Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Vice Presidential Debate


IrishAidan07

Recommended Posts

No, they did not end in recessions, and recessions have never had anything to do with tax decreases. On the contrary, economic prosperity has always resulted. Recessions result from the implimentation of policies contrary to sound economic principals.

No recession followed Kennedy's tax cuts.

Reagan's tax cuts produced the largest period of economic prosperity this generation had ever seen. And he inherited a receeding economy...due in large part ot the economic policies of Carter (which resulted in higher taxes and utterly insane inflation).

And Bush's tax cuts ...post-9/11, which of course was something that had dramatic effects on the economy, created a similar upturn, and he inherited a receeding economy from the Clinton administration (again...taxes...).

And, here is the expenditure of the government of the last few years, please tell me where to curtail expenditure:

linked-image

How about we talk Treasury and Social Security?

99% of treasury is interest on debts the government already has and that has been incurred by reducing taxes. Cannot be reduced without crashing the whole financial system, next proposal please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • questionmark

    15

  • MID

    14

  • SilverCougar

    13

  • IrishAidan07

    13

linked-image

The estimate spent on health is going to be about $700bn.

The bail-out sum was about $700bn.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The estimate spent on health is going to be about $700bn.

The bail-out sum was about $700bn.

:blink:

most of the figures you see there are outdated, the Dept. of Defense and the Treasury Dept. have way higher budgets now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation was warned about by several Senators, among them , John McCain, who sponsored legislation three years ago to stop the situation in its tracks.

The bill was defeated, and a certain senator from Illinois did nothing about it. Today, the CEO of one of those companies, a man who made $90,000,000 in a matter of years due to these cooked books and false profit statements, is Obama's chief economic advisor, and Obama himself was the second highest Senate receipient of campaign contributions form him, netting $10,000,000!

And, what John McCain warned about three years ago has come true exactly as he said it would.

That's the present problem. It's a Democratic Congressional problem, not Bush's. He could have signed the bill...but it never came to him.

Well, that's an interesting theory, Mid.

Except I think you'll find that three years ago, it was the Republicans who had the majority in congress, having held that position since the mid 1990's. The Democrats came into majority in the elections of 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so that we're absolutely clear on this - are you seriously citing G.W's presidency as a good example of economic policies to follow?

Just so that we're absolutely clear on this:

1) Are you seriously citing raising taxes as a way to get out of a recession or depression?

2) Are you seriously citing that our problems are because Americans aren't taxed enough?

3) Are you seriously citing that taking money from the producers, the business owners, the risk takers is good from growth?

BTW, with the down turn of the market and the Wall Street types out of jobs there will be fewer "rich" for Obama to tax!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so that we're absolutely clear on this:

1) Are you seriously citing raising taxes as a way to get out of a recession or depression?

2) Are you seriously citing that our problems are because Americans aren't taxed enough?

3) Are you seriously citing that taking money from the producers, the business owners, the risk takers is good from growth?

BTW, with the down turn of the market and the Wall Street types out of jobs there will be fewer "rich" for Obama to tax!

If the government were to pay off their debts that money would have to be included in the economic circulation and the budget would shrink, allowing for reducing taxes when there is no need to pay interest.

And it is OK if there are fewer rich to tax, having a few super rich (cause all that lost money went somewhere..it did not just evaporate) to tax makes the thing much more overviewable and decreases the chance of tax evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so that we're absolutely clear on this:

1) Are you seriously citing raising taxes as a way to get out of a recession or depression?

2) Are you seriously citing that our problems are because Americans aren't taxed enough?

3) Are you seriously citing that taking money from the producers, the business owners, the risk takers is good from growth?

BTW, with the down turn of the market and the Wall Street types out of jobs there will be fewer "rich" for Obama to tax!

1. No - but I will cite that not lowering taxes for low income families during a recession is a very bad idea.

2. No. In my opinion, this financial crisis is the inevitable conclusion of lassez-faire economics and human greed.

3. Yes. But don't take my word for it - ask someone who's an expert:

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's an interesting theory, Mid.

Except I think you'll find that three years ago, it was the Republicans who had the majority in congress, having held that position since the mid 1990's. The Democrats came into majority in the elections of 2006.

Hi Tiggs -- can you do a *concise* search that in the 1990s both Reps And Dems were promoting Low Doc mortgages, *and* both parties were instituting penalties on lending institutions that did not give mortgage loans to low income and ethnic minorities?

Thanks in advance, if you accept the mission. :ph34r:

Karlis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

99% of treasury is interest on debts the government already has and that has been incurred by reducing taxes. Cannot be reduced without crashing the whole financial system, next proposal please.

No no...I don't think you understand the concept here.

No debt has been incurred by reductions in taxes. In fact, government revenues have increased under the Bush tax cuts for 6 years, which has happened as a result of every tax cut that has occurred in the past!

A reduction in the treasury expenditure can only be attained through sound economic policy---which involves reduction in taxes...across the board, and a reduction in the size of government and spending. The right person will impliment those policies, the wrong one...like a guy who is openly proposing a trillion dollars in new spending, and disguising a tax credit as a tax rate cut, will increase the expenditure.

Funny you didn't mention the hundreds of billions being spent on Social Security, a program that has been essentially bankrupted through inept government management...and how that might be a very critical area of reduced spending.

Next proposal?

How about one of your own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no...I don't think you understand the concept here.

No debt has been incurred by reductions in taxes. In fact, government revenues have increased under the Bush tax cuts for 6 years, which has happened as a result of every tax cut that has occurred in the past!

A reduction in the treasury expenditure can only be attained through sound economic policy---which involves reduction in taxes...across the board, and a reduction in the size of government and spending. The right person will impliment those policies, the wrong one...like a guy who is openly proposing a trillion dollars in new spending, and disguising a tax credit as a tax rate cut, will increase the expenditure.

Funny you didn't mention the hundreds of billions being spent on Social Security, a program that has been essentially bankrupted through inept government management...and how that might be a very critical area of reduced spending.

Next proposal?

How about one of your own?

Collect from taxpayers what they underpaid, outlaw deficit spending and reduce the taxes 30% (more or less the amount spend on interest) once the national debt is paid off.

The fact of the matter is that people have not overpaid on taxes, as Dubya announced when he reduced taxes, the fact is they had underpaid. If they had overpaid there would be a plus in the treasury instead of 10.,2 trillion dollars debt.

But then again... we want to go flag waving all over the world...we just don't want to pay the bill for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's an interesting theory, Mid.

Except I think you'll find that three years ago, it was the Republicans who had the majority in congress, having held that position since the mid 1990's. The Democrats came into majority in the elections of 2006.

Yes, Tiggs, I know...and the ascendancy of the Democrats in 2006 was the obvious result of Republicans in Congress abandoning their conservative principals... and was a clear signal that they'd better get their act together and act according to the principals they had been elected to employ.

The Republicans got lazy, and the vote said...we're changing things because you're not doing your jobs!

And, they weren't!

However, it is also rather clear that the ascendancy of Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and Reid as Senate Majority leader have resulted in the lowest approval rating of Congress in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Collect from taxpayers what they underpaid, outlaw deficit spending and reduce the taxes 30% (more or less the amount spend on interest) once the national debt is paid off.

The fact of the matter is that people have not overpaid on taxes, as Dubya announced when he reduced taxes, the fact is they had underpaid. If they had overpaid there would be a plus in the treasury instead of 10.,2 trillion dollars debt.

But then again... we want to go flag waving all over the world...we just don't want to pay the bill for it.

I love how you ignore what is presented in favor of what are radical talking points.

Collect from taxpayers what they underpaid?

I suppose you agree with Joe Biden that it's patriotic to pay more taxes?

People have not overpaid on taxes? Are you nuts?

38% corporate rates? Minimum? A proposal to increase tax on anyone, including small business, that makes over $250 K?

Do you have any concept of what that means for the economy?

...let alone Obama's vote a year or so ago to increase taxes on anyone making more that $42K per year????

Who get's a job from someone who is poor?

You tax business more, they cut back...jobs go down, services go down...

Go ahead, vote for windfall profits taxes on the "evil" oil companies (who provide the biggest octane (pun intended) of this economy), and watch your costs go through the roof...as YOU PAY THEIR TAX BURDEN.

Who is it who produces the things that these "rich" people buy? People who have jobs provided by RICH PEOPLE.

Tax those who "haven't paid their fair share", and those who depend upon them for their jobs...and, by extension, economic prosperity, SUFFER!

This is simple stuff.

No one doesn't pay their fair share. The fact is, everyone pays too much of THEIR MONEY...including "rich" people. Increased taxes lead to economic downturn, which has been shown to be a fact in the past (remember, if you will, Carter and Clinton...both of whom incresed taxes and sent us into recessions). Decreasing real tax rates always leads to economic prosperity...it always has and it always will.

The concept that people don't pay their fair share of taxes is archaic, and ludicrous!

I love how you ignore the fact that government revenues increased manifold as a resuilt of Bush's tax cuts, as they did under Kennedy's and Reagan's similar implimentations. It's a fiscal no-brainer, which has worked every time it's been put forth and accepted....and, who will not accept reduced tax burdens...save the Democrats of the present age, that is?

p.s. For all you liberal Dems who keep equating yourselves with Kennedy...he was NOT a LIB., He was a Conservative Democrat, and his party dissolved with the death of his brother in 1968....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how you ignore what is presented in favor of what are radical talking points.

Collect from taxpayers what they underpaid?

I suppose you agree with Joe Biden that it's patriotic to pay more taxes?

People have not overpaid on taxes? Are you nuts?

38% corporate rates? Minimum? A proposal to increase tax on anyone, including small business, that makes over $250 K?

Do you have any concept of what that means for the economy?

...let alone Obama's vote a year or so ago to increase taxes on anyone making more that $42K per year????

Who get's a job from someone who is poor?

You tax business more, they cut back...jobs go down, services go down...

Go ahead, vote for windfall profits taxes on the "evil" oil companies (who provide the biggest octane (pun intended) of this economy), and watch your costs go through the roof...as YOU PAY THEIR TAX BURDEN.

Who is it who produces the things that these "rich" people buy? People who have jobs provided by RICH PEOPLE.

Tax those who "haven't paid their fair share", and those who depend upon them for their jobs...and, by extension, economic prosperity, SUFFER!

This is simple stuff.

No one doesn't pay their fair share. The fact is, everyone pays too much of THEIR MONEY...including "rich" people. Increased taxes lead to economic downturn, which has been shown to be a fact in the past (remember, if you will, Carter and Clinton...both of whom incresed taxes and sent us into recessions). Decreasing real tax rates always leads to economic prosperity...it always has and it always will.

The concept that people don't pay their fair share of taxes is archaic, and ludicrous!

I love how you ignore the fact that government revenues increased manifold as a resuilt of Bush's tax cuts, as they did under Kennedy's and Reagan's similar implimentations. It's a fiscal no-brainer, which has worked every time it's been put forth and accepted....and, who will not accept reduced tax burdens...save the Democrats of the present age, that is?

p.s. For all you liberal Dems who keep equating yourselves with Kennedy...he was NOT a LIB., He was a Conservative Democrat, and his party dissolved with the death of his brother in 1968....

Once again, if everybody would have given their part in the government expenses (it is called taxes) there would be no deficit. People did not and did not kick out their representatives who accumulated those debts either (the worse offenders in the last 100 years were even reelected).

If you elect somebody willing to spend on credit you have to be willing to foot the bill ... as simple as that.

The current bill can only be footed by increasing taxes and tightening belts.

I am not a liberal, I am conservative ... and real conservatives pride themselves in paying their debts.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, if everybody would have given their part in the government expenses (it is called taxes) there would be no deficit. People did not and did not kick out their representatives who accumulated those debts either (the worse offenders in the last 100 years was even reelected).

If you elect somebody willing to spend on credit you have to be willing to foot the bill ... as simple as that.

The current bill can only be footed by increasing taxes and tightening belts.

I am not a liberal, I am conservative ... and real conservatives pride themselves in paying their debts.

Under Jimmy Carter highest tax bracket was at 70%, that says it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Jimmy Carter highest tax bracket was at 70%, that says it all.

No THIS:

linked-image

says it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No THIS:

linked-image

says it all

Whistling past the graveyard that was the Soviet Union?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No THIS:

linked-image

says it all

How about a graph on economic growth, unemployment and inflation as well?

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a graph on economic growth as well?

What growth?

You mean the "supposed growth" outgrown by public and private debt? Right.

The only growth was in the pocketbooks of about 200 people ... all with a suitcase on their way to the Bahamas by now.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can post all the charts you want, quote Buffet or Lynch or Dali Lama(sp) for all that it will matter.

No one has yet made a logical (and moral) argument - muchless sighted an actual example from history - of how raising taxes in a recession (or depression) has helped.

Additionally, no one can convince me that a dollar in Government's hand is worth more to the economy than a dollar in the consumer's hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, no one can convince me that a dollar in Government's hand is worth more to the economy than a dollar in the consumer's hand.

What you fail to comprehend is that the government paid Trillions of dollars that it didn't have over the last 8 years under Republican leadership. Government doesn't work like business or families. When they need money they print more. Future expenses are not counted. How are you expecting to pay those bills - with good looks? There will be no choice, very soon, in fact, to raise taxes on everyone. You repubs will whine about how the Democrats are raising taxes when your guys already spent the money on the Iraq war and had no plan to pay the future expenses.

And since the root cause of the financial problems is derivatives, that are documented and unregulated, in fact gambling. Even more so after the Gramm-McCain bill eliminated what regulation there was in place in the late 1990s.

So this is your own fault really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since the root cause of the financial problems is derivatives, that are documented and unregulated, in fact gambling. Even more so after the Gramm-McCain bill eliminated what regulation there was in place in the late 1990s.

Derivatives helped keep your mortgage and home equity loan rates sooooo low over the last 8 years (and beyond).

What about McCain trying to sound the alarm in 2004 and being ignored?

We can go in circles on this all night.

A growing part of me actually wants Obama to win just to see how imputant he will be at fixing all this and to enjoy hearing people blame Bush, the Republicans and capitalism for years to come. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, if everybody would have given their part in the government expenses (it is called taxes) there would be no deficit.

What? You say you're a conservative, and you put out a socialist line like that?

If the government, which has shown itself to be inept at managing much of anything, stopped all the spending, and took the appropriate steps to increase its revenues, there would be no defecit. The people cannot and should not be expected to foot the ridiculous bill for government. In fact, it's the people who, with their money, in their hands, can do much more than the government ever did.

The current bill can only be footed by increasing taxes and tightening belts.

Tightening belts is one thing. Increasing taxes doesn't help that.

In fact, puting people's money in their hands, not the governments, is the only way to effectively increase government revenues, and stimulate economic growth.

Any true conservative knows that. It's proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A growing part of me actually wants Obama to win just to see how imputant he will be at fixing all this and to enjoy hearing people blame Bush, the Republicans and capitalism for years to come. :P

I understand the impulse...

But it's still kinda scary to think about it actually happening.

There is little doubt that Bush and the Republicans will be blamed throughout an Obama failure. While it might be humorous to watch, I'd really rather not see it all unfold.

Four years hence, when there's a new mysery index being published in the papers every day, the price of gas is $5 or $6 per gallon, and we're no less dependent on foreign energy than we are now, and jobs are down because of the tax increases imposed by the Obama administration on the people who provide the jobs and the goods and services people want, need, and desire (and who now of course have to tighten their belts, employ fewer people, and not invest in their business' future), and the health care system has deteriorated beyond all belief, and of course, Obama's trillion dollars in new spending has added to the defecit...and inflation approaches, or even exceeds that which we saw under Carter...well, I'm not sure the humor will outweigh the anger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any true conservative knows that. It's proven.

Any true conservative pays his debt.

And anybody capable of thinking knows that socialism through the backdoor is letting a government spend money they don't have.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can post all the charts you want, quote Buffet or Lynch or Dali Lama(sp) for all that it will matter.

No one has yet made a logical (and moral) argument - muchless sighted an actual example from history - of how raising taxes in a recession (or depression) has helped.

Additionally, no one can convince me that a dollar in Government's hand is worth more to the economy than a dollar in the consumer's hand.

Truth is MasterPo - I'd take Warren Buffet's advice over yours on financial matters, pretty much every time.

Moreover - neither candidate are planning to raise taxes for the country as a whole. They're both planning Trillion dollar tax cuts. From the Tax Policy Center:

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.