• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Tax cuts called a cost by the Left, Matthews gets it

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
106,863
Reaction score
9,780
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Although not a Matthews' supporter or even someone who watches his show, I did see this posted and had to check it out. Finally someone who supported Obama getting it right. Wonder when the progressives here will get it as well?

Matthews Scolds Obama: 'Stop Saying Cutting Taxes Is Giving People Money - It's Their Money!' | NewsBusters.org

How can any American keeping more of what they earn be a cost to the American Govt?

Does anyone here believe that the govt. is "giving" anything to the taxpayer by allowing them to keep what they earn?

Obama claims he will not give a "check" to the rich when the reality is the govt. doesn't give out checks with tax cuts but instead allow people to keep more of what they earn.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,823
Reaction score
9,626
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Although not a Matthews' supporter or even someone who watches his show, I did see this posted and had to check it out. Finally someone who supported Obama getting it right. Wonder when the progressives here will get it as well?

Matthews Scolds Obama: 'Stop Saying Cutting Taxes Is Giving People Money - It's Their Money!' | NewsBusters.org

How can any American keeping more of what they earn be a cost to the American Govt?

Does anyone here believe that the govt. is "giving" anything to the taxpayer by allowing them to keep what they earn?

Obama claims he will not give a "check" to the rich when the reality is the govt. doesn't give out checks with tax cuts but instead allow people to keep more of what they earn.

It seems like were getting caught up in petty arguments over the language being used. Extending the current tax rates for people earning over 250000 a year will do little to nothing to advance our economy and continue the strain on our deficit and isn't in the countries best interest. Regardless of the wording that people want to babble about, what Obama wants to do is a good idea.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
106,863
Reaction score
9,780
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It seems like were getting caught up in petty arguments over the language being used. Extending the current tax rates for people earning over 250000 a year will do little to nothing to advance our economy and continue the strain on our deficit and isn't in the countries best interest. Regardless of the wording that people want to babble about, what Obama wants to do is a good idea.

Wrong, you are missing it and buying into the liberal rhetoric. It isn't the government's money thus not a cost and allowing anyone that earns the money to keep it including the rich does nothing to change thel problem with Obama, spending!!!

Please don't buy the Obama rhetoric
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,003
Reaction score
28,049
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It seems like were getting caught up in petty arguments over the language being used. Extending the current tax rates for people earning over 250000 a year will do little to nothing to advance our economy and continue the strain on our deficit and isn't in the countries best interest. Regardless of the wording that people want to babble about, what Obama wants to do is a good idea.

THE LANGUAGE IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL, and those playing games with it know it. Misguiding the public into incorrect paradigms is what allows the massive snow job. I'll give a great example of how this works. Payroll deductions, started by FDR, was done precisely for this reason. First of all you never pay your income taxes, because you never stroke a check. If the Fed govt discontinued payroll deductions and forced citizens to stroke a check at the end of the year...how do you think they would react? Yeah, I think you know. There in lies the paradigm, and the use of language. Why do you think restaurants call your BILL, a check?
 
Last edited:

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,823
Reaction score
9,626
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Wrong, you are missing it and buying into the liberal rhetoric. It isn't the government's money thus not a cost and allowing anyone that earns the money to keep it including the rich does nothing to change thel problem with Obama, spending!!!

Please don't buy the Obama rhetoric

I'm not missing anything. I never said that spending isn't out of control. I don't care whether you call it a cost or not. lowering taxes lowers the revenue of the government and increases the deficit. Period. You can put some flowery language to it but there it is. Right now I don't think it's in our best interest to do so.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
106,863
Reaction score
9,780
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm not missing anything. I never said that spending isn't out of control. I don't care whether you call it a cost or not. lowering taxes lowers the revenue of the government and increases the deficit. Period. You can put some flowery language to it but there it is. Right now I don't think it's in our best interest to do so.

No, lowering tax rates has always increased revenue to the govt. according to the U.S. Treasury Dept. Explain why they are wrong?


Conservatives have always known what Chris Matthews stated so well

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ing-taxes-giving-people-money-its-their-money
 
Last edited:

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,823
Reaction score
9,626
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
106,863
Reaction score
9,780
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If we lower all tax rates to 0 does the government get an infinite amount of money? Does not compute, right?

That isn't the argument, lowering tax rates has always generated more revenue as the U.S. Treasury site shows. Why do you continue to buy the Obama rhetoric? Get the facts, go to the U.S. Treasury Website and get the facts. The govt. needs tax revenue to operate so no one is calling for a ZERO tax rate.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,823
Reaction score
9,626
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That isn't the argument, lowering tax rates has always generated more revenue as the U.S. Treasury site shows. Why do you continue to buy the Obama rhetoric? Get the facts, go to the U.S. Treasury Website and get the facts. The govt. needs tax revenue to operate so no one is calling for a ZERO tax rate.

You're trying to tell me that if the government takes less money from people it will have more money. Who's buying what rhetoric again?
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
106,863
Reaction score
9,780
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're trying to tell me that if the government takes less money from people it will have more money. Who's buying what rhetoric again?

Yep, that is how it works, tax cuts create spending and that spending creates demand thus more taxpayers. Reagan cut taxes 10-10-5 over three years and doubled personal income tax revenue by creaing 18 million new jobs. GW Bush had similar results as did JFK. Works all the time except in the liberal world where we have the same number of taxpayers paying less thus generating less revenue. The real problem remains spending, not too little revenue. How do you manage your budget? When you have less income coming in what do you do with spending?
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wrong, you are missing it and buying into the liberal rhetoric. It isn't the government's money thus not a cost and allowing anyone that earns the money to keep it including the rich does nothing to change thel problem with Obama, spending!!!

Please don't buy the Obama rhetoric

Who is going to pay for the huge Defense budget?
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,455
Reaction score
31,374
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're trying to tell me that if the government takes less money from people it will have more money. Who's buying what rhetoric again?

JFK seemed to buy into it pretty well...something about stimulating economic growth, increasing job prospects, more employed, more consumed, more purchased... a vicious cycle.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,455
Reaction score
31,374
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who is going to pay for the huge Defense budget?
well...since no one is suggesting NO taxes, Im guessing the same people that still pay for EVERY federal budget cost.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
106,863
Reaction score
9,780
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
JFK seemed to buy into it pretty well...something about stimulating economic growth, increasing job prospects, more employed, more consumed, more purchased... a vicious cycle.

Seems like a hard concept for far too many to understand. Where is local logic and common sense when it comes to the U.S. Govt. People getting to keep more of what they earn spend it, save it, invest it, or pay down debt all helping the economy and meaning less need of govt. "help." When the people spend the money it creates demand for goods and services thus creates jobs and those workers pay taxes thus increasing the number of taxpayers.

Regarding personal finances, when less revenue is coming in then expenses are cut. Why doesn't the govt. live by the same logic?
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
JFK seemed to buy into it pretty well...something about stimulating economic growth, increasing job prospects, more employed, more consumed, more purchased... a vicious cycle.
JFK make tax rates fairer, but he was concerned with budget deficits and removed huge loopholes to correct the revenue stream. And remember he lowered the top marginal rate down from 91% to 70%.

The meme that JFK lowered taxes and that increased revenue is a bogus one.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
106,863
Reaction score
9,780
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
JFK make tax rates fairer, but he was concerned with budget deficits and removed huge loopholes to correct the revenue stream. And remember he lowered the top marginal rate down from 91% to 70%.

The meme that JFK lowered taxes and that increased revenue is a bogus one.

How did govt. revenue grow after the JFK tax cuts?

Did you figure out how much the defense budget was yet?
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
106,863
Reaction score
9,780
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
B y C l o s i n g l o o p h o l e s i n t h e t a x c o d e.

Yet personal tax rate cuts grew personal income tax revenue just like they did when Reagan cut taxes and when GW Bush cut taxes. defeats your argument but you won't admit it. Closing loopholes had very little impact on revenue but makes for great talking points by liberals who seem to believe it is wrong for people to keep more of what they earn and that tax cuts are a cost to the govt. Interesting argument and wrong as usual.

Still waiting for those Defense budget numbers.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,455
Reaction score
31,374
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
JFK make tax rates fairer, but he was concerned with budget deficits and removed huge loopholes to correct the revenue stream. And remember he lowered the top marginal rate down from 91% to 70%.

The meme that JFK lowered taxes and that increased revenue is a bogus one.

Jan. 24, 1963 "It has become increasingly clear," he said, "that the largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive."
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Still waiting for those Defense budget numbers.

I'm not your ****ing secretary, if you want them, do it yourself.

Jan. 24, 1963 "It has become increasingly clear," he said, "that the largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive."
So, are you willing to bring the top marginal rate back to 70%?

Third, I think it's possible to gain a $700 million to a billion dollars through tax changes which I believe would close up loopholes on dividend withholding, on expense accounts.

"Face-to-Face, Nixon-Kennedy" Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy Third Joint Television-Radio Broadcast - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
 
Last edited:

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,455
Reaction score
31,374
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not your ****ing secretary, if you want them, do it yourself.


So, are you willing to bring the top marginal rate back to 70%?

Doood...if I was king I would not institute tax cuts...I would guarantee levels remain the same, draw out a 10 year plan to pay off the debt, insist on a balanced budget amendment and line item veto power, and demonstrate to citizens, investors, businesses, and our creditors a committment to paying off our debt and gut the fed. One with the other, not one exclusive of the other. democrats want to raise taxes and continue to spend like crack whores...thats why people are so pissed about taxes. Thats why ANY thinking individual should be pissed about taxes.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
106,863
Reaction score
9,780
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Sounds like rhetoric to me, how did that turn out? We know that income tax revenue grew after the tax cuts just like they did during the Reagan and GW Bush terms, a fact that liberals have a problem understanding.

By the way you are the one that asked how we would fund the defense budget. You don't even know how much that budget is.
 
Last edited:

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Doood...if I was king I would not institute tax cuts...I would guarantee levels remain the same, draw out a 10 year plan to pay off the debt, insist on a balanced budget amendment and line item veto power, and demonstrate to citizens, investors, businesses, and our creditors a committment to paying off our debt and gut the fed. One with the other, not one exclusive of the other. democrats want to raise taxes and continue to spend like crack whores...thats why people are so pissed about taxes. Thats why ANY thinking individual should be pissed about taxes.

Doood, you are not king. And were this pissed when President Bush doubled the debt?
 
Top Bottom