Poll Republican Debate

[Quantum Windbag]

How about some honesty about taxes? Taxes are at their lowest level in over 60 years; that is a fact. Statutory tax rates are not equal to the effective tax rates, so quit acting like they are and that we are overtaxed. It's pure BS.

Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com

That is not a fact.

In 1950 the tax revenue was about 371 billion dollars in 2005 dollars. Today it takes the government about 2 months to collect that much money, and just over a month to spend it.

Those are facts, Bartlett's interpretation of those facts is delusional and serves the position that government has a revenue problem, not a spending one. It also serves the idea that government is somehow more worthy of our money than we are.

 

[Auxous]

No Gary Johnson?

 

[Immanuel]

The only two that went down in my standings were Romney and Paul. The rest either improved my impression of them or at least remained stable.

Before the debate, I would have put Paul or Bachmann as my "favorites". Paul lost me completely and I know Avorysuds is not going to like this but it is largely because of his stance on Iran.

Bachmann doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the election. I wonder if it is because she is a woman and the liberals won't vote for a woman or at least a somewhat conservative woman.

I liked Cain's limited responses, but he has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as Barack Obama does and it is not because of the color of his skin.

All told, I would take either one of these candidates (even Romney and Paul) over President Obama and his failed policies.

Immie

You are allowed to like or dislike whoever. I only get into the debate part with someone when they misrepresent Ron Paul and that happens a lot. Like saying Ron Paul does not care if Iran get nukes... The real question is what are you going to do to stop them? Then after you fail, and you will, what will you do when they get them... start a war with a nation that has nukes??

Please see the end of the discussion in the other thread we were in.

I don't think it is necessary to restate the close of that part of the thread.

Immie

 

[Avatar4321]

It's got to be really irritating to rdean to think that Republicans might have the government confiscate less money from the people while they are struggling in this economy. For whatever reason, he would rather burden them more.

People tend not to want the government to take more of their money when they are already struggling to get by.

 

[auditor0007]

i know rdean. keep taxes high and keep companies from growing. Great way to create jobs, right? Your brain is wired backwards.

How about some honesty about taxes? Taxes are at their lowest level in over 60 years; that is a fact. Statutory tax rates are not equal to the effective tax rates, so quit acting like they are and that we are overtaxed. It's pure BS.

Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com

Tax cuts are the holy grail of the right, guaranteed to solve all the nations ills. There was probably a time when a tax cut in America sent the worker to the store to spend the tax cut and the wealthy to their broker to invest it. However, today half the country doesn't pay any income taxes so tax cuts just don't have as much impact on the economy as in the past. If you don't pay taxes, tax cuts are meaningless. If rates were higher and everyone paid taxes, then a tax cut would have much more of effect on the economy.

Pretty much agree with that assessment. When Reagan cut tax rates there was an actual purpose that was useful. Personally, I think Reagan would be appalled at the thought of cutting taxes at this point. Might be wrong, but he had a history of raising taxes despite cutting rates. And as Governor of California, he signed into law the largest tax increase in that state's history. At some point, you have to become realistic about balancing the books, and it can't all come from cuts in spending.

 

[auditor0007]

How about some honesty about taxes? Taxes are at their lowest level in over 60 years; that is a fact. Statutory tax rates are not equal to the effective tax rates, so quit acting like they are and that we are overtaxed. It's pure BS.

Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com

That is not a fact.

In 1950 the tax revenue was about 371 billion dollars in 2005 dollars. Today it takes the government about 2 months to collect that much money, and just over a month to spend it.

Those are facts, Bartlett's interpretation of those facts is delusional and serves the position that government has a revenue problem, not a spending one. It also serves the idea that government is somehow more worthy of our money than we are.

Truthfully, trying to discuss anything serious here is a joke. The population of the US was less than half of what it is today, and GDP was a mere $2 trillion in 2005 dollars making your $371 billion 18.5% of GDP. The way you think, we should still be spending $371 billion per year on federal outlays, which would be less than 3% of GDP. Are you seriously telling us federal spending should be less than 3% of GDP? We're spending nearly double that on defense alone. Never mind, seriously, there is not point.

 

[Avatar4321]

Pretty much agree with that assessment. When Reagan cut tax rates there was an actual purpose that was useful. Personally, I think Reagan would be appalled at the thought of cutting taxes at this point. Might be wrong, but he had a history of raising taxes despite cutting rates. And as Governor of California, he signed into law the largest tax increase in that state's history. At some point, you have to become realistic about balancing the books, and it can't all come from cuts in spending.

Then wouldn't it be wise to actually cut the spending before we conclude that it can't be done?

Besides, we need to increase the tax base, not the tax rates.

 

[Flopper]

Whats the problem????
The more money corporations have, the more people they can employ. And vice versa.

Corporate American is sitting on about 1.9 trillion in capital. Dividends are rising not employment. More money in the pockets of business is no guarantee of more jobs. Until there is concrete action to stop the growing deficits both at home and abroad, nothing is going to change. IMHO, any decrease taxes, would just be used to increase dividends and cash reserves. An increase in taxes would have no effect on jobs.

 

[Missourian]

How about some honesty about taxes? Taxes are at their lowest level in over 60 years; that is a fact. Statutory tax rates are not equal to the effective tax rates, so quit acting like they are and that we are overtaxed. It's pure BS.

Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com

That is not a fact.

In 1950 the tax revenue was about 371 billion dollars in 2005 dollars. Today it takes the government about 2 months to collect that much money, and just over a month to spend it.

Those are facts, Bartlett's interpretation of those facts is delusional and serves the position that government has a revenue problem, not a spending one. It also serves the idea that government is somehow more worthy of our money than we are.

Truthfully, trying to discuss anything serious here is a joke. The population of the US was less than half of what it is today, and GDP was a mere $2 trillion in 2005 dollars making your $371 billion 18.5% of GDP. The way you think, we should still be spending $371 billion per year on federal outlays, which would be less than 3% of GDP. Are you seriously telling us federal spending should be less than 3% of GDP? We're spending nearly double that on defense alone. Never mind, seriously, there is not point.

Why link government spending to GDP?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Every one of those guys has complained that Obama has not created jobs and their only plan to create jobs is "cut taxes". That's it. Cut taxes.

the more money people have the more they invest and spend.when they spend someone has to produce the goods they are buying .companies have to hire people to keep up with the increase in consumer demand...lower corporate taxes helps companies to invest in production and labor.the new workers will be off the government dole and paying income taxes......less taxes more money...more money more spending and investing....more spending and investing more production....more production more workers .....more workers less entitlements and more tax revenue!!!

Um yeah. That's BS that the GOP has been selling for as long as I can remember and it doesn't wash.
Right now people don't have money. Corporations have more of it than they have had in a long time. Are they hiring? Nope. It has nothing to do with taxes.
On the other side, certain companies are hiring a lot of people right now. So The Right's penchant to give Obama some sort of amazing powers is crap. It's sad that so many people fall for it - especially that historically and it doesn't wash and just plain common sense easily disproves it.

 

[Missourian]

Once again, here is the spending problem.

Population of the United States 1965 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]- 194,302,963[/FONT]

Population of the United States 2006 - 299,398,484

A 35% increase in population.

A 35% increase in median income

And a 334% increase in federal spending​

 

[Auxous]

A 35% increase in median income

Sadly, most of that happened from 1965 to the early 70's. Since then, median income has hardly increased.

 

[Article 15]

Once again, here is the spending problem.

Population of the United States 1965 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]- 194,302,963[/FONT]

Population of the United States 2006 - 299,398,484

A 35% increase in population.

A 35% increase in median income

And a 334% increase in federal spending​

How did the top 1%'s income do during that stretch?

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, I think Rick Perry won by not being involved in this clusterf*ck.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, I think Rick Perry won by not being involved in this clusterf*ck.

None of them are the least bit impressive. I don't know much about Perry, but he has got to be better than this dull, mumbling group of wanna-be's

 

[rdean]

So far every "solution" has been to cut taxes for corporations.

and

It's Obama's fault.

Do you have some actual quotes, or is that just they way your brain interprets the answers?

Did you watch the debate?

Do you have to be "spoon fed" everything?

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, I think Rick Perry won by not being involved in this clusterf*ck.

None of them are the least bit impressive. I don't know much about Perry, but he has got to be better than this dull, mumbling group of wanna-be's

Yet any of them would be an improvement over the Community Organizer...

Heck, even you and your resident lefty friends don't praise "The One" anymore.

You just kind of hope you can demonize whoever the Republicans nominate.

My problem with the debate format is that there are only a few of these guys who are plausibly going to be the nominee. So why are we including all these people, nearly all of whom will be gone after Iowa?

 

[rightwinger]

If there was a winner last night, I would have to say Fox News. They ran a tight ship and asked probing questions. This was not your typical Fox throwing softballs to republican candidates.

One thing is clear. Sarah Palin could never have survived last nights debates. The moderators called up every bizarre statement each candidate had made and aslked them to explain it. Palin would have a lot of Splain'in to do. After ducking tough questions for three years, Palin could never survive in that format

 

[rdean]

Bachmann's greatest achievement - The Lightbulb Bill.

10 dollars in cuts for one dollar in revenue - too much of a strain on billionaires.

Number of "Jobs Plans" presented? Zero

Corporations are people too.

I have no doubt this was the best and brightest Republicans have to offer.

Oh, but wait, in rides Rick Perry. A man who spent his college years on "academic probation". A man who "balanced" Texas budget with 20 billion dollars Obama gave him from the "failed stimulus". Thanks Obama, now I can trash you because I balanced the budget. Red State vs Blue State all over again. One always bails out the other.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, I think Rick Perry won by not being involved in this clusterf*ck.

None of them are the least bit impressive. I don't know much about Perry, but he has got to be better than this dull, mumbling group of wanna-be's

Yet any of them would be an improvement over the Community Organizer...

Heck, even you and your resident lefty friends don't praise "The One" anymore.

You just kind of hope you can demonize whoever the Republicans nominate.

My problem with the debate format is that there are only a few of these guys who are plausibly going to be the nominee. So why are we including all these people, nearly all of whom will be gone after Iowa?

To be perfectly honest. Republicans are going to have to do much better than they showed last night if they want to beat Obama. As much as you may want to think "any clown can beat Obama", Obama is a tough campaigner with a large war chest. He will be able to give as much as he receives.

Frankly, I hope Perry is a better campaigner than the group shown last night. Romney is seriously flawed and reminds me of Walter Mondale in his public awkwardness