The 'Tax Cut, For or Against' thread - Page 2

Zkribbler · April 27, 2003, 14:01

During the 1964 Presidental election (when I supported conservative Republicanism), Barry Goldwater convinced me of the virtues of a balanced budget. Even though I have long since embraced liberalism, this is one value I never abandoned.

Bush's proposed tax cut make no sense. It does virtually nothing to help the lower or middle classes. Instead, the tax cut is once again aimed at cutting the tax burden on those Americans who can best afford to pay for necessary government programs.

It is American consumers who drive this economies, not fat cats who will take their tax cut and, with it, buy French chateaus, Italian art and Japanese vacations.

The decision to make passive income non-taxable helps only the wealthy. Although middle class taxpayers do own stock, they keep almost all of it in retirement accounts, which are already non-taxible. Meanwhile, their salaries and other active income sources continued to be taxed.

If one wishes to give this economy a "shot in the arm," any tax cuts should be aimed at the people who will spend it in America-- namely, the middle class.

But once again, this administration has not only turned its back on the needs of the middle class, it is running up record deficits which we will have to pay in the future.

Jaguar · April 27, 2003, 14:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
So Jaguar, does that explain how Democrats brought surpluses? And how a projected 4.6 trillion dollar surplus turned into a 5 trillion dollar deficit?

Clinton brought a surplus by using a Herbert Hoover economic plan, which generally causes the economy to crash.

The dow jones lost nearly 2000 points in the last 350 days of Clinton's presidency. It has continued on this trend, aided by 9-11.

Sava · April 27, 2003, 14:13

Actually, corporate corruption caused the stock market bubble to burst. Clinton didn't have much of anything to do with CFO's, stock brokers, and bankers cooking the books. But go ahead believing he did if it makes you feel good. Clinton's economic policy of creating surpluses helped the economy. Period. The downturn, which would have occurred regardless, has been made worse by corporate corruption and Bush's stupid policies.

Jaguar · April 27, 2003, 14:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Actually, corporate corruption caused the stock market bubble to burst.

OK, there we go. It was neither Bush nor Clinton's fault.

That is what I believe, but the only way to get liberals to admit it is by blaming it on Clinton.

Q Classic · April 27, 2003, 14:34

sava, didn't you know it's still clintons fault because of his poor example leading the country with lax morals?

he's single-handedly at fault for alqaeda, the economy in the tank, srebenica, the north korean crisis, saddam, the dreck we have on tv, and the coming antichrist?

MichaeltheGreat · April 27, 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Actually, corporate corruption caused the stock market bubble to burst. Clinton didn't have much of anything to do with CFO's, stock brokers, and bankers cooking the books. But go ahead believing he did if it makes you feel good. Clinton's economic policy of creating surpluses helped the economy. Period. The downturn, which would have occurred regardless, has been made worse by corporate corruption and Bush's stupid policies.

Clinton did have a lot to do with the regulatory and enforcement climate that allowed that to happen so much and so blatantly. After all, he did run the regulatory and enforcement agencies.

Ramo · April 27, 2003, 14:49

Long term deficit spending is a really bad idea.

Lancer · April 27, 2003, 14:50

Clinton rode the upward trend that resulted from Reaganomics. It was so good even he couldn't **** it up...largely because the conservatives in congress held his spending in check.

Remember Hilary and the awful healthcare plan she came up with? A healthcare plan for insurance companies paid for by Joe Taxpayer. Thank God for a conservative majority in congress!

Sava · April 27, 2003, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Clinton rode the upward trend that resulted from Reaganomics. It was so good even he couldn't **** it up...largely because the conservatives in congress held his spending in check.

Remember Hilary and the awful healthcare plan she came up with? A healthcare plan for insurance companies paid for by Joe Taxpayer. Thank God for a conservative majority in congress!

Reaganomics... BWAHAHHAAHHA Yes, giving rich people money and hoping it trickles down. That's the dumbest economic theory I've ever heard. Well if that's true, then we should elect a Democratic president so that the economy will rebound. It's funny how Reagan's policies created the worst economic climate and greatest rise in poverty since the New Deal came about. If anything, Reaganomics simply caused the recession in the early 90's. I'm sorry, but if you really believe this crap, I can't help you. Maybe Fez can post that silly graph again.

Stefu · April 27, 2003, 15:41

Quote:

During the 1964 Presidental election (when I supported conservative Republicanism), Barry Goldwater convinced me of the virtues of a balanced budget.

For some reason I had you pegged as a twentysomething!

It's probably that wonderful Internet anonymity - until proven otherwise everyone's a straight white middle class male twentysomething.

Shi Huangdi · April 27, 2003, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

Keep a record of this post folks, usually Sava's arguments are far less intelligent.

Bush's tax cut IIRC reduces the top marginal rate from 39.6% to around 35%

Shi Huangdi · April 27, 2003, 16:24

Short term deficits aren't the worst thing in the world. In fact, if you are concerned about the economy slipping into a recession, then you won't want to balance the budget.

Kuciwalker · April 27, 2003, 16:25

The deficits are the only possible way to get Congress to cut spending, which is the best solution, long-term.

VJ · April 27, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Clinton rode the upward trend that resulted from Reaganomics. It was so good even he couldn't **** it up...largely because the conservatives in congress held his spending in check.

Quote:

The deficits are the only possible way to get Congress to cut spending, which is the best solution, long-term

...

Spiffor · April 27, 2003, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Short term deficits aren't the worst thing in the world. In fact, if you are concerned about the economy slipping into a recession, then you won't want to balance the budget.

Signature material !

I happen to completely agree with you on this one. But I'd hardly imagine you'd tell so if Gore was president in an exactly same situation

Az · April 27, 2003, 17:00

erm, Spiff, I ... ahem.. really don't see it as signature material.

Lawrence of Arabia · April 27, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Clinton rode the upward trend that resulted from Reaganomics. It was so good even he couldn't **** it up...largely because the conservatives in congress held his spending in check.

Reagan was an idiot. He thought that trees caused pollution, and that starving third world citizens could eat ketchup to survive.

Kuciwalker · April 27, 2003, 17:45

Reagan also beat the Soviet Union. Give him some credit.

Lawrence of Arabia · April 27, 2003, 17:48

Was it worth it? I dont think so.

Kuciwalker · April 27, 2003, 17:49

He also built up our military so we could HAVE a gulf war.

Lawrence of Arabia · April 27, 2003, 17:51

Was that worth it? I don't think so.

Imran Siddiqui · April 27, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

It's funny how Reagan's policies created the worst economic climate and greatest rise in poverty since the New Deal came about.

The 80s were incredibly prosperous, Sava, I suggest you check it out

. Especially when you compare it to the crap 70s, it seemed almost like a miracle.

The 91 recession was VERY short in terms of duration. It lasted basically for just one year.

I support a tax cut, just a much smaller one, and more directed to lower incomes.

Kuciwalker · April 27, 2003, 18:03

Well, LoA, that's your opinion. I personally think Reagan was one of our very best presidents.

Lawrence of Arabia · April 27, 2003, 18:11

We already had a tax cut. Why do we need another?

Kuciwalker · April 27, 2003, 18:31

...

Because it wasn't ENOUGH of a tax cut. Duh.

Zkribbler · April 28, 2003, 01:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The 80s were incredibly prosperous, Sava, I suggest you check it out

.

For the Dow Jones and for the economic elite, sure. But the lower class lost ground. For the middle class, their real wages were stagnant until after Clinton became President.

Shi Huangdi · April 28, 2003, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Signature material !

I happen to completely agree with you on this one. But I'd hardly imagine you'd tell so if Gore was president in an exactly same situation

I give Democratic presidents there due on the rare occasion they do something right. Kennedy was right with his tax cut and overall had a pretty decent administration, Clinton in spite of his faults did pass a great welfare reform bill.

Imran Siddiqui · April 28, 2003, 03:05

Quote:

For the middle class, their real wages were stagnant until after Clinton became President.

It was well after Clinton became President, however

.

It also required a change in Congress (which directly led to a change in Clinton's economic view).

Hey, it's alright that the 80s mostly helped out the economic elite (though there were also many more jobs created in the 80s). After the 70s, as long as any sector grew it was a'ight

. That, and I'm convinced the removal of regulations was on of the reasons for the internet boom.

Frankychan · April 28, 2003, 03:12

AGAINST!

Since I'm student (same as Q Cubed) I need the money and with the cut, I'm getting a whopping $0.00. Hmmm, where should I go with my money from the tax cut?---->Maybe the street corner so I can beg for some real money.

Tax cut doesn't help the people who really need the money.

Lancer · April 28, 2003, 03:15

Frankychan, it gives the money back to those that EARNED IT.