Who Won the Debate?

[Matt1970]

Raising taxes may not grow an economy but it sure as hell doesn't contract one. Clinton raised taxes, the economy grew, Reagan raised taxes and the economy grew, after wwII taxes were ridiculously high and the economy grew. Can you point to a similar trend that shows cutting taxes grows the economy? No you can't.

Clinton raised income tax but the big boost to the economy was due to the cutting of capital gains tax. Claiming Reagan raised taxes is like saying Hitler was for world peace. The only way to come up with Reagan raising taxes is to look at what he proposed in 1981 and then what he ended up with by the end of his term. Reductions in proposed tax cuts is not in most people's book a tax hike.

 

[palehorse]

Cut federal spending (some temporary, some permanent)
More money in the pockets of citizens
People can use that money to buy things or start a business
Demand means more people need to get hired
More hired means fewer on the govt dole, so govt costs drop
More workers means more taxes paid (from employer, employees)
More tax revenue enables govt to restart some federal spending
Simplify tax code to make this all more efficient

Trillion dollar question: Cut which funding?

Edit: I'll respond to the longer rebuttals later, I promise (I'm on the road).

 

[randomrogue]

Romney won the debate, Obama is winning the post debate.

I think this is pretty accurate.

There was just too much "what the fuck did he say?" and "wait, is that true?" and "Ok so which one is telling the truth?" going on for me during the debate. I felt that Romney's presentation was better but at the end of the day when you actually look at what he said he didn't do that well. Obama didn't either but the post debate discussion favors Obama in my opinion. They both blew smoke up our asses but Romney did it far more than Obama.

Out of curiosity who was he trying to appeal to by cutting PBS funding? Is there anyone who would want that?

Also, why would he even suggest an extra $2B on the military?

Baffling really.

 

[Blackjack200]

Out of curiosity who was he trying to appeal to by cutting PBS funding? Is there anyone who would want that?

There is a small contingent, mostly dittoheads, that believe that PBS and NPR are mouthpieces for the Democratic Party.

But those people are already voting for Mitt anyway, so I'm not sure what the point was...

 

[fantolay]

There is a small contingent, mostly dittoheads, that believe that PBS and NPR are mouthpieces for the Democratic Party.

But those people are already voting for Mitt anyway, so I'm not sure what the point was...

I am so fucking right wing I don't care who is running against obama I would vote for anyone other than him.

I don't care about any of the facts that you have. Half of them come from privately conducted studies which are all biased.

There is nothing any of you can say or do that will ever change my position.

Get over it.

 

[ivwshane]

Clinton raised income tax but the big boost to the economy was due to the cutting of capital gains tax. Claiming Reagan raised taxes is like saying Hitler was for world peace. The only way to come up with Reagan raising taxes is to look at what he proposed in 1981 and then what he ended up with by the end of his term. Reductions in proposed tax cuts is not in most people's book a tax hike.

Yes Clinton did lower the capital gains tax rate. Exactly what percentage of Americans were impacted by that? Can you show me with any level of certainty that a lower capital gains tax rate resulted in a growing economy?

With regards to Reagan's economic record you neglect to mention one thing, he grew federal government by record levels and increased government spending by record levels as well.

 

[randomrogue]

I am so fucking right wing I don't care who is running against obama I would vote for anyone other than him.

I don't care about any of the facts that you have. Half of them come from privately conducted studies which are all biased.

There is nothing any of you can say or do that will ever change my position.

Get over it.

 

[ivwshane]

I am so fucking right wing I don't care who is running against obama I would vote for anyone other than him.

I don't care about any of the facts that you have. Half of them come from privately conducted studies which are all biased.

There is nothing any of you can say or do that will ever change my position.

Get over it.

Ignorance is bliss.

Your post reminds me of the south park episode that just aired. It was about people who were stupid and lazy and felt no shame for being that way.

 

[palehorse]

Out of curiosity who was he trying to appeal to by cutting PBS funding? Is there anyone who would want that?

I, for one, would like to see the USG dismantle ALL non-essential programs... and PBS certainly qualifies as non-essential.

There are thousands of similarly non-essential programs that should also be eliminated as well.

 

[K1052]

I, for one, would like to see the USG dismantle ALL non-essential programs... and PBS certainly qualifies as non-essential.

There are thousands of similarly non-essential programs that should also be eliminated as well.

Lets generously assume cutting all discretionary spending (major cost centers are found here ) Where are the last half trillion in cuts going to come from to balance the budget? All that's left is defense/medicare/ss

 

[monovillage]

I'm not sure if you're serious also. If you had watched the debate you would have heard this quote by Romney about funding for PBS

“First of all, I will eliminate all programs based on this test, if they don’t pass it – Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it. And if not, I’ll get rid of it.”

He continued, addressing moderator Jim Lehrer, saying, “I’m sorry Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS, I actually love Big Bird. I like you too, but I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”

He's appealing to people that aren't willing to continue to borrow money to pay for pointless programs such as PBS, NPR and the NEA.

 

[randomrogue]

I'm all for getting rid of research "to see why the elasticity of gum on pavement changes with temperature" or studies "that monitor the migratory patterns of NYC pigeons" but PBS? Really?

PBS is great!

 

[K1052]

He's appealing to people that aren't willing to continue to borrow money to pay for pointless programs such as PBS, NPR and the NEA.

That's about $300M dollars in total federal expenditure out of $3.7 trillion. Way to make the tough decisions.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The bottom line is this.

You can't do a complete role reversal on who you are in the last 5 weeks of a campaign and expect to win. The things Mitt Romney said sounded good, but were totally devoid of specifics when it comes down to it. People don't trust Romney, and that's his biggest problem. If you don't have voter trust, are skim on specifics, you're not going to sway people to vote against the incumbent.

Romney doesn't pass the basic fundamental truth and trust test with the average voter. Even his supporters are voting more to oust Obama than to vote him in. We saw in '04, against a far more unpopular president in Bush, that this just doesn't work. You need to provide a credible alternative vision like Clinton/Reagan did in order to defeat an incumbent.

 

[Jmman]

With $16 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs, getting rid of big bird is the least of our problems........

 

[palehorse]

Lets generously assume cutting all discretionary spending (major cost centers are found here ) Where are the last half trillion in cuts going to come from to balance the budget? All that's left is defense/medicare/ss

You answered your own question.

On top of that, raise taxes (or simply eliminate credits, deductions, and other loopholes) across the board.

I'm willing to "bleed" a little in order to support a full recovery... are you?

 

[chucky2]

With $16 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs, getting rid of big bird is the least of our problems........

What's crazy is that was likely (I didn't watch, so I can't say definitively) the best option thrown out to address those issues. We don't even need the POTUS to address those issues, Congress could, and should, already be doing that now (and decades ago).

Our whole political system as presently run is a failure for the average American long term.

Chuck

 

[spidey07]

The hits keep on coming from last nights historic debate.

 

[Matt1970]

Yes Clinton did lower the capital gains tax rate. Exactly what percentage of Americans were impacted by that? Can you show me with any level of certainty that a lower capital gains tax rate resulted in a growing economy?

With regards to Reagan's economic record you neglect to mention one thing, he grew federal government by record levels and increased government spending by record levels as well.

Everyone was investing due to the boom and the low capital gains tax rate. And whether you want to believe it or not, two out of the three best decades the United States has ever had has been since Reagan cut the top and middle tax brackets.

 

[K1052]

You answered your own question.

On top of that, raise taxes (or simply eliminate credits, deductions, and other loopholes) across the board.

I'm willing to "bleed" a little in order to support a full recovery... are you?

I don't see how, unless you propose across the board cuts.

What credits/deductions? How much? What taxes should go up?

This is the kind of detail that needs to be presented.

 

[Matt1970]

I'm not sure if you're serious also. If you had watched the debate you would have heard this quote by Romney about funding for PBS



He's appealing to people that aren't willing to continue to borrow money to pay for pointless programs such as PBS, NPR and the NEA.

Isn't PBS almost at the point where they can pay for themselves? Some of thier shows already have like 12 minutes of sponsor time per hour, most networks run 16.

 

[jackstar7]

Can't wait to see what happens to unemployment when all discretionary programs are ended...

No downside to that kind of action on a macro scale. No sir.

 

[buckshot24]

Raising taxes may not grow an economy but it sure as hell doesn't contract one. Clinton raised taxes, the economy grew, Reagan raised taxes and the economy grew, after wwII taxes were ridiculously high and the economy grew. Can you point to a similar trend that shows cutting taxes grows the economy? No you can't.

Since raising taxes won't grow an economy then should we raise taxes? Our economy sucks and you want to raise taxes? The added revenue won't make a lick of difference.

Clinton actually LOWERED taxes as well as raised them. He lowered the capital gains tax rate in 97 from 28% to 20%. After the cut actual revenues increased from the tax. Obama was asked about this a couple times in 07-08 and he didn't care about the revenue he wanted more "fairness". I can pull up a vid if need be.

We understand that growing the economy means you can make less cuts but what specifically has Romney said he will do to grow the economy? Cut taxes and remove regulations? Show me an example where that worked and didn't end in a financial disaster.

The idea that Romney wants zero regulation is just silly. The lack of regulation wasn't the root cause of what happened in 08. Banks made loans that they normally wouldn't make and they were stuck with a bunch of bad paper. They moved the loans around, reshuffled them and then finally they ran out of places to unload them. They got these crap loans because the government wanted to increase home ownership and "suggested" that banks made loans to people who couldn't afford them.

As far as regulations there are very few needed to stop a situation that happened before the meltdown.

Cutting capital gains tax rates motivates investment which will lead to more investment which is exactly what we need. Increasing capital gains tax rates WILL contract an economy. Obama wants to raise this rate.

Saying that there is too much regulation isn't saying that there shouldn't be ANY regulation.

If you lower capital gains tax rates you can grow an economy it has been proven. The Bush tax cuts did help create growth, the Clinton tax cut created growth. You are just wrong here.

Fewer jobs available? When Obama took office the trend was 800k+ jobs being lost every month! The trend now? 40k-90k+ being added every month for 30 straight months!

40-90k isn't even keeping up with population growth.

Yes the national debt has grown, do you know why? Here's a hint, tax cuts, wars, bailouts, all before Obama was elected.

Bush had 2 wars and the deficit never got anywhere close to Obama levels. Obama has been in office for 4 years, FOUR YEARS! How long can you blame Bush? Fact of the matter is Obama's policies are not working. The economy sucks and it's Obama's economy.

Higher energy costs? Another funny one.

Gas prices are more than doubled since he took office. His policies are not helping.

So alternative energy is out so what else should the president do? Increase energy production at home and lower imports to record highs and record lows respectively? Done! Approve funding for nuclear energy? Done!

The main reason we use less oil is because the economy sucks! Obama's economy sucks and gas prices have doubled.

 

[ivwshane]

Everyone was investing due to the boom and the low capital gains tax rate. And whether you want to believe it or not, two out of the three best decades the United States has ever had has been since Reagan cut the top and middle tax brackets.

It's not a matter of what I believe, it's the facts that matter and you have yet to present any.

Here is my source;
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3798


Where is your source and I'm sorry you can't link to your gut.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes Clinton did lower the capital gains tax rate. Exactly what percentage of Americans were impacted by that? Can you show me with any level of certainty that a lower capital gains tax rate resulted in a growing economy?

So what created the good economy in the late 90s? Higher income tax rate? No. It was a combination of spending cuts and capital gains tax cuts. The national debt is kicking our ass. You also have the Fed printing money like toilet paper diminishing capital. You wan't inflation I give you the F.E.D.

With regards to Reagan's economic record you neglect to mention one thing, he grew federal government by record levels and increased government spending by record levels as well.

Reagan wasn't king he had democrat house and senates to deal with.

The record of the Reagan recovery is absolutely clear and Obama's recovery can't hold a candle to what happened in 81-84.