• 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!

Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?


  • Total voters
    41
Right now I feel it's necessary to point out that our economy went into the ****ter WHILE these cuts were in place.

Blame It On Bush isn't workin for the Messiah any more, and it's not working for you.

The Great Recession happened because the banks took advantage of the unconstitutional federal guarantee of mortgage repayment, the CRA, the CRAII, and the cancellation of the Glass-Steagal Act by President Clinton, and the Giant Sequoia of the Economy was finally toppled by $4.50 a gallon gasoline.

The Bush Tax Cuts enabled something like six solid years of positive economic growth.

What do you feel is going to happen to the economy when, in the Second Dip of the Great Rescession, those taxes are automatically re-imposed? This isn't a trick question.

Will the economy grow or shrink when the government's reimposed taxes put additional financial burden on employers?

That's the only question that matters.

No one cares about your class envy or your failed socialist ideologies.
 
Last edited:
Blame It On Bush isn't workin for the Messiah any more, and it's not working for you.

The Great Recession happened because the banks took advantage of the unconstitutional federal guarantee of mortgage repayment, the CRA, the CRAII, and the cancellation of the Glass-Steagal Act by President Clinton, and the Giant Sequoia of the Economy was finally toppled by $4.50 a gallon gasoline.

The Bush Tax Cuts enabled something like six solid years of positive economic growth.

What do you feel is going to happen to the economy when, in the Second Dip of the Great Rescession, those taxes are automatically re-imposed? This isn't a trick question.

Will the economy grow or shrink when the government's reimposed taxes put additional financial burden on employers?

That's the only question that matters.

No one cares about your class envy or your failed socialist ideologies.


There are many reactions one could have had to my statement. My very thin, short and truncated statement that pointed out a mere fact.

Of course the typical politically biased ball-save reaction is to protect the family jewels when there's fear of an attack: hence you getting defensive at the mere statement that had no implication what so ever as to who's to blame, who caused problems, why things went down the ****ter . . .

You read that statement and immediately took it as "a socialist agenda" or as "partisan hackery blaming Bush"
I'm just the messenger - don't shoot me because you don't like what I had to say! You read between the lines and are now all a tuff over nothing.

*smooths your feathers*

Now - read my following post to that where I stated:
I think it actually shows that our economy centers more around what our government does/doesn't do with their spending than how much they have to spend.

Now that you've recollected your cool . . . so I can actually Bush Bash.

Who's more to be annoyed with in this situation: Democrats currently in charge of things who may or may not let the tax cuts expire.
Or Bush who instigated a failed attempt to resuscitate a wavering economy with trickle-down economics that didn't work . . . with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that these measures would EXPIRE in the future when he was no longer in office?

I think we can fairly lay fault equally on everyone directly involved in all of these decisions. . . Every administration makes decisions to offset or stave off economic crisis . . . only to find that those measures were temporary and in 8, 10, 12 years - useless and failed.
Obviously they're not doing it right if we keep revisiting the same damn problems over and over. So they're ALL to blame - Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama.

Resorting to any sort of partisan favoritism, finger pointing and exclusion is exactly why this country's in such a fickle pickle, don't you think?

Now - since businesses and individuals had known FOR YEARS that the tax-cuts might expire come end 2010 you'd think they would have planned for that, yeah?
I mean - that's most WISE, isn't it? When you know you'll be sucked a bit more dry - don't you think ahead and try to plan for it so it's not such a crunch?

These people can't just ditch their lack of preparation off on the government if they've KNOWN this whole time that things were set to be snipped, now can they?
 
Last edited:
Well now I've read up on the Community Reinvestment Act history and the Glass-Steagall Act. . .

It's interesting to learn that McCain supports reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act and Obama supports the Volcker Rule which is a less *there* version of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Especially while reading about the controversies from the CRA - I couldn't help but think that what really happened (happens) is that the government perceives a problem - regulates it to get a desired effect - and steps out completely from the earthquake zone.
In the situation surrounding the housing market urged on by the CRA related loans - it seems that the Government SHOULD have been there to catch the falling guy but ran off to get some coffee instead. . . and then went *oops!*

:shrug:

Thanks for your info - I always appreciate it when someone brings up the title of an Act or Measure of some nature so I can find it, read it, and learn more.
 
There are many reactions one could have had to my statement. My very thin, short and truncated statement that pointed out a mere fact.

You've pointed out a spurious correlation. But simply because two events happen one after another doesn't mean that the first caused the second. Scarecrow's explanation makes a lot more sense to me to explain the point you made: "our economy went into the ****ter WHILE these cuts were in place." In fact, I'd say that, though you're point is undeniable, I think it's important to understand that DESPITE the tax cuts (which stimulate economic growth), the problems Scarecrow listed still caused 'the great recession'. The question is now: do we want to limit economic growth with tax increases - all the while realizing that EVERY time we increase taxes, federal tax revenue decreases? I can find the source for this if requested. But I think it's common knowledge. Laffer Curve anyone?
 
The poll question and answers are bias of course and completely rediculous in the current form.. just saying.

Tell me about it. I want my 2 minutes back.
 
Nothing quite like making up a poll based on a false premise, is there?

Reality Check, The "bUsh steal from the middle class to give to the ultra wealthy theft plan" is set to EXPIRE, NOT "be cancelled" as you falsely claim.

BTW, I say good riddance to bad policy.
 
Taxes didn't cause the Depression, the Federal Reserve did.

FDR didn't cure the Depression, Hirohito and Hitler did. FDR kept the Depression going long enough to allow the two H's their chance to fix things.

However, in this day and age, exceptionally high taxation IS a serious problem, and tax cuts WILL create real, private sector, economic growth.

Under the Messiah's plan, if you're willing to either intrude into private homes and ask unconstitutionally nosy questions, or simply fake up some forms, you can be part of 95% of the job growth in May. Otherwise, ain't no jobs being created with a trillion dollars of wasted pork.

Absolutely NO REASON at all to be raising taxes when the government is wasting money on phony "stimulus" slush funds that have no measurable effect on the economy. It's completely indefensible.

Please explain how Hitler and Hirohito "cured" the depression.

BTW.... 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts. The big argument (and it was discussed at the time) was whether the stimulus was big enough. Certainly too small of a stimulus (or of any fiscal or monetary action) just will not do the trick, just as too small an engine may not power the big machine.
 
Last edited:
IT depends - will it affect my mega tax return? Will I go from getting a $9,000 return to a $500 return? I must think about this and then decide. :thinking

you're not doing it right.........you should aim for a zero net.
 
Really? Those of you who answered "no" actually make over $250,000 a year?
 
Absolutely not. Tax cuts and reduced spending gets us out of economic trouble everytime. More spending, bigger government = more depression.

we had some damned good years during the clinton administration.
 
My extremely conservative father used to tell me: "You can't spend more money than you make." Apparently, Herbert Walker Bush didn't communicate that message clearly to his boy W. We have to raise taxes because neither the Democrats or the Republicans have the stones to cut entitlement programs that their supporters favor. The choices are simple, we either cut off a vast percentage of entitlements (and I mean for everything from AFDC to the military/industrial complex) or we raise taxes.

I don't believe either party will be willing to do the former, so we're left with the latter.
 
you're not doing it right.........you should aim for a zero net.

Exactly right... what you get back or what you pay has little to do with your total tax bill and everything to do with your withholding status and/or estimated payments.
 
My extremely conservative father used to tell me: "You can't spend more money than you make." Apparently, Herbert Walker Bush didn't communicate that message clearly to his boy W. We have to raise taxes because neither the Democrats or the Republicans have the stones to cut entitlement programs that their supporters favor. The choices are simple, we either cut off a vast percentage of entitlements (and I mean for everything from AFDC to the military/industrial complex) or we raise taxes.

I don't believe either party will be willing to do the former, so we're left with the latter.

Actually, you can't solve the problem doing one or the other... its going to require both. Moreover, balancing the budget in a recession is near impossible, much as balancing the family budget without a job is near impossible. You can only do the best you can do here. If the budget were balanced to revenue levels expected in a healthy economy that would be a huge gain.
 
10%?? Really? As I have stated before, it is about 3%. .

and you were unable to comprehend what I said

I said a 3% increase in tax rates is about a 10% increase in taxes

The dem tax hikes will jump the top rate from 35% to almost 40% That means more than a ten percent increase in taxes. DIvidend income will be taxed at more than twice the current rate

If you dems are so enamored with people paying taxes why don't you demand that everyone pay a similar increase? Because dems really don't support tax hikes for revenue production-they support tax hikes on others to buy the votes of those not targeted for soaking
 
From that article


so - Since my husband makes far less than $250,000 - this won't affect me us at all . . . nor many others . . . and I fail to see the issue.

How can you trust the dems to tell the truth?
 
How can you trust the dems to tell the truth?

the biggest problem with dem politicians is that their agenda is based on a lie.

dems claim their main purpose is to help the poor and to equitably allocate wealth but in reality dems do everything possible to keep people poor and dependent and thus themselves in office. If most of the poor could actually become educated and independent of government handouts, the "need" for dem income redistribution policies would evaporate.
 
Right now I feel it's necessary to point out that our economy went into the ****ter WHILE these cuts were in place.

Thank you! I was waiting for somebody besides me to say it!!

It's quite astounding so many Reps/Conservs continue to use tax cuts as their main economic strong point when on the complete opposite side of the economic spetrum you still have a deficit to get under control. Limiting spending will help, of course, but with so many people out of the workforce and so much of the business world still feeling uncomfortable about hiring, this country needs an infusion of any kind within the tax base right now. Therefore, if only makes sense to me to allow the tax cuts to expire for those who can afford to pay them. And if having another %3 in taxes taken from the wealthiest who can afford to pay it AND many among this same economic class have said they're willing to "pay their fair share", why not for the good of the country?
 
Absolutely not. Tax cuts and reduced spending gets us out of economic trouble everytime. More spending, bigger government = more depression.

Since thats totally how we got out of the great depression :roll:
 
the biggest problem with dem politicians is that their agenda is based on a lie.

dems claim their main purpose is to help the poor and to equitably allocate wealth but in reality dems do everything possible to keep people poor and dependent and thus themselves in office. If most of the poor could actually become educated and independent of government handouts, the "need" for dem income redistribution policies would evaporate.

Oh, be careful with that statement. On another thread, I mentioned almost the same thing, but I was called a racist.
 
the biggest problem with dem politicians is that their agenda is based on a lie.

dems claim their main purpose is to help the poor and to equitably allocate wealth but in reality dems do everything possible to keep people poor and dependent and thus themselves in office. If most of the poor could actually become educated and independent of government handouts, the "need" for dem income redistribution policies would evaporate.

This is a common statement by Republicans, but in fact, there are quite a few fiscally conservative democrats in congress. One of them is mine. And, I'd have a little more respect for this perspective if the Republicans hadn't been subsidizing corporate America's welfare needs for the past 30 years.
 
Oh, be careful with that statement. On another thread, I mentioned almost the same thing, but I was called a racist.

Yes. I'd say that it's an issue of presentation. Unlike you, Turtle didn't couch it in racial terms, i.e., "Obama is the new slavemaster on the plantation."
 
that's rather silly. saying no to socialist expansion, more confiscatory tax policies etc is patriotic
Nothing at all silly about it.
The future of our nation will include more socialism.
Its unpatriotic to deter progression,IMO..
 
Absolutely not. Tax cuts and reduced spending gets us out of economic trouble everytime. More spending, bigger government = more depression.

You can bring up some examples of reduced spending helping get us out of a recession?
 
Back
Top Bottom