Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
AHHHH! Why does Bush keep lowering taxes!?
Posts: 540
-
Karma: 10
Goddamnit! I'm 23 right now. Bush keeps lowering taxes while our national budget deficit is $400 billion in the hole. Why?! You can't cut taxes and hope to balance the budget. Reagan tried this exact same thing, the so called "Trickle Down" effect, and it didn't work very well. But that was for a small deficit.
I hate to say it, but I would GLADLY pay more taxes now, then have to wait 20 years when I'm actually making a lot of money, then have to a SHITLOAD of taxes at that time to make up for his mistakes he's making now. Seriously, I'm going to be paying taxes out the ass for the next 30 years because this asshole won't raise taxes NOW to stop the budget deficit and at least get it under control. Christ, I can't wait until it reaches 3/4 of a trillion. That will be fun for us to pay off....
Posts: 7162
-
Karma: 59
yay taxes, who doesnt love taxes! just remeber we are all in it together
Posts: 3233
-
Karma: 18
he keeps lowering them because that gets you reelected. republican or democrat, every politician is out to make money for himself at whoevers expense. i want a democrat to get elected next election, which will happen for sure, just to see people shocked by that fact that things wont be any different
Posts: 6680
-
Karma: 15
yeah where the fuck have you been man? he can't get re-elected...
Posts: 9248
-
Karma: 27
he could defecate on colin powell right now
Posts: 3233
-
Karma: 18
Posts: 1330
-
Karma: 11
hes the only president to ever lower taxes while at war. ever.
Posts: 10281
-
Karma: 36
Posts: 13785
-
Karma: 1,956
Posts: 2960
-
Karma: 15
exactly the problem.
i sincerely hope nothing escalates with Iran, because there would be nothing holding this admin back from justifying more military action.
Posts: 214
-
Karma: 10
You gotta lower taxes when you're in a war and have a HUGE deficit. I mean, thats the only way to pay for it all...
WAAITTT a minute, someone call the white house!!!
Posts: 1054
-
Karma: 10
How about less spending? Seems like a marvel idea to me.
Posts: 21362
-
Karma: 5,143
It'd be great if he could cut military spending, but... oh yeah, that thing in the middle east. Right. Well, I guess high school kids don't absolutely need math textbooks.
Posts: 19108
-
Karma: 16
haha, who needs math anyway
Posts: 564
-
Karma: 10
because he wants to raise inflation, and fuck more stuff up for us
Posts: 809
-
Karma: 38
your a fucking idiot
reagans trickle down effect did work..
..thats why he was an awsome president and thats what hes known for..
Posts: 7116
-
Karma: 339
Let me get this straight. You are complaining because Bush lowered taxes? Are you serious?
Do you realize that it's proven when taxes are lower people are more apt to buy products, real estate, and invest money back into the American market? All of which stimulate the economy and help us recover from debt leaps and bounds more than raising taxes ever have.
You can trace it all the way through history, time and time again. When taxes were high, people consumed less product.
They were far more conservative on spending their money. Look at the numbers. and then get back to me.
Posts: 14332
-
Karma: 1,268
yes dude that is exactly what hes trying to do.............
(note the sarcasm)
Posts: 540
-
Karma: 10
That's what I was referring to as Reagan's "Trickle down effect". It's one of the first things you learn in a basic Econ class. You also learn that it can only help recover from a small deficit, it can't overcome huge hurdles of money.
The problem is a stimulated economy can't overcome the spending of the current government, no matter what. You need a specific fiscal and political atmosphere for that tactic to be effective, and we are not in that time period. So its a ridiculous argument. It just isnt feasible right now. Unless you think the subtle effects of the "Trickle down effect" can triple our economy in 2 years...(impossible). You just way overestimate the effect of that method. It works to a certain extent, but only very specific conditions. And it can't replace responsible spending and taxes, nothing can.
I'm not making that stuff up either. It comes from my econ classes from college and then a piece I heard on NPR a few weeks ago.
Posts: 0
-
Karma: 13
you have 420 posts right now
Posts: 540
-
Karma: 10
Posts: 7116
-
Karma: 339
Thanks for educating me. I had no clue about basic economy, nor Reagonomics.
You're absolutely right though. Because you learned in a college econ class that supply side economics, and letting businesses flourish is not the way to go, it must be right.
You'll find the way the world works and what they teach you in school are often two different things.
There is no substitute for better government spending. NO ONE is arguing with you about that. So why do you keep bringing it up? But if you believe that taxing the hell out of everyone is going to better our situation, then so be it.
Posts: 1330
-
Karma: 11
i dont think he should raise taxes, but i would be less worried if he had never lowered them. And the issue on our spending... its rediculous. The UN calculated (a year and a half ago) that for roughly half the money that had been spent in the "war on terror," we could give every imprverished child in the world food, basic shelter and a primary education. We wouldnt have to deal with terrorists if we spent our money on that instead of hummers and mansions. think on it.
Posts: 3301
-
Karma: 13
Posts: 10182
-
Karma: 66
Posts: 564
-
Karma: 10
(note that i was being sarcastic), i know that he doesnt actually want to raise inflation. But lowering taxes will raise inflation rates, and it will fuck more stuff up for us.
Posts: 3036
-
Karma: 45
bush keeps lowering taxes so we ignore that whole estate tax thing
Posts: 8871
-
Karma: 1,509
Reagonomics DID work. What happens when you tell the average American you are giving them money? They are going to spend it. Be it beer, ski stuff, clothes, food, trips, etc. Spending is what fuels the economy. SO as you see, giving people money means that they will spend. This spending gives the economy a push. The thing is Bush is not moderating his tax cuts and this is why it doesn't work very well for him.
Posts: 8871
-
Karma: 1,509
Yes, but let's be realistic. The American public would never be willing to give more than a few dollars to anything like that (I'm talking general public here. Some people do donate.) Yes, 14% of the world is below the poverty line and there are many others that are very poor. Let's face it, the world is overpopulated, and that is one of the biggest reasons for the poverty in Africa, Southeast Asia, and even India. The people have around 10-11 kids in their fucking lifetime. Let's be realistic, how the fuck are you going to suppourt that many kids if you are a poor farmer using 18th century farming tools? You aren't going to suppourt them. This sends the whole family in poverty. It causes their children to miss a decent education and work on the farm their whole lives. They never even get a chance to do anything in life. It sucks, and I feel bad for these kids. The world is not big enough to hold 6 billion people. With all these people, we are raping the world of its resources. We need to slim down on the population if we really want to dissipate poverty. Then again, there will always be rich and poor. The thing is, how big will the gap be?
Posts: 3036
-
Karma: 45
oh yea he's also lowering taxes so he can use the deficit as an excuse to cut government spending on "out of date, money guzzling programs"...
its funny how bush thinks social security fits in this catergory and that it should be privatized....HOOORAY for no retirement! right ghost?
Posts: 3477
-
Karma: 163
Or to take that one step further. What is the fucking point of thowing money at kids that will die in five years anyway. Its not like many of those 10-11 kids actually survive in their first 10 years.
On the original topic, I think that lowering taxes IS a good idea. This is why: First off, the American public contributes over 1.3 trillion dollars MORE to the national debt than the US Government itself. The Government debt has increased about 200-300 billion each year for the last 10 years. With that in mind, THE IRAQ WAR HAS ACTUALLY DONE VERY LITTLE TO IMPACT THE NATIONAL DEBT. Finally, People paying less taxes will allow them more money to work with...AND HELP THEM PAY OFF THEIR DEBTS and spend more to feed the economy. Seriously, how are people gonna pay off their debt when MORE of their money is taxed away? Thats illogical. Individual American people are the largest part of the problem, I believe that is what should be fixed first. Lowering taxes is a good step to achieving that.
Posts: 3477
-
Karma: 163
Also, one more thing I forgot to add. If you are thinking the Government should work on cutting their spending first...it would likely end badly. If that happens, I can guarantee you WILL see less money for education and welfare programs.
Posts: 8871
-
Karma: 1,509
Posts: 3477
-
Karma: 163
Posts: 6105
-
Karma: 248
Bush is not the smartest. OUr country needs a president not a dictator and with the way things are going in the Alito confirmation a dictatorship might not be that far off. im goin to canada
Posts: 2954
-
Karma: 13
everything you said is true, except for one thing. Bush cut taxes for the rich, and did shit for the poor. The poor spend the highest proportion of their money, therefore cutting their taxes will infuse far more money into the economy than cutting the riches taxes. (this is assuming an equivalent tax revenue is cut, not per person percentage) richer people let a higher percentage of their money go into long term investments that have less effect on the economy. It should really be called trickle-up economics.
Posts: 540
-
Karma: 10
^None of that is true, and I shouldn't even have to explain it to you. It's like you just made a bunch of random numbers up.
Posts: 3477
-
Karma: 163
Dictatorship? Might I ask how?
Posts: 3477
-
Karma: 163
Wrong dumbass. I verified my numbers with a reliable source. Check the link. Just because you can cut a C+ in an intro to econ class does not make you an expert. Lie down before you hurt yourself.
Posts: 6105
-
Karma: 248
my having way too much power. lots of the patriot act stuff and privacy violations. one of the main reasons he will not be impeached is because after the clinton episode, impeachement is a laughing matter and not taken seriously.
Posts: 6105
-
Karma: 248
*by having too much power
Posts: 8068
-
Karma: 43
Posts: 2954
-
Karma: 13
so looking at the link, and considering your belief that we should adress the debt in the private secto first, isn't that simply more support for why tax cuts for the rich are pointless? it seems safe to assume that the vast majority of private debt is by those with low incomes, who received almost nothing from bush's tax cuts.
Posts: 8871
-
Karma: 1,509
How does Bush have too much power? Do you not understand the way a democracy-Republic works? This is why we have a senate and a congress. Bush cannot simply go to war without being approved by congress. There is nothing like a dictatorship installed in this country. You may want to think about the structure of the government. How is the patriot act all Bush's doing? A president can only propose laws and veto or keep approved laws. You really need to think about what you're saying.
Posts: 2954
-
Karma: 13
dammit, i liked the tax arguement. NS clearly cannot handle debating two issues in one thread, its going to go downhill from here.
Posts: 3036
-
Karma: 45
bush can go to war without congress, not legally, but its been done for the past liek 10 years...did we declare war on iraq? i seriously forget but i read something in class about qutoing bush SR about how he doesn't need congress fro war anymore.
is the
Posts: 540
-
Karma: 10
Hahahaha, the federal government debt is different than the private sector debt. Of course the private sector is going to be in debt, that goes without saying. The federal government debt, or national debt, is a whole different item dude. It stands at somewhere around 400 billion dollars right now.
Bush's tax cuts are set to expire soon, and if they do, the debt will shrink to 4 billion by 2012. If he gets them renewed, the debt will swell to 700 billion, this highest its ever been (Time magazine). Its already tied for the highest its ever been in modern times. Sorry to disappoint ya and ruin your moment
Posts: 6105
-
Karma: 248
except the senate and congress are both controlled by the republican party, which believe it or not, likes Bush. In addition, The supreme court is overwhelmingly conservative. WIth support from this, who know what will happen. Sorry to break it to you but most people involved in politics are not voting in the best interest of the people. Bush nominates people who will agree with him on certain issues. this will lead to unbalanced power which is exactly what the constitution tried to prevent.
Posts: 540
-
Karma: 10
So one more time I just want to reiterate, the private sector (public) debt is different than the national debt. You need to understand that first before you can make any arguments.
Posts: 3477
-
Karma: 163
Ha, give me a break.
I think you need to learn your numbers. There are two kinds of debt in my link. That held by the public, and that held by the government. The national debt is the total. Maybe you can't understand what those tables mean. Intragovernmental Holdings are government debt. The total is the National debt.
Just another word of caution for your reference, actual numbers reported by the government tend to be more reliable and useful than an analytical article in Time. Show me your math to prove the effect Bush's tax-cuts will have.
All times are Eastern (-5)
