• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

Gill said:
First you claim that I called you ignorant, when I did not, then....

You call me an idiot.....

and I'M the one being snarky ?????

You're about as funny as Colbert.
Click to expand...

BTW, in terms of support:


"A company will hire if they think they can make a profit off what they think the worker will produce," said Leonard Burman, a public finance expert at Syracuse University's Maxwell School. If expansion would yield more profit, "it doesn't matter whether the employer gets to keep 60 or 65 percent of the additional profit."

Read more: Would ending Bush tax cuts hurt small businesses? | McClatchy

Since some seem to need opinion over actual historical data.
 
Boo Radley said:
term limits won't fix the fundamental problem. The people don't want this done away with. if the people are going to be ignored completely, we might as well have a dictator or system that gives no voice to the people.
Click to expand...

I agree, funny though how liberals seem to have no problem completely ignoring "the people" who don't want gay marriage.

I don't see the difference.

If we shouldn't get rid of SS because the people want it, why should we allow gay marriage when the people don't want it?

Setting term limits is not about "removing the people from the process"
 

That's about the law though. If we did a poll, we might find more people want the rich to give us all their money or that guns should be banned, but we don't do that because the law says we can't. So, while we should be concerned about the people, and the people have a say, there are limits to that say. Our founding fathers did speak about the posible tyranny of a majority. So, it's kind of an apples / oranges thing that you bring up.

Also, I made no judgment on what we should do about SS. I only pointed out that politicians may well lose their jobs if they got rid of it. SOme may lose their jobs based on same sex marriage as well. The difference is the law speaks to SSM and not as much on SS.
 

I am not in the camp that says raising taxes to 39% will destroy growth. I will take issue with the statement that tax rates at any level do not matter, as long as there is some profit left over.

Companies look at the economic profit expected on an investment. This is calculated in after tax dollars. The hurdle rate at a minimum is the cost of capital plus some expected return. Companies that just look at absolute profit and not making sure they are returning more than their cost of capital are poorly run and eventually are not sustainable.
 

I don't think it matters in terms of growth or adding new jobs. I don't believe a company says we could sell more product or service, making a larger profit, but the tax increease from 36% to 39% makes that untenable. We've going to have to forgo new jobs.

While I believe everything is considered and weighted, and try to avoid absolutes, when I speak of it not mattering, I mean in context of the discussion, that the small increase will hinder growth and job creation to any measurable degree. I see no evidence that it will. The more important factor in growth is the profit made by more sales and more business.
 

So we agree, as I stated above the small increase will not have a material effect.
 

You are completely, and absolutely wrong about that. Even if higher taxation doesn't move the bottom line for the business, it does raise pricing to the consumer, because if taxes raise costs to the manufacturer, they in all likelyhood pass that increase along. Now, explain to me how raising prices doesn't slow purchasing (demand) for a product?


Yeah, about as much as Obama's health care package would bend the cost curve down eh? Nice try. But you are as wrong as you can be.


j-mac
 

There is a cause-effect relationship with taxes. Taxes get piled on through the supply chain. Each hand in it gets whacked and prices increase.

I had this precise conversation with a Euro socialist I was advising. He stated a few more percent taxation is unnoticeable. I said fine, you don't mind if my fees are bumped a few percent do you? You think I got the additional percentage points, as he wouldn't barely notice in the big scheme? ROTFLOL... fat chance. When it comes to your money... people do notice.

You are correct about one thing; Businesses do adjust, and investors too. Businesses don't hire, investors sit on money... and businesses in a hostile environment will pick up and move... overseas. That fewer are spending is for a reason. The wealthy have tightened their wallets and take on less risk. Punitive taxation and a hostile environment set the stage.

It really isn't too complicated... don't piss off, confuse, over regulate, or berate, the wealth creators. Hostility and confusion has its costs... as we are all seeing.

.
 
Last edited:
Ever notice that the several tax hike proponents never answer my question of whether they are willing to pay about 40% marginal rates? They always howl that the "rich" can afford a 4% increase in the tax rate (which raises taxes at least 10% for all income over 200K) but they never answer that easy question
 
Given the spending in the past, imagine what our deficits would have been without tax cuts. You can only squeeze so much money out of the public before taking a nose dive.
 
American said:
Given the spending in the past, imagine what our deficits would have been without tax cuts. You can only squeeze so much money out of the public before taking a nose dive.
Click to expand...

Without tax cuts? Less. If we were responsble wnough to make sure we could pay for what we spend, which we do with taxes, the deficit would be less.

 

I have found no evidence to support that business doesn't hire due to tax cuts. I can find no objective evidence, and no one has offered any, that shows taxes make any noticable difference in hiring or economic growth. As I pointed oout long ago, history shows a florishing economy with a high tax base and with a low tax base and a struggling economy with a high tax base and with a low tax base. This suggests that taxes really don't play that large a role. Other factors, like consumer spending, are far more important.
 
Bush Tax Cuts: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. Averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

Question #1: If trickle down theory is so successful, than why is it that under Reagan, George H.W.Bush & G.W.Bush presidencies combined, which lasted a total of 20 years created 21.5 million jobs, and under the 8 years of President Clinton's Presidency, when there were no Bush Tax cuts, ( taxes increased under Clinton) there were 23.1 million jobs created?

Question #2: If Reublicans are truly fiscal conservatives, than why do they want to extend tax cuts that will add to the deficit? Why do they want to extend tax cuts that have been proven not to be as successful as the ones that Clinton had?

2,900,000, the number of jobs that were created per year under Bill Clinton.

Question #3: I'd also like to ask all the deficit hawks who want to cut government spending, what government programs they would like to cut. Not meaningless government programs that are 1/100 of 1% of the federal budget.

Question #4: If we are going to continue to bash the Obama-Reid-Pelosi government, then let just add this picture. I understand not all of have jobs yet, but it is no doubt in my mind that the democrats have most certainly pulled us back from the brink. Obama has done more in his presidency, then Bush did in all 8 of his. What did Bush do that isn't trying to be reversed because him and the republicans messed up so bad?

The picture is below.

 
btw, I just thought I should mention, those increases you see are all PRIVATE SECTOR jobs... not overall job growth. The lame-stream media ( thank you Sarah) hasen't bothered to mention the Prez and company has had 8 consecutive months of private sector job growth.


Remember conservatives: The main economic engine of this country IS THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
 
jkohn51192 said:
Your so wrong, and here is why. Let me show you this simple graph.
Click to expand...

What you conveniently forget to mention is that, although the debt rose during the 1980s and fell through the 1990s, Dems controlled Congress in the 80s when debt rose and Republicans controlled it in the 90s when it was dropping.

Last time I read the Constitution, the President couldn't spend money, only Congress could.

And of course, the national debt has skyrocketed since Dems took control back in 2006.
 

What you also forgot to mention was that during 2000-2006 Republicans held all three branches of government under their control, and the deficit increased at a rate never seen before in history. Oh, now your going to say, but Obama-Reid-Pelosi did it too, what you also forgot to mention is that Bush left us with an economy that was losing 750,000 jobs A MONTH, and something needed to be done. By basic principles of economics, the best thing you can do in a recession is cut taxes, and increase government spending. That's exactly what he did, and to make money, you have to spend money, So he spent money.... and its now paying off. The stimulus took effect in Febuary '09, give it about 4-5 months to take effect and the number of jobs lost significantly increased, and we actually created jobs. Since that time, we have had 8 months of consecutive job creation IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

Main point is: Democrats deficit spend less than republicans, when republicans deficit spend its because we are at war, or need to give tax breaks to the rich people, and when democrats do deficit spend, it is because it's nessecary,or we need to give taxes breaks to the middle class( which is usually in time of an economic crisis to stimulate the economy) take for example this recession.

 
why did the party punt?

by sluffing its responsibilities, leadership has obligated every american to pay a significantly higher tax bill, starting in just about 90 days

for middle earners, the hike is on the order of 3 to 4000 dollars

for small business owners, it is many times higher

by slinking away like cowards, in front of everyone, leadership has put every member of its caucus in the position of having to campaign as partisan facilitators of major tax increases---in times like these

that's what's happening TODAY

it's what's ON TV

americans, meanwhile, are looking at january first with the uncertain knowledge of exactly what their new obligations will be

we're all asked to rely on leadership being able to move SOMETHING in its lame lame duck, pelosi's fingers firmly crossed

our economic UNCERTAINTY is exacerbated by the party's rank incompetence

in times like these

TAXES are permanently a major issue in every campaign

but per the party's pusillanimous punt expect the controversy to catapault

this white house just can't see 2 moves ahead

how do YOU justify leadership's courageous handling of this always central TAX question?

are impounds to increase on all americans or only the wealthy?

when will leadership declare?

in DECEMBER?

expect every republican candidate in the nation to blare the warning, loud and clear---YOUR TAXES ARE GOING UP DRASTICALLY JANUARY 1

this is an absolute disgrace, a complete lack of vision and acumen---just like dadt

how did we get here?

you don't demand at least base competence from those you endorse as leaders?

still not embarrassed?

wow
 

rather than blaming democrats, why don't you just blame the republicans for even wanting such a stupid tax break. It seems like you lie blame with democrats just as much as republicans, but if it werent for the republicans scaring the crap out of people and telling them that they are going to be paying more taxes, in effect causing democrats poll numbers to drop, basically telling democrats that the tax break issue is too hot to handle at the moment, we would have had this issue solved already.
 
I guess its a stupid tax break when you are a net tax consumer

when you are paying several hundred thousand a year in taxes and getting no more in return than someone who pays a couple grand a year those tax breaks were great
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess its a stupid tax break when you are a net tax consumer

when you are paying several hundred thousand a year in taxes and getting no more in return than someone who pays a couple grand a year those tax breaks were great
Click to expand...


Jeez go cry me a river. It's all about economics, put that tax break money into people who will actually spend it ( middle class) verus people who will just save it ( because economic times are uncertain) and you can expect that demand will increase ( now that people have more money to spend) and that will therefore create a demand for work. Thus more jobs. And my goodness, we are planning on raising taxes on the richest 3% of Americans, (which I doubt is you) and its only decreasing their monthly checks by less than 2 percent. Wow, really?
 

More nonsense from the hypocritical left. Get this fact straight--I don't buy into the leftwing Bull poop that individuals should be sacrificed for the leftwing version of "the greater good"

I tire of class envy and spite being concealed by this crap that you all want to jack up taxes to "help society". And I am in the top 1% whether you like it or not and I tire of people like you telling me what I can afford and your crap that the obama tax hikes is only going to result in a 2% decrease in my income is not just stupid it is so inaccurate as to brand you incompetent to even discuss this subject
 

If decreasing the rich folks's checks by 2% is no big deal, then doing the same by .5% on the working folks shouldn't be no big deal, either. yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…