George W. Bush has won on taxes?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No. Cut spending to the point you don't have to raise taxes...Bill Clinton style. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not really. He cut capital gains by 8%. The most he did was maybe close loopholes but didn't increase the rate.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not really. He cut capital gains by 8%. The most he did was maybe close loopholes but didn't increase the rate.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Um, no (see: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993) Jandurin

The economy boomed after the 1997 tax cuts.

The economy boomed after the 1997 tax cuts.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

The economy boomed after the 1997 tax cuts.

Jandurin

so the dot-com bubble had nothing to do with the economy boom in his presidency?Jandurin

Did somebody say graphs!?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] You do know the radical majorityof that deficit was actually based on the Bush adminstration right? The Bush adminstration specifically and intentionally kept the costs of the two wars (Afghan and Iraq) out of any kind of deficit.. But Obama adminstration put it within the budget, hence why we see a radical increase right at his office even though he didn't pass anything what so ever.. This isn't suggesting that I am in favor of some of Obama's spending plans, but this is just ridiculous.. Furthermore where did Obama or democrats in general started bringing in Patriotism in whats Patriotic and what isn't? Because since 9/11 that has been firm territory rhetoric with which the Republicans have wielded not the other side.Hubadubalubahu

So the first graph is from a place called hyscience.com and at the bottom if you enlarge the graph in that fine black print it says:

Sources:OMB historical tables, SBC Republican calculations

For presidents Clinton and Bush, only debt added during their first terms is included.

Compares average annual rate of growth in debt under Obama to the average rate under George W. Bush and Clinton.

The second graph is from http://www.westernfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/budget-create-deficits-850-570x289.jpg

A republican site that is just a less professional Fox news wannabe.

The third graph is from http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/obama-hockey-stick-e1312806903899.jpg

Even worse site than the second. But the main problem is the graph itself. You are holding the president accountable for spending that has little to do with him. On extremely vauge graphs.

The federal budget is divided into three major categories. Mandatory spending, which is funding that continues without Congress having to approve it each year. Three programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, comprise almost 70 percent of all mandatory spending. Discretionary spending which is funding that Congress must reappropriate anew each year. And then Interest payments which are the annual costs associated with the federal debt. As the federal government runs deficits and borrows money, it builds up an accumulated level of debt. The government, just as any other borrower, has to pay interest on that debt. The amount of interest it pays on its publicly held debt is a function of the size of the debt and interest rates.

There are two broad categories within discretionary spending: spending that is related to national defense, especially the military, and spending that is not. Now, non-defense spending usually makes up less than half of discretionary spending and includes things that you may find are less painless to cut spending on then you make them out to be. This includes:

Income security

Education, training, employment, and social services

Health

International affairs

Veterans benefits and services

Administration of justice

Natural resources and environment

Transportation

General science, space, and technology

Community and regional development

General government

Commerce and housing credit

Agriculture

Energy

Now if you want to argue with graphs and charts like you so love to do, at least make sure you are analyzing them thoroughly and understand what they are showing before you try to use them in a argument. And also make sure they do not misconstrue the facts to support your agenda. (looking at you graph number one.) Now if you find out what Obama has signed to spike an increase in government spending then by all means present it, but otherwise there is no reason to waste time talking about this with you, especially with the type of "sources" you're looking at, and a failure to analyze your own information.

Not sure why this debate even made it into a second topic. But im not surprised when we are talking about a guy who treats our presidents like they are some sort of governmental omnipotent beings.

People who wanna tax the hell out of the rich have NO idea how money and economy works. All you'll do is make everybody equally poor, and give the government (politicians!) total power over almost everything.

Because a guy like Bill Gates is worth 50ish billion, doesn't mean that's money that the other 300ish million Americans don't have. It doesn't work that way because it's invested and being earned and spent by countless people every day. For instance, a rich guy puts 10 million in the bank... do you think his cash sits in a vault? No! The bank uses that money to give normal people loans on things like a new car. The normal people who borrow that money bring business to a car dealership. The dealership, the salesman, the car company, etc all make money off that... and then they spend that money with somebody else... and that somebody else does the same... over and over and over again. See, that rich guy's money is everybody's money in a way.

Look around you next time you drive down the street... everything that's not made and owned by the government is made or owned by rich people. Cars, buildings, businesses, entertainment, any product you buy in a store, etc! We ALL benefit from rich people every day in countless ways. America is great because there are so many rich people who can invest (risk) their money on big things. Imagine a world where we all shared the money... 50 people would have to chip in a little money and share ownership in a McDonald's. That's not gonna work. Or, some arrogant politician in the government could keep all that money and open up the restaurant that he thinks we should have, whether anybody wants it or not. Seriously, imagine a government-owned restaurant LOL It won't be allowed to fail no matter how much it sucks... they'll throw as much money at it forever.

I could textwall a book on the subject, but I can't. All I can do is hope to open a few eyes and let you think and figure out the truth of it yourselves.

People who wanna tax the hell out of the rich have NO idea how money and economy works. All you'll do is make everybody equally poor, and give the government (politicians!) total power over almost everything.

Because a guy like Bill Gates is worth 50ish billion, doesn't mean that's money that the other 300ish million Americans don't have. It doesn't work that way because it's invested and being earned and spent by countless people every day. For instance, a rich guy puts 10 million in the bank... do you think his cash sits in a vault? No! The bank uses that money to give normal people loans on things like a new car. The normal people who borrow that money bring business to a car dealership. The dealership, the salesman, the car company, etc all make money off that... and then they spend that money with somebody else... and that somebody else does the same... over and over and over again. See, that rich guy's money is everybody's money in a way.

Look around you next time you drive down the street... everything that's not made and owned by the government is made or owned by rich people. Cars, buildings, businesses, entertainment, any product you buy in a store, etc! We ALL benefit from rich people every day in countless ways. America is great because there are so many rich people who can invest (risk) their money on big things. Imagine a world where we all shared the money... 50 people would have to chip in a little money and share ownership in a McDonald's. That's not gonna work. Or, some arrogant politician in the government could keep all that money and open up the restaurant that he thinks we should have, whether anybody wants it or not. Seriously, imagine a government-owned restaurant LOL It won't be allowed to fail no matter how much it sucks... they'll throw as much money at it forever.

I could textwall a book on the subject, but I can't. All I can do is hope to open a few eyes and let you think and figure out the truth of it yourselves.

BoSnerdly

That is the fundamentals of the Republican "trickle down" economic theory.

In some aspects, it's incredibly fair.

"The rich don't deserve to be taxed out of all their money because everyone is entitled to his/her money."

In some aspects, it's vastly unfair.

"The rich don't deserve their money because human life isn't determined by how much money someone has."

-

For Democrats, Republicans are lunatics for reducing taxes on the rich, when it's the poor that needs help.

For Republicans, Democrats are lunatics for devaluing important economic players that invest and contribute to the development of our economy.

-

Which side is correct, though?

If by "win" you mean "putting the country in massive debt" than yeah, Bush won.

[QUOTE="BoSnerdly"]

People who wanna tax the hell out of the rich have NO idea how money and economy works. All you'll do is make everybody equally poor, and give the government (politicians!) total power over almost everything.

Because a guy like Bill Gates is worth 50ish billion, doesn't mean that's money that the other 300ish million Americans don't have. It doesn't work that way because it's invested and being earned and spent by countless people every day. For instance, a rich guy puts 10 million in the bank... do you think his cash sits in a vault? No! The bank uses that money to give normal people loans on things like a new car. The normal people who borrow that money bring business to a car dealership. The dealership, the salesman, the car company, etc all make money off that... and then they spend that money with somebody else... and that somebody else does the same... over and over and over again. See, that rich guy's money is everybody's money in a way.

Look around you next time you drive down the street... everything that's not made and owned by the government is made or owned by rich people. Cars, buildings, businesses, entertainment, any product you buy in a store, etc! We ALL benefit from rich people every day in countless ways. America is great because there are so many rich people who can invest (risk) their money on big things. Imagine a world where we all shared the money... 50 people would have to chip in a little money and share ownership in a McDonald's. That's not gonna work. Or, some arrogant politician in the government could keep all that money and open up the restaurant that he thinks we should have, whether anybody wants it or not. Seriously, imagine a government-owned restaurant LOL It won't be allowed to fail no matter how much it sucks... they'll throw as much money at it forever.

I could textwall a book on the subject, but I can't. All I can do is hope to open a few eyes and let you think and figure out the truth of it yourselves.

peterw007

That is the fundamentals of the Republican "trickle down" economic theory employed by some Republicans.

In some aspects, it's incredibly fair.

"The rich don't deserve to be taxed out of all their money because everyone is entitled to his/her money."

In some aspects, it's vastly unfair.

"The rich don't deserve their money because human life isn't determined by how much money someone has."

-

For Democrats, Republicans are lunatics for reducing taxes on the rich, when it's the poor that needs help.

For Republicans, Democrats are lunatics for devaluing important economic players that invest and contribute to the development of our economy.

-

Which side is correct, though?

Reagan himself raised taxes.. And a economic advisor recently who originally was apart of the Reagan adminstration said that the current Republican economic plans are crazy.. And here is the crazy thing the tax ideas put forward that are seen as "too much" literally are a 2% increase..

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="BoSnerdly"]

People who wanna tax the hell out of the rich have NO idea how money and economy works. All you'll do is make everybody equally poor, and give the government (politicians!) total power over almost everything.

Because a guy like Bill Gates is worth 50ish billion, doesn't mean that's money that the other 300ish million Americans don't have. It doesn't work that way because it's invested and being earned and spent by countless people every day. For instance, a rich guy puts 10 million in the bank... do you think his cash sits in a vault? No! The bank uses that money to give normal people loans on things like a new car. The normal people who borrow that money bring business to a car dealership. The dealership, the salesman, the car company, etc all make money off that... and then they spend that money with somebody else... and that somebody else does the same... over and over and over again. See, that rich guy's money is everybody's money in a way.

Look around you next time you drive down the street... everything that's not made and owned by the government is made or owned by rich people. Cars, buildings, businesses, entertainment, any product you buy in a store, etc! We ALL benefit from rich people every day in countless ways. America is great because there are so many rich people who can invest (risk) their money on big things. Imagine a world where we all shared the money... 50 people would have to chip in a little money and share ownership in a McDonald's. That's not gonna work. Or, some arrogant politician in the government could keep all that money and open up the restaurant that he thinks we should have, whether anybody wants it or not. Seriously, imagine a government-owned restaurant LOL It won't be allowed to fail no matter how much it sucks... they'll throw as much money at it forever.

I could textwall a book on the subject, but I can't. All I can do is hope to open a few eyes and let you think and figure out the truth of it yourselves.

sSubZerOo

That is the fundamentals of the Republican "trickle down" economic theory employed by some Republicans.

In some aspects, it's incredibly fair.

"The rich don't deserve to be taxed out of all their money because everyone is entitled to his/her money."

In some aspects, it's vastly unfair.

"The rich don't deserve their money because human life isn't determined by how much money someone has."

-

For Democrats, Republicans are lunatics for reducing taxes on the rich, when it's the poor that needs help.

For Republicans, Democrats are lunatics for devaluing important economic players that invest and contribute to the development of our economy.

-

Which side is correct, though?

Reagan himself raised taxes.. And a economic advisor recently who originally was apart of the Reagan adminstration said that the current Republican economic plans are crazy.. And here is the crazy thing the tax ideas put forward that are seen as "too much" literally are a 2% increase..

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Just pointing out taxing rich people doesn't solve anything. Government spending in the problem.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Increasing taxes on rich people solves quite a lot actually in terms of shrinking the deficit. But talking to you is like talking to a brick wall so I'm not going to continue this conversation. whipassmt

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Just pointing out taxing rich people doesn't solve anything. Government spending in the problem.Jandurin

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Which is facilitated by more and more people qualifying for government programs due to a poor economy.

DroidPhysX

Also, I never hinted towards unemployment in my post and I would like to know where and by how much Obama increased spending?

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Just pointing out taxing rich people doesn't solve anything. Government spending in the problem.whipassmt

o dear

so, we want two layers of bureaucratic inefficiency for that purposes of what, exactly?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]In the early 80s unemployment was actually higher. Spending never went up like it did under Obama.whipassmt

Also, I never hinted towards unemployment in my post and I would like to know where and by how much Obama increased spending?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] "The top 1% of taxpayers-those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000-paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record."

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] maybe so, but does the White House budget even really matter? Last year the Senate voted against Obama's budget 97-0, this year the House voted against Obama's budget 400 or so to zero. So it seems like the White House budget will never pass. And people say there is no bipartisanship, it seems there is a quite clear bipartisan consensus in Congress that Obama's budget sucks.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] too true we don't really need taxes at all amiritecoolbeans90

o dear

so, we want two layers of bureaucratic inefficiency for that purposes of what, exactly?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Tends to happen with a semi unpopular president. Had nothing to do with the budget, all to do with the press.

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] What do you mean? Are you saying that some congressmen voted against the budget, not because they thought it was a bad budget but because they thought it would look bad for them politically?

whipassmt

[QUOTE="Contradictor_"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]rich uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh people should pay 80% of their incomeOG_LIP

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] We don't need federal taxes. The Federal Government could tax the states, and the states would then tax the citizens more.

whipassmt

o dear

so, we want two layers of bureaucratic inefficiency for that purposes of what, exactly?

You do realize that is a Federal tax, yes? Or are you being facetious?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] That happens all the timeDroidPhysX

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

o dear

so, we want two layers of bureaucratic inefficiency for that purposes of what, exactly?

coolbeans90

You do realize that is a Federal tax, yes? Or are you being facetious?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Maybe so. But if the budgets were good budgets why would they feel that it's unpopular to vote for them?

whipassmt

this whole argument is pretty retarded imo.. either we have a government that provides services to citizens and taxes people for them or we have a government that doesn't provide services and therefore doesn't tax to pay for them. we seem to be getting caught trying to have a government that provides services but not wanting to actually pay for them... comp_atkins

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Because it was the presidents budget?DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] I was just saying federal taxes aren't necessary. Heck nor are state taxes, states can tax municipalities. I'm not saying we should do that.

whipassmt

You do realize that is a Federal tax, yes? Or are you being facetious?

It is a federal tax which will, and there is no way around this, end up taxing individuals - even if states and/or municipalities are the proxies.

Q.E.D.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]this whole argument is pretty retarded imo.. either we have a government that provides services to citizens and taxes people for them or we have a government that doesn't provide services and therefore doesn't tax to pay for them. we seem to be getting caught trying to have a government that provides services but not wanting to actually pay for them... sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Ask Bill Clinton. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]so the dot-com bubble had nothing to do with the economy boom in his presidency?comp_atkins

Govt is not the solution.

Govt IS the economic problem.

Hundreds of agencies, large bloated bureacracies.

Bottomless money pits. Endless oversight and red tape.

The current way is unsustainable.

Opinion's still out on which will collapse first, the govt or the economy.

Less than %1 of Americans make over 100k, "the rich" as a group fled the country in the 1970's when Jimmy Carter took office, shut down their factories and moved overseas where they can work without mobs of fat, stupid Americans trying to confiscate their earnings.

Why don't you take your hand out of your neighbor's pocket.

%51 of Americans who don't pay any taxes are telling the other %49 "you're not paying enough."

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]so the dot-com bubble had nothing to do with the economy boom in his presidency?whipassmt

no

no

no no no no no no no

IIRC, the opposite of a shortage of housing purchases caused the financial collapse of 2008. The term is bubble. Gas wasn't a factor.

Everyone should pay the same, then no one should complain.