Obama Draws Line in the Sand with Republicans - Will Not Extend Bush Tax Cuts

reply to post by beezzer


I wasn't really blaming the tax cuts for the economic tailspin. I was attempting to put into perspective that the Bush era tax cuts haven't necessarily helped any type of economic growth (which, yes, they are meant to do), as has been made evidence by the economic decline that's been occurring since Bush was in office.

If there isn't any economic growth, which is primarily what the Bush era tax cuts were meant to spur, then why should they be continued? That seems like a bit of fail logic to me.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by beezzer

 

I wasn't really blaming the tax cuts for the economic tailspin. I was attempting to put into perspective that the Bush era tax cuts haven't necessarily helped any type of economic growth (which, yes, they are meant to do), as has been made evidence by the economic decline that's been occurring since Bush was in office.

If there isn't any economic growth, which is primarily what the Bush era tax cuts were meant to spur, then why should they be continued? That seems like a bit of fail logic to me.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

By your reasoning, the tax cuts didn't help. So losing them won't hurt????

Please explain.

reply to post by centurion1211


I think companies will hire more people when they have good - top line - growth and
NO ObamaCare uncertainty hanging over their heads.
------------------------
The Supreme Court is going to rule ObamaCare unconstitutional .
Why wait?
Repeal it now.

beezzer, here you go -

1932 -- Hoover raises the top tax rate from to 25 to 63 percent.

1933 -- Roosevelt comes into office. He begins spending at the same time that new tax hike comes into effect. The Depression bottoms out.

1934 -- Recovery begins. The GNP rises 7.7 percent, unemployment falls to 21.7 percent.

1935 -- New government spending on public works and rural electrification. A push to strengthen labor and raise wages. New taxes through the creation of Social Security.

The GNP grows another 8.1 percent, and unemployment continues to fall.

1936 -- The top tax rate is raised again. This time to 79 percent.

GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls even further.

Here's the full article -

www.alternet.org...

It's a pretty interesting read.

Basically, everything the Republicans continue to say about taxes is untrue.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by beezzer

 

I wasn't really blaming the tax cuts for the economic tailspin. I was attempting to put into perspective that the Bush era tax cuts haven't necessarily helped any type of economic growth (which, yes, they are meant to do), as has been made evidence by the economic decline that's been occurring since Bush was in office.

If there isn't any economic growth, which is primarily what the Bush era tax cuts were meant to spur, then why should they be continued? That seems like a bit of fail logic to me.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

By your reasoning, the tax cuts didn't help. So losing them won't hurt????

Please explain.

The Bush tax cuts haven't done what they were meant to do, have they? I'm not sure if losing them would hurt or not, but the fact of the matter is they haven't done what they were supposed to do.

I'm do not support suspending all tax breaks. That's just dumb. You don't over tax people when they can barely afford to get by as it is. I'm for reforming tax cuts and altering them in such a way that would be more practical, and in a way that could actually help.

But economics isn't my field of expertise. A lot of other posters in this thread have put it better than I could in how tax cuts could be reformed. Whether or not any type of tax break plan would work is heavily based on speculation and supposition, same way that the Bush tax cuts were. So if one method doesn't work, you gotta find another better way and try again until you find a method that does work.

Edit: origamiandurbanism's post which is above mine is one such method of tax reform that might work.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism


Oh my God! You're going all the way back to the Great Depression to make a point
that cutting taxes won't help the economy?
-----------------------
You know John F. Kennedy thought tax cuts were a "good" thing to do to "help" the
economy.
-----------------------
I hope Obama doesn't make things even worse with a QE3 solution.
The U.S. dollar has been devalued enough already.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

Nice. Although I'm not sure Larry Beinhart is a source I'd want to use. Regardless, you've provided me some homework before I can refute.
Well played.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Do you have an example that is comparable to the one that origamiandurbanism showed that can demonstrate how the Bush tax cut model was effective?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Didn't we have this argument months ago???
Raising taxes during a recession is BAD.
------------------------------------------------------------
See video below:
- Obama Draws Line in Sand -

The latest numbers on the U.S. economy are terrible.
Unemployment is up to 9.1%.
Growth is slowing! So here we have this nitwit drawing a line in the sand.
Lets raise taxes and just see what happens.

I see nothing wrong with taxing the bejeebus out of the rich. Why not?

Perhaps if we bring back the taxes for the rich as they've always been, we might have some hopes of looking at a surplus in 10-15 years again. Without taxing those who make the most and giving such insane breaks as those who make THE MOST in this country paying NOTHING at all, does it surprise you at all we're in this downward spiral Bush left us?

I'm not surprised at all, I knew this would happen as soon as I saw what his administration was passing. I told friends and family in discussions this was what would happen and I'm sad to say so. Tax the rich, go for it.

Khar

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: What actually happened was, you know, there was an enor, there was a collapse in the financial system, which was not restored for a long time. There was a persistent deep slump in consumer demand, and therefore no investment demand and so you're stuck in this trap. Roosevelt got the economy moving somewhat. By 1937 things were a lot better than they were in 1933...

GEORGE WILL: And then they tanked (?)...

KRUGMAN: ...then he was persuaded to balance the budget, or try to, and he raised taxes and cut spending, and the economy went back down again, and it took an enormous public works program known as World War II to bring the economy out of a Depression.

What precipitated this bizarre, almost instantaneous economic flipflop on Sunday's "This Week" was ABC's George Will bringing up a little history by stating that net investment was negative throughout most of the 1930s because of the uncertainties about the economy and government's activist role during that period.

newsbusters.org...

More to come

Originally posted by neo96
classwarfare is stupid.

I knew that if I waited long enough I'd eventually see you post something we could agree on.

Class warfare IS stupid, and we've been in the middle of it for decades. The problem is that you fail to recognize the true target... the MIDDLE class.

It's the middle class that drives an economy. People making a sustainable living with moderate disposable income. They are the 'spenders' who make a domestic economy thrive. It's not the poor who struggle, juggling to keep food on the table, utilities connected, and a roof over their heads; and it's not the wealthy hoarders either. The policies in place have been a full blown assault against the middle class, while the hoarders have consolidated more wealth, and the numbers of those living in poverty have skyrocketed.

Originally posted by neo96
thats why the war against the rich and those actions destroy the people and money who give jobs and money to the middle class.

Again, the war has been against the middle class. The "rich" are doing just fine.

The average salary ratio of a CEO to the average employee was 107:1 in 1990. In 2010 it reached 319:1

The 700 billion tarp bailout of Wall Street, cost every man woman and child in the U.S. $2,258, an excellent R.O.I. if you were one of the hot shot Wall Streeters who received a fat bonus, with the funds, shortly thereafter.

The average executive salary in 1998 was $2,300,000, by 2005 it topped 11,775,000. What percentage of middle class workers are making 5x their annual salary from a little over a decade ago?

The figures go on and on. People can cry all they want to about imaginary class warfare targeted against the wealthy, but the numbers clearly show that it's the middle class who've been in the crosshairs.

A simple question, what benefits the U.S. economy more... An executive buying a new $450,000 imported Bentley, or 15-18 middle class workers being able to afford a new Chevy / Ford?

Again, it's the middle class that drives an economy. They are the 'spenders' who make a domestic economy thrive.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by origamiandurbanism

 

Nice. Although I'm not sure Larry Beinhart is a source I'd want to use. Regardless, you've provided me some homework before I can refute.
Well played.

Thanks, I did a lazy search and linked the first one that looked OK. I'll try to find some more data later today. I gotta get going for now.

reply to post by redmage


the champions of the middle class are the ones destroying them and nope

the end goal of those champions are no rich and no middle just one class all in the poor house.

who employes the middle class? all those rich folk and when policies have stagnated and ran off wealth in this country the end result is this country today.

those rich are doing what the middle class and everyone else is trying to do and that is to survive.

its not imaginary class warfare agian the rich i can post number videos of the left and obama himself going after those who are more fortunate.

and i disagree that the middle class drives the economy its those people who give them jobs and loans and provide a revenue engine to where they have money to do the things they do.

i am sure you will disagree but ask yourself where does all that money come from? not the middle class they are the receipients.

people like bill gates and his multimillion dollar homes and the people who were needed to build it and maintain it and make all the materials that went into its construction.

those who have more money spend the most money in this country.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by origamiandurbanism

 

Oh my God! You're going all the way back to the Great Depression to make a point
that cutting taxes won't help the economy?
-----------------------
You know John F. Kennedy thought tax cuts were a "good" thing to do to "help" the
economy.
-----------------------
I hope Obama doesn't make things even worse with a QE3 solution.
The U.S. dollar has been devalued enough already.

Kennedy cut the top tax rate from 90% to 70%. In other words, it's still much higher than it is today and the middle class was much, much healthier then.

I would love to a president with common sense.

Would someone please explain to me what would be wrong with a flat tax? Say %10. No one gets out of it, no deductions at all for anything. No loopholes. Whether you make $1000 a year or $100,000,000 a year you pay %10. It would be fair to everyone according to their ability to pay.

Originally posted by neo96
the champions of the middle class are the ones destroying them and nope

Sorry, but the ones destroying the middle class are the ones with the lobbying dollars. Those who've raised the salary ratio from 107:1 to 319:1 through laying off American middle class workers, and exporting their jobs overseas in order to increase that salary gap even further. You claim it's the "liberals" destroying the middle class, but numbers don't show those executives, nor their lobbying dollars, leaning left.

Originally posted by neo96
who employes the middle class?

The more fitting question in 2011 is, "Who lays off the middle class, and outsources their jobs overseas?".

Originally posted by neo96
those rich are doing what the middle class and everyone else is trying to do and that is to survive.

You're joking, right? Must be rough if "trying to survive" means exotic foreign vacations, foreign luxury cars, and yachts. The numbers clearly show that the "rich" are doing just fine, and FAR better off than merely "trying to survive".

Originally posted by neo96
its not imaginary class warfare agian the rich i can post number videos of the left and obama himself going after those who are more fortunate.

It is imaginary class warfare if you think the rich are in any realistic danger of disappearing. They're thriving and the amount of U.S. wealth consolidated into the top 1% is growing by the minute.

Originally posted by neo96
and i disagree that the middle class drives the economy its those people who give them jobs and loans and provide a revenue engine to where they have money to do the things they do.

And where are all those jobs you speak of? What percentage of middle class workers are making 5x their annual salary from a little over a decade ago? The Bush tax cuts have been in effect for years yet unemployment is still climbing. What drives the economy is the spenders. The middle class, those making a reasonable living with moderate disposable income, are the spenders. Hoarding money does does not drive an economy.

Originally posted by neo96

who employes the middle class?

companys and corporations

all those rich folk

Nope

companys and corporations (unless you are talking about rich people hiring a nanny or some such..)

The more you tax the rich people, the more the rich people push their money into investments, expanding businesses, etc...aka, keep it tied up in the workforce.

give them great opportunities to withdraw their investments, and they will. cutting taxes for the rich peoples individual income will encourage them to not reinvest, or expand, or hire, etc...it will make them want to cash out and push everything into a bank while the getting's good.

economics 101.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by redmage

 

the champions of the middle class are the ones destroying them and nope

the end goal of those champions are no rich and no middle just one class all in the poor house.

who employes the middle class? all those rich folk and when policies have stagnated and ran off wealth in this country the end result is this country today.

those rich are doing what the middle class and everyone else is trying to do and that is to survive.

its not imaginary class warfare agian the rich i can post number videos of the left and obama himself going after those who are more fortunate.

and i disagree that the middle class drives the economy its those people who give them jobs and loans and provide a revenue engine to where they have money to do the things they do.

i am sure you will disagree but ask yourself where does all that money come from? not the middle class they are the receipients.

people like bill gates and his multimillion dollar homes and the people who were needed to build it and maintain it and make all the materials that went into its construction.

those who have more money spend the most money in this country.

edit on 4-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

No the champions of the rich and corporations are the ones destroying the Middle class Neo...
The wealthy are getting wealthier, it's a fact, your argument is fake....

You see, money is going to wealthy sources, instead of the middle class, it is pretty damn simple.

I am sorry Neo, survival is not an issue once you break a certain level of income, another fake argument.

Ask yourself, who provided that money which made the person wealthy in the first place??? Were they born with it?

I just ate breakfast at a restaurant, you know what??? A hundred people just like me transferring their dirty poor people money into a wealthy persons hands. So what happens when the hundred diners drop down to 15???

reply to post by redmage

Sorry, but the ones destroying the middle class are the ones with the lobbying dollars. Those who've raised the salary ratio from 107:1 to 319:1 through laying off American middle class workers, and exporting their jobs overseas in order to increase that salary gap even further. You claim it's the "liberals" destroying the middle class, but numbers don't show those executives, nor their lobbying dollars, leaning left.

guess those union lobbists have nothing to with that and big government that has ran them to greener pastures.

The more fitting question in 2011 is, "Who lays off the middle class, and outsources their jobs overseas?".

again thats government

ou're joking, right? Must be rough if "trying to survive" means exotic foreign vacations, foreign luxury cars, and yachts. The numbers clearly show that the "rich" are doing just fine, and FAR better off than merely "trying to survive".

yeah and $100 an hour pushing a button and 10 weeks of vacation time and double time and triple time and holiday pay et al have nothing to do with that.

And where are all those jobs you speak of? What percentage of middle class workers are making 5x their annual salary from a little over a decade ago? The Bush tax cuts have been in effect for years yet unemployment is still climbing. What drives the economy is the spenders. The middle class, those making a reasonable living with moderate disposable income, are the spenders. Hoarding money does does not drive an economy.

where does the middle class get all their money? who finances them? it aint the poor and it aint themselves.


people who think like you are in charge of this country and how has that been working out?

crappy.

reply to post by SaturnFX

companys and corporations

yeah that are the ones paying people.

The more you tax the rich people, the more the rich people push their money into investments, expanding businesses, etc...aka, keep it tied up in the workforce.

nope the more you tax the rich lay off people materials and resources continue to go up everysingle day new regulations kill more jobs and they do not create any.

more taxes more regulations those rich and companies and corporations the ones that can afford to simply pick up and leave and they have.

agian the result of people thinking like that is the reason people are out of work and lose wealth..


economics 101 is you cant squeeze blood from a turnip with that turnip says enough and just leaves this country.

case in point this country today.