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 07-11-2013, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,612 posts, read 28,176,480 times
Reputation: 6635

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Republicans do "supply side tax cuts" and "trickle down economics." These tax cuts and economic policies are 100% directed to the rich (for so-called job creation.)

Look at GW Bushs tax cuts.

The bottom 20% of Americans got 1.2% of the Bush tax cuts.
The richest 1% of Americans got 51.8% of the Bush tax cuts.

Do you consider that across the board tax cuts?


http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwb0602c2.pdf
The wealthy were paying more, by percent, after the Bush tax cuts than they were before. The richest 1% got a large share of the tax cuts because, obviously, they pay more in taxes in the first place!

The Bush tax cuts took 2 million low-income taxpayers off the tax roles entirely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2013, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,591,814 times
Reputation: 2392
Second smallest spender? Some Forbes writers must have come from a parallel universe through a wormhole to get those figures . In Obama's first term the national debt increased by 52%, smashing all-time records. The debt-to-GDP ratio has reached its highest since World War II, and his deficits have smashed all-time records and again the deficit-to-GDP ratio is at its highest since World War II. Gross spending has also reached new records on his watch.

If you want to see a small spender, perhaps you should look at Bill Clinton, who actually ran surpluses in his second term. Compare that record to Obama's monster deficits, and the sheer absurdity of the "Obama spends less" meme will reveal itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 7,763,567 times
Reputation: 4503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
The wealthy were paying more, by percent, after the Bush tax cuts than they were before. The richest 1% got a large share of the tax cuts because, obviously, they pay more in taxes in the first place!

The Bush tax cuts took 2 million low-income taxpayers off the tax roles entirely.
6th grade logic defies liberals
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 09:44 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,044 posts, read 2,962,341 times
Reputation: 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Clinton never had a balanced budget, he came close but he didn't. He came close btw by CUTTING the capital gains rate from 28% go 20% which raised revenues, thereby disputing the garbage you keep posting that cutting taxes sometimes doesn't raise revenues.
Cutting capital gains (billionaires tax rates) does not increase revenues from an economic standpoint. And cutting capital gains decreases revenues in the long run.

Cutting capital gains often creates a short term revenue increase by causing rich people to no longer hide their money from taxes.

Many billionaires hire teams of attorneys to hide their money from taxes. When capital gains tax rates are lowered it causes these billionaires to pay taxes, because paying taxes becomes cheaper than paying their attorneys.

Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities




And B. Clinton did have a balanced budget.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 09:52 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,716,970 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Cutting capital gains (billionaires tax rates) does not increase revenues from an economic standpoint. And cutting capital gains decreases revenues in the long run.

Cutting capital gains often creates a short term revenue increase by causing rich people to no longer hide their money from taxes.

Many billionaires hire teams of attorneys to hide their money from taxes. When capital gains tax rates are lowered it causes these billionaires to pay taxes, because paying taxes becomes cheaper than paying their attorneys.

Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
I see you like to ignore facts that disagree with you

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
And B. Clinton did have a balanced budget.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
That's only public debt, and not including intragovernmental borrowing.

try again
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 10:15 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,044 posts, read 2,962,341 times
Reputation: 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I see you like to ignore facts that disagree with you

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes


That's only public debt, and not including intragovernmental borrowing.

try again

Forbes is a source owned and financed by billionaire/millionaire Wall Street CEO's.

Forbes is saying that tax cuts for the rich are a good thing (and the owners of Forbes benefit from tax cuts for the rich.)

This is called a "conflict of interest."


Can you provide a source that is not a "conflict of interest."

Do you honestly believe we can trust Forbes in matters of "the positive benefits of lowering rich peoples tax rates?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 10:18 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,716,970 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Forbes is a source owned and financed by billionaire Wall Street CEO's.

Forbes is saying that tax cuts for the rich are a good thing (and the owners of Forbes benefit from tax cuts for the rich.)

This is called a "conflict of interest."

Can you provide a source that is not a "conflict of interest."

Do you honestly believe we can trust Forbes in matters of "the benefits of lowering rich peoples tax rates?"
Hahaha, this whole thread started because Forbes said Obama was the smallest government spender..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 12:44 AM
 
33,151 posts, read 27,602,960 times
Reputation: 19688
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Again, you are stopping your estimate for Bush at 2008, but Bush was in office until January of 2009. He signed into law the 2009 budget, not Barack Obama, so it was Bush's budget, not Barack's
read again what i wrote. i blames $1.2 trillion on dear leader chairman maobama in 2009 because HE SIGNED THOSE BILLS INTO LAW, NOT BUSH. the $862 billion stimulus package was OBAMAs doing in 2009, as was the $400 billion omnibus spending bill. that is $1.2 trillion that obama was responsible for NOT BUSH. bush did not sign those bills obama did. have you got it through your thick skull yet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 01:42 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 19,208,176 times
Reputation: 5441
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Hahaha, this whole thread started because Forbes said Obama was the smallest government spender..
Well Forbes apparently is only correct when the liberals say they are. lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 01:49 AM
 
10,487 posts, read 4,667,714 times
Reputation: 11788
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
Manipulating percentages? Is that like Republican math?

Or are you telling me that Forbes doesn't understand math and economics?
The author of the article is a self admitted liberal who writes from a leftist perspective. So just because Forbes Magazine chooses to publish his opinion, does not make it accurate.

`
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top