the free market, while not perfect especially with government intervention, generally is the best solution to most issues.

You believe, as you have stated, there is no such thing as a free market. Therefore you see that government must step in and solve our problems. This is why you have suggested government price controls and it’s taking over major parts of the economy if not most of it. Your rationale, if I understand correctly is that you have seen areas—in this case healthcare—in which the free market has failed to deliver.

Yet I’ll suggest that healthcare, as currently ran in our country, is not subject to market forces as consumers are largely left out of the equation. About 60% of Americans receive their health insurance as a benefit of their employer—often only one option is provided. Most of these limit coverage to approved providers. 41% of individual health insurance plans restrict covered treatment to select local health providers. Americans are limited to purchase insurance plans In their state. This puts millions of Americans in a situation where over 85% of those in the state are insured by a single company (Alabama-97%, Hawaii-91%, Delaware-87%, Michigan-86%).

My list of policy recommendations are meant to put power back into the hands of consumers by providing transparency and expansion of options which the consumer can choose. Give an incentive for consumers to price comparison for care.

I understand that emergency care situations are an exception where choice if care is not really an option. However ER visits and hospital admissions from ERs only account for 18-20% of healthcare expenses. But what if we could move the remaining 80% of healthcare into the free market?

We need to start discussing how to lower the cost of healthcare and not simply transfer the burden of ever increasing costs to the government
 
The takeaway?
Easy. We should understand two things. 1) While charts are a compelling way to show information, they do not always indicate a statistically significant correlation. 2) And even if they did, correlation doesn’t mean causation

But to your larger question why do we care about debt, you sound like some of my friends who have nice things but tons of debt arguing with me that I shouldn’t have paid off my mortgage because I’ll miss out in the tax deduction.
 
If it were true that tax cuts increase revenue, why was the growth in tax revenue higher under Obama?
Hmmmm? It was almost like President Obama was elected after a major recession and despite his best efforts to slow the recovery we had strong economic growth as the economy recovered.
 
Okay, I am getting a little sick of asking this, but I suppose this is the first time I asked you this:

If that is true, why didn't Republicans reduce the debt from 2002 to 2006 or from 2016 to 2018? Did the Bush or the Trump tax cuts pay for themselves?
Better question which isn’t about partisan politics but the actual subject: Why does it make sense to raise taxes if since 1950 there has been no correlation between the top marginal tax rate and federal revenue/GDP and even a moderate to strong negative correlation between capital gains tax rates and capital tax revenue / GDP?
 
Trump will likely crash the economy on purpose so that he and his buddies (as you put it) will be in a place to buy up defaulted property at pennies on the dollar and in general take advantage of desperate Americans who need work.
This is an assumption that is based on what facts?
 
Better question which isn’t about partisan politics but the actual subject: Why does it make sense to raise taxes if since 1950 there has been no correlation between the top marginal tax rate and federal revenue/GDP and even a moderate to strong negative correlation between capital gains tax rates and capital tax revenue / GDP?

Answering a question with a question is not proper debating, I asked first.
 
Answering a question with a question is not proper debating, I asked first.
The thread is about conservatives, not the GOP.

But I appreciate your refusal to engage on the core issue. As for your question, because they spent too much money
 
The thread is about conservatives, not the GOP.

But I appreciate your refusal to engage on the core issue. As for your question, because they spent too much money

A destiction without a difference. Is Trump not a conservative, seems like a majority of right wingers on this site would disagree?

Is Rush Limbaugh not a conservative?


Who are the true conservatives, you and 5 of your friends?

Seems like fiscal conservatism is a giant scam to me, it goes out the window as soon as a Republican is in the White House.

MLK was right this about how the system works:

 
1) While charts are a compelling way to show information, they do not always indicate a statistically significant correlation. 2) And even if they did, correlation doesn’t mean causation
In other words, I could be wrong, but you aren't sure why.

But to your larger question why do we care about debt, you sound like some of my friends who have nice things but tons of debt arguing with me that I shouldn’t have paid off my mortgage because I’ll miss out in the tax deduction.
No idea what that has to do with anything.

Hmmmm? It was almost like President Obama was elected after a major recession and despite his best efforts to slow the recovery we had strong economic growth as the economy recovered.
Now who is trying to prove a cause though a correlation?

This is an assumption that is based on what facts?
Ask me again this time next year.
 
Back
Top Bottom