What did the rich do with their Bush tax cuts?

[Timshel]

So you contend that extending (or increasing) tax cuts will create jobs?

Yeah, the REAL argument is over here.

There is no tax cut without a reduction in spending. Tax cuts without spending cuts are just a new round in the shell game.

Spending needs to be cut across the board. They don't to be big cuts. They don't even need to be cuts. If we could just slow down the growth in spending, get rid of the distortion caused by inflation and adjust the future debt burdens which will crush us if we wait too long, we could right this thing and be in for a very long expansion. Our engine is still VERY strong.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah, the REAL argument is over here.

There is no tax cut without a reduction in spending. Tax cuts without spending cuts are just a new round in the shell game.

Spending needs to be cut across the board. They don't to be big cuts. They don't even need to be cuts. If we could just slow down the growth in spending, get rid of the distortion caused by inflation and adjust the future debt burdens which will crush us if we wait too long, we could right this thing and be in for a very long expansion. Our engine is still VERY strong.

Absolutely. I would say that you should say "there should be no tax cut without reduction in spending" though.

 

[Timshel]

What growth do I believe it created?

Scroll up.

While the debt bubble burst at the end of his term the recession that began in 2001 was reversed and there was a long stretch with economic growth.

The one you mentioned.

I think you are mistaken in what you think I believe.

You seem to think Bush created real growth. If I am mistaken, then that is mostly your fault. If not then please explain.

 

[Timshel]

Absolutely. I would say that you should say "there should be no tax cut without reduction in spending" though.

TAX CUT, SHMAX CUT... IT... DOES... NOT... MATTER!

Cut spending and we will have a tax cut, even if you increase taxes. Why? How is that? I am not making any sense? No, you don't get it!

You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.

Taxes, inflation or the creation of debt are all forms of TAXES (as in a burden) on the people. Learn the language and quit believing that these neat little divisions in taxonomy are real. They mean nothing.

 

[Damocles]

Scroll up.

So you don't have anything then, cool.

The one you mentioned.

Where did I say what caused it?

You seem to think Bush created real growth. If I am mistaken, then that is mostly your fault. If not then please explain.

No, I point out that there is a difference between the two recessions. Whether the tax cuts were effective in creating jobs or not, tax cuts passed because of one recession do not apply to the next.

 

[Damocles]

TAX CUT, SHMAX CUT... IT... DOES... NOT... MATTER!

Cut spending and we will have a tax cut, even if you increase taxes. Why? How is that? I am not making any sense? No, you don't get it!

You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.

Taxes, inflation or the creation of debt are all forms of TAXES (as in a burden) on the people. Learn the language and quit believing that these neat little divisions in taxonomy are real. They mean nothing.

Which isn't part of my conversation. I simply changed one word in your first sentence and agreed with you. And the one word I changed just made it accurate. Do you really find this much contention in agreement?

 

[Timshel]

Absolutely. I would say that you should say "there should be no tax cut without reduction in spending" though.

Nope. You are actually confusing the subject. "There is no tax cut without a reduction in spending." That's my line and I am sticking to it. Your's sounds smells like Bush's and Santorum.

You can increase the income tax rate and if you cut spending then we will have a TAX CUT!

The income tax rate is mostly meaningless and would allow us to pay down the debt. The income tax rate is only an adjustment in taxes, i.e., the burden of government.

 

[Timshel]

So you don't have anything then, cool.



Where did I say what caused it?


No, I point out that there is a difference between the two recessions. Whether the tax cuts were effective in creating jobs or not, tax cuts passed because of one recession do not apply to the next.

Sure there is a difference in the two recessions. eyeroll

There is not!

The tax cuts had no effect on the first recession because BUSH DID NOT CUT TAXES, as in the burden of government. He pumped in inflation and debt which distort prices and lead to malinvestment. He blew a bubble.

Listen more CLOSELY to Ron Paul. If you think he believes in cutting taxes the way BushCo do then you are NOT getting it.

 

[Timshel]

An increase in the income tax rate is mostly meaningless and would allow us to pay down the debt. Changes in the income tax rate are only an adjustment in taxes, i.e., the burden of government.

Edit.

 

[Damocles]

Nope. You are actually confusing the subject. "There is no tax cut without a reduction in spending." That's my line and I am sticking to it. Your's sounds smells like Bush's and Santorum.

Mine simply makes it accurate. There should be none, the problem I see is that there were tax cuts without corresponding decreases in spending.

You can increase the income tax rate and if you cut spending then we will have a TAX CUT!

The income tax rate is mostly meaningless and would allow us to pay down the debt. The income tax rate is only an adjustment in taxes, i.e., the burden of government.

See above. You find contention in what you think I believe, pay little attention to what I actually say, then battle on with a straw man without regard to the discussion at hand.

 

[NOVA]

PWNed by Dixie
PWNed by Damo
PWNed by FactRStubborn.......

And the troll and his sidesick keep coming back for more humilation.....LMAO!

 

[Timshel]

Mine simply makes it accurate. There should be none, the problem I see is that there were tax cuts without corresponding decreases in spending.

Nope, at best, yours distorts reality just like Bush's "tax cuts." If you think it makes it more accurate then you are just plainly wrong. There was no reduction in the burden on the people. The form of the burden was adjusted. BUSH DID NOT CUT TAXES.

Ask Ron Paul. Ron Paul has clearly stated that the income tax rate is not relevant and he has said so repeatedly.

See above. You find contention in what you think I believe, pay little attention to what I actually say, then battle on with a straw man without regard to the discussion at hand.

I am talking plainly. You are creating distortion by using too many color words and believing that they have real meaning. Is English your native language? It's beautiful and mesmerizing, like a venomous snake. You are making distincitions without a difference. Income taxes, inflation and debt are all forms of taxes (a burden) on the people.

Big Endian, Little Endian. Both were stupid. Now you can let it divide us if you feel it is more important to be right. I don't care about that. I care about improving the signal to noise ratio. To do so we cannot use the jargon of those who only wish to deceive, like Bush and Santorum.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Listen more CLOSELY to Ron Paul.

Try and comprehend this inside your stubborn little head... in a billion years, Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States, and his ideas for policy will never be implemented into law. We can listen to Ron, he makes some valid points about spending and debt, and many of them are in-line with what other conservatives, like Paul Ryan, have said. But unless we get Keynesian Socialist Liberals out of power in Washington, nothing remotely close to what Ron Paul says, is going to even be considered. In fact, our direction will be the diametric polar opposite of what Ron Paul advocates. Now, you can sit here having orgasms over what Ron Paul says, and rail on Republican Conservatives, or pick fights with them over semantics and principle, drudge up the past and point out hypocrisies, but our proverbial boat speeds faster toward the waterfalls. It might not be a really bad idea to start listening to people who don't just listen to Ron Paul. It might actually be a good idea to start trying to find common ground with other conservative minded people, who can defeat the liberals and socialists, before it's too late.

 

[Damocles]

Nope, at best, yours distorts reality just like Bush's "tax cuts." If you think it makes it more accurate then you are just plainly wrong. There was no reduction in the burden on the people. The form of the burden was adjusted. BUSH DID NOT CUT TAXES.

Ask Ron Paul. Ron Paul has clearly stated that the income tax rate is not relevant and he has said so repeatedly.



I am talking plainly. You are creating distortion by using too many color words and believing that they have real meaning. Is English your native language? It's beautiful and mesmerizing, like a venomous snake. You are making distincitions without a difference. Income taxes, inflation and debt are all forms of taxes (a burden) on the people.

Big Endian, Little Endian. Both were stupid. Now you can let it divide us if you feel it is more important to be right. I don't care about that. I care about improving the signal to noise ratio. To do so we cannot use the jargon of those who only wish to deceive, like Bush and Santorum.

As I said, you simply rant on without regard to what another says, you battle your straw man and get on with your bad self. You find contention in agreement and cannot seem to understand what another says because you want so badly to believe that they disagree that you are willing to sacrifice agreement to the altar of argument.

 

[Timshel]

PWNed by Dixie
PWNed by Damo
PWNed by FactRStubborn.......

And the troll and his sidesick keep coming back for more humilation.....LMAO!

Thanks!

That's all the validation I need. Damo, you should take the hint.

Sorry to Damo and Dixie. I don't put you in with those clowns, but bravo clearly does. Or maybe those are your clowns. I don't know or care.

I can PWN proles, trolls and the seer all day long.

 

[Timshel]

As I said, you simply rant on without regard to what another says, you battle your straw man and get on with your bad self. You find contention in agreement and cannot seem to understand what another says because you want so badly to believe that they disagree that you are willing to sacrifice agreement to the alter of argument.

I don't believe you disagree. You are not hearing me. I believe your choice of words and insistence on those words creates distortion. Just like Bush's "tax cuts", i.e., his use of inflation and debt to increase TAXES/SPENDING.

Big Endian, Little Endian, as long as we crack the egg who cares. You want to fight for your banner. I want to crack the egg and end the war. The way to do that is to quit talking and start listening. Quit accusing and start taking responsibility. Quit distorting the truth and start explaining the realities.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If tax cuts create jobs, how come the rich didn't create any?

I know there hasn't been any jobs created the past 4 years, but are you claiming there weren't any jobs created between 2001 and 2007?

 

[Timshel]

I know there hasn't been any jobs created the past 4 years, but are you claiming there weren't any jobs created between 2001 and 2007?

eyeroll...

This so obvious. Why on earth would you go a year into Bush's term as your start and then stop a year short of it's end. This is no different than the garbage used by Dems to make FDR look like some great leader.

 

[Timshel]

I know there haven't been enough jobs created in the past 4 years, but are you claiming there weren't any jobs created between 2009 and 2012?

Yeah, beat em with his own lies. That's the way.

Are you all libertarians now or are you just that brain washed.

 

[Damocles]

eyeroll...

This so obvious. Why on earth would you go a year into Bush's term as your start and then stop a year short of it's end. This is no different than the garbage used by Dems to make FDR look like some great leader.

I think it is likely because the charts shown by the Ds only include that last year of Bush's terms.