Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,880,512 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

THREAD TITLE: "Why does it seem so few support tax increases AND spending cuts together."

Your assertion isn't even true. It took me a whole 2 minutes to find evidence debunking the thread's initial falsehood.
Quote:
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s final budget request of his term amounts to his agenda for a desired second term, with tax increases on the affluent and cuts in spending, especially from the military, both to reduce deficits and to pay for priorities like education, public works, research and clean energy. link
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:49 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,858,157 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
THREAD TITLE: "Why does it seem so few support tax increases AND spending cuts together."

Your assertion isn't even true. It took me a whole 2 minutes to find evidence debunking the thread's initial falsehood.
I didnt realize Obama spoke for most americans, and I sure in hell didnt realize that tax increases on the affluent, represented enough of an income increase to do squat..

Tell me MTA, why so many loses have no problem subjecting OTHER PEOPLE to tax increases? Where is their "fair share"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,716,055 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
No, thats not what Clinton did. Clinton raised taxes which was harmful to the economy. It wasnt until Clinton cut captial gains rains from 28% to 20%, and cut taxes on 90% of small businesses did things turn out pretty dam well.

Furthermore, Clintons cut in spending, wasnt real cuts either. They simply cut the rate of growth.
Actually, private sector added 17 million jobs during Clinton years BEFORE the drop in capital gains (which technically promoted the idea for a dot com bubble, much like further reduction to 15% under Bush coupled with massive deleveraging to lend coupled with very low interest rates led to irresponsible lending, credit bubble over 2-3 years).

But speaking of Clinton years, 1999 for example saw federal tax revenue at $2.4 trillion (2009 dollars) while in 2009 the federal revenue was down to $2.1 Trillion. That is about $300 Billion in deficit right there.

Add to it, $520 billion in spending increases on health care and defense, about $200 billion on war spending, we're talking a massive chunk of the overall deficits totalling $1 Trillion!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,880,512 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
No, thats not what Clinton did. Clinton raised taxes which was harmful to the economy. It wasnt until Clinton cut captial gains rains from 28% to 20%, and cut taxes on 90% of small businesses did things turn out pretty dam well.

Furthermore, Clintons cut in spending, wasnt real cuts either. They simply cut the rate of growth.
The economy boomed after Clinton raised taxes.

Look at GDP growth here:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,743 posts, read 40,800,947 times
Reputation: 61998
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
I can't speak for everyone else but I don't like the loosey-goosey way the government spends taxpayer money. I think I can spend my money more responsibly than they can. You know, what are they raising my taxes for, some subsidy for a company like Solyndra? Money for Brazil to do the drilling we should be doing here? Fast and Furious? Subsidies for rich people green cars (Fisker)? Turtle tunnels? A stimulus that didn't stimulate? Cash for Clunkers that benefited Foreign auto makers? Magicians/clowns/comedians/whatever for GSA conferences? Bridges to nowhere? Airports that no one uses? A million dollars for poetry readings at zoos? $442,340 to study male prostitutes in Vietnam? Free bicycle helmets for rich neighborhoods in NYC? A $5.2 million federal grant to build
the Neon Boneyard Park (old Las Vegas signs) and Museum in Las Vegas? A quarter million dollars to a Stanford University professor‘s study of how Americans use the Internet to find love? A $137,500 federal grant to some Dartmouth professor to create a recession-inspired video game called ―Layoff,‖ a puzzlestyle game in which players fire as many people as they can as quickly as possible? $5 million in federal funds to send government employees to Harvard? $571 million in transportation enhancement grants used to plant flowers instead of repairing highways?

I could go on.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/...b-a15eb44e7f18
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 03:04 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,858,157 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The economy boomed after Clinton raised taxes.

Look at GDP growth here:

The average GDP growth after Clinton raised taxes over 4 years was 3.2%, with average wages climbing $.05

After Clinton cut taxes, the average GDP growth went to 4.2% over 4 years with the real wage growth going to $.49

Only in lala land can you use Clinton as an example as to why you should raise taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 03:07 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,858,157 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Actually, private sector added 17 million jobs during Clinton years BEFORE the drop in capital gains (which technically promoted the idea for a dot com bubble, much like further reduction to 15% under Bush coupled with massive deleveraging to lend coupled with very low interest rates led to irresponsible lending, credit bubble over 2-3 years).

But speaking of Clinton years, 1999 for example saw federal tax revenue at $2.4 trillion (2009 dollars) while in 2009 the federal revenue was down to $2.1 Trillion. That is about $300 Billion in deficit right there.

Add to it, $520 billion in spending increases on health care and defense, about $200 billion on war spending, we're talking a massive chunk of the overall deficits totalling $1 Trillion!
Actually the private sector added 11.6M jobs before the tax cuts, and another 11.5M after the tax cuts, but the real income wage growth went from $.04 to $.49
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,716,055 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Actually the private sector added 11.6M jobs before the tax cuts, and another 11.5M after the tax cuts, but the real income wage growth went from $.04 to $.49
The reduction in capital gains tax happened in 1998. During the five years leading to it, under higher capital gains tax and income tax, the private sector employment grew at an average of 233K/month, from 90.8 million in Jan 1993 to 104.9 million in Jan 1998.

Over the next three years, the growth was an average of 217K/month (104.9 million to 111.6 million in Jan 2001). So, capital gains tax rate doesn't seem to have played a role in job growth, as most jobs were actually added PRIOR to lowering the taxes.

PS. Bush dropped capital gains tax further in May 2003. The private sector added only 131K jobs on average per month over next 57 months, and that is leading to the peak and before the decline began. To put that in perspective, we can consider April 2012 as a poor showing when it came to private sector adding jobs, at only 130K.

Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 05-09-2012 at 03:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,101,913 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
There are a lot of Republicans out there that would rather the country fail then increase taxes. That’s the environment we’re in today. In any other time we would consider these people unpatriotic and worthless but in today’s time there celebrated by those who would prefer a two tiered society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 03:46 PM
 
4,255 posts, read 3,467,110 times
Reputation: 992
Well the answer is obvious. Those that pay taxes dont want to pay more.
Those that dont pay taxes and do recive gvmt services dont want to see those services disapear. And if keeping them means it will cost other people more money they dont care, why would they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:58 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top