The Instigator
kenito001
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
Solarman1969
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

The Bush Tax Cuts have had a negative impact on the US Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,375 times Debate No: 1513
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (23)

 

kenito001

Pro

President Bush enacted his final round of tax cuts in 2003, with the most notable effect of lowering the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 36%. While Conservatives defend Bush's actions as a no-brainer solution of rewarding the American people by giving them back more of their hard earned money, the overall impact of the tax cuts on the American economy has been negative.

The Bush Tax cuts have played a role in:
1) Inflation
2) Depreciation
3) Increased interest rates
4) Failing to give middle and lower class America an economic boost
5) Overall negative net revenues
6) National debt

I am not arguing against the presence of any positive ramifications or benefits from passing the Bush tax cuts.

IN ORDER TO WIN THE DEBATE: MY OPPONENT MUST PRESENT A CON CASE DEFENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND ANALYZING WHY THE POSITIVE OUTWEIGHS THE NEGATIVE.

The Pro must analyze and prove that the Negative outweighs the Positive.

Thank you, and I await my opponent.
Solarman1969

Con

you are a KID and NOT knowledgeable

when taxes go up, revenues go DOWN

when taxes go down, revenues go UP

this is FACT, not debatable

TAX CUTS

Kennedy did it

Reagan did it

Bush II did it

REVENUES WENT UP

TAX HIKES

ALL DEMOCRAPS DO IT

REVENUES GO DOWN AND THE ECONOMY SUFFERS

more details to follow when you put up your next infantile tripe

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SOLARMAN
Debate Round No. 1
kenito001

Pro

Hmm... You complain about how boring I am to debate, and now accept an open challenge to debate me? Sounds good to me.

In your next round, include the explanation of what Marxism really is. I'm STILL waiting for that...

You fail to distinguish between the difference of the Bush Tax cuts and the tax cuts or hikes put in place by the other Presidents.

"when taxes go up, revenues go DOWN, when taxes go down, revenues go UP, this is FACT, not debatable"
Your logic is half-baked and put into a nearsighted perspective. You take into account the effects of the tax break without taking into account the entire spectrum. It is, however, certainly more than debatable. You are flat out wrong. Many economists, mostly conservative, such as Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, assert that the tax cuts have had a substantial net negative impact on revenues, including taking into account any stimulative effect the tax cuts may have had and any resulting revenue feedback effects. I'll try to explain it in your simple language:

A professional Macroeconomics adviser is more qualified to assess the net impact on revenues of the tax cuts than you are.

You may be Mr. Conservative of debate.org, I'll give you that, but you are certainly not a former chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, while Mr. Mankiw is.

No matter how childish I am and knowledge I lack, I'd trust my Mr. Mankiw before you. You've lived twice my life, and are still wrong.

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since you didn't care enough to refute any of my assertions other than the net effect on revenues, I may have to assume that you agree with them. However, I know that no matter what I say, you will reply with a post of "you are evil and wrong and childish, i win", so I will also assume that you won't read what I am about to say:

Using the principles of modern economics,
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that 51% of the national debt from 2001-2006 was caused by the tax cuts [http://www.cbpp.org...].
A national debt causes a nation to borrow funds from another
This decreases the demand for the dollar, and decreases its value on the international market, thus causing depreciation.
This borrowing is harmful to the US economy because it:
1) Directly lowers GDP
2) Lowers the purchasing power of Americans
3) Further increases our debt when the dollar continues to decrease
The massive borrowing allows countries such as China to control massive percentages of the US economy, thus allowing our enemies to hold us at ransom. China is a militaristic nation hiding itself as a capitalist one.

The only real direct effect of the tax cuts was lowering the top marginal tax rate.
This ignores every income bracket but the very highest.

Passing such a drastic tax cut percentage to the highest level of income drastically increased the amount of dollars in the market.
This caused inflation. To fight off the inflation, the Feds have been raising the interest rates, thus popping the housing bubble and leading to the mortgage crisis.

On your behalf, I will mention the one benefit to passing the Bush tax cuts: there has been a statistical decrease in unemployment and increase in the number of jobs in the US. This applies to the laws of the Laffer Curve. However because of the debt handed down to the citizens from the government by interest rates, the inflation is higher than before the Bush tax cuts while the total change in jobs is minute in comparison.

I await your refutations. Scratch that, I mean rants.

Your favorite liberal,

The Colonel
Solarman1969

Con

youre going to have to learn what Marxism is on your own - and unfortunately for you, it will probably be the hard way, given who you would elect

You simply dont like Bush, and this is so much of just another foolish liberal Bush Derangement Sydrome Rant

how about the Reagan tax cuts - he cut the top marginal rate from the Carter era from 70% to 28% - and receipts to the treasury went up 1 trillon $

(and the democrats kept spending more by the way)

how about Kennedy, a demomcat hero ? He cut taxes as well

This is a plain and simple demarcation line between socialist marxist democraps and conservative people and business minded conservatives

You want the government to take my money from me and redistribute it

I want to keep my own money and spend it on my family

Who's philosophy will make for a great nation?

Who's philosophy will create misery

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Debate Round No. 2
kenito001

Pro

I don't care whose philosophy creates misery and takes away money from families. That's not what we're arguing. We're arguing the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts. I don't have to support the Democrats to downplay the tax cuts. I could easily prove both sides to be wrong, and support a tax cut that only focuses on the middle class of America. That's John Edwards' plan. Give money to the heart of America. Do you not support America?

Regardless of how effective Reagan or Kennedy's tax cuts were, they are different from the Bush tax cuts. Reagan and Kennedy dealt much less with free trade. America was in a completely different economic model, one that was MUCH less globalized.
1) We had much less of a trade deficit or even surplus
2) Much less of a national debt
3) We traded fewer goods with more countries than more goods with fewer countries.

You dropped all of my points, what a surprise...

I will, however, address the largest impact of the Bush tax cuts in relation to yourself. Your "profile" states that your salary is $75k to $100k. If you filed jointly in 2006 under that range, that would put you at less than 25% income tax rate, meaning that you are essentially in the middle class. Bush's tax cuts hardly effected you at all. He focused his tax cuts on the richest income tax bracket.

My candidate, John Edwards, I assume you will attempt to bash his record as a trial lawyer of defending middle class America and the "victimization of doctors", caused not by Mr. Edwards but by insurance companies, plans to give the largest tax breaks and benefits to your income status. John Edwards is the only candidate who is truly watching out for your kind of people. But no, vote in a Republican. You don't want more money! Pay it to the government. Watch the people who "work harder" making more money get the break instead of you. That's the fair thing to do, no?

Ironhead60: "Look up information on the laffer curve (and the related assumptions). When taxes go up, not all revenues go down. When taxes go down, not all revenues go up. As far as proving supply-side economics don't work, that's up to you. Good luck."
That's the theory of the Laffer Curve, used as the justification by the Bush administration. However, his former chief economist, Mr. Mankiw, cites that it was ineffective in theory because of the shift of funds in the international money market and the depreciation of the dollar.

This debate isn't about whose right, Dems or Reps. I said that in the first round. If you wanted to make it that, solarman, then you should've never accepted. This wasn't a direct invitation to you.

To refute hoodzy's comment: Your arguments are wrong.
Many economists are critical of the Bush administration's policies and argue that the economy is only benefiting the wealthy, increasing inequality between the top 1% and the rest of society. Economists Aviva Aron-Dine and Richard Sherman point to recent Congressional Budget Office data showing that "the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20 percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years, measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars." According to economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, in 2005, the top 1% received its largest share of gross income since 1928.
[http://www.cnn.com...]
[http://www.cbpp.org...]

Solarman, I commend you for at least being more directive towards the topic this time around and using more analysis. However, you're not just arguing against the validity of what I say, but also the sources I use. Fun debate as always.

Thanks,

The Colonel
Solarman1969

Con

This argument IS about R vs D

the democrats shamlessly say they are for the poor and the republicans for the rich, class warfare- that is their whole shtick

you say

"I don't care whose philosophy creates misery and takes away money from families"

that makes you a democrat, and Edwards supporter

You dont actually CARE what the results of your policies are, and neither do the democrats

that is the bottom line

democrats are shamless in their lying, class warfare

Edwards is CASE IN POINT- he bankrupted hospitals and doctors with his SHAMELESS lies that he made MILLIONS on

His attempts to demonize the healthcare system we have and to socialize it is more of the SAME LIES

here is another myth you propagate

"Bush's tax cuts hardly effected you at all. He focused his tax cuts on the richest income tax bracket. "

this is simply a lie

look at the legislation and get back to me- he cut taxes across the board

here are some simple facts about taxes

Tax Facts

By Bruce Bartlett

Just in time for tax-filing season, the Tax Foundation and Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation have compiled some useful facts about the federal tax system. Following are a few worth thinking about as taxpayers write their annual checks to Uncle Sam.

-- In 2005, the federal government took $2.4 trillion out of the pockets of the American people. To put this number into context, it is about the same as the size of the entire U.S. economy in 1959 in inflation-adjusted terms. Only two other countries on earth have economies as large as our federal government: Germany and Japan -- and Germany just barely makes the cut, with a gross domestic product of $2.7 trillion. China, which everyone is so alarmed about, has an economy significantly smaller than the federal government, with a GDP of $1.9 trillion -- about equal to what the United States raises just from taxes on individuals.

-- Contrary to popular belief, the vast bulk of federal taxes are paid by the wealthy. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, in 2006, 53.7 percent of all federal income taxes were paid by those with incomes over $200,000. Those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 28.3 percent of all individual income taxes. Thus those with incomes over $100,000 paid 82 percent of the total. They also paid 44.4 percent of all payroll taxes.

-- Those with incomes below $40,000 paid no federal income taxes at all in the aggregate. The positive liability for those who paid anything was more than offset by tax rebates from the Earned Income Tax Credit for many more who paid nothing. In total, the EITC put $41 billion into the pockets of low-income workers in 2005, 91 percent of it being paid to those with no income tax liability. However, according to the Tax Foundation, three-fifths of Americans believe that it is wrong for anyone to pay no taxes at all, that everyone should pay something to finance the government.

-- So-called tax loopholes -- deductions and exclusions that reduce one's tax liability -- are mainly used by the middle class, not the wealthy. The largest tax expenditures are the exclusions for pension contributions and health benefits for workers. Among the largest deductions are those for mortgage interest and state and local taxes. In 2005, taxpayers saved $62 billion in taxes due to the mortgage interest deduction, with 72 percent of that going to those with incomes below $200,000. The child credit saved taxpayers $46 billion -- almost all of it claimed by the middle class. Just $8 million went to those with incomes over $200,000.

-- Not surprisingly, three-fifths of taxpayers believe their taxes are too high. Only 2 percent think they are too low. About a third of taxpayers would support a reduction in government services in order to achieve further tax cuts. Just 8 percent favor bigger government financed with higher taxes.

-- Support for fundamental tax reform is high. Four-fifths of taxpayers believe that the tax system is too complex. Just 3 percent believe the tax system is fine the way it is. By better than a two-to-one margin, taxpayers would be willing to give up major tax deductions, such as that for mortgage interest or state and local taxes, in order to get lower income tax rates.

-- Almost all taxpayers think that the top federal income tax rate of 35 percent is too high. More than 90 percent of taxpayers believe that the top rate should be no higher than 29 percent, with 70 percent saying that 19 percent should be the maximum.

-- The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is a rapidly growing federal tax. Originally designed to tax only the rich, increasingly it is a tax on the middle class. In 2005, the AMT affected only 1.3 percent of those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000. Unless Congress acts, this will rise to 42.8 percent this year and over 50 percent next year. This illustrates the problem with all soak-the-rich tax proposals -- eventually, they end up taxing the middle class, too.

For years, Republicans have largely ignored the problem of the AMT -- enacting temporary patches to the tax cut to keep the problem from getting worse, but not even attempting to offer a permanent fix. The latest patch expired at the end of last year, which is why there is such a sharp rise projected in the percentage of taxpayers affected by the AMT.

Consequently, Democrats really have a gun to their heads -- they must do something on the AMT by the end of the year. But because they have pledged to pay for all tax cuts, they must raise taxes somehow to pay for an AMT fix. Republicans aren't likely to offer much help in that area, making tax policy in 2007 an interesting spectator sport

DEMOCRATS ARE THE ENEMY OF AMERICA-
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
"proto-marxists"
You don't know what Marxism means. Don't ever use it again.
Posted by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
still, how is it about an ideological debate?
just because you think conservatism is better does not support any point that the Bush tax cuts had an overall positive effect on the economy.
your arguments and statistics, like you say about socialism, give the point of view without taking into account the implementation.
Socialism's great on paper, so are the bush tax cuts
when both are put into place, however, it's completely different
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
solarman1969 -

There's no shortage of irony in you castigating your opponents for not being smart enough to see through "rhetoric."

You don't really have any "work" cut out for you; all you do is cut and paste neocon blather (most of which, I'm pretty sure you don't even read - let alone fact-check).
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
No, really?

Unfortunately for this nation, the media and democrats and proto-marxists have infiltrated the education system SO thoroughly that it is a WONDER that there are even conservatives like us out there that are smart enough to see through the rhetoric and not be fooled

We clearly have our work cut out for us : )

thank God for talk radio

cheers

SOLARMAN
Posted by FiredUpRepublican 9 years ago
FiredUpRepublican
I think I just realized this site is more Liberal than Conservative.

Ugggggh!
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
John Edwards is a totally rich man and a hypocrite

His BS will not fly
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
Solarman -

Once again you're incorrect. Kennedy didn't "do it". His tax cuts were demand-side, not supply-side.

http://www.slate.com...

You should really double-check those neocon talking points you rely on to speak for you before you vomit them up in these forums.

You should also take Econ 101 before trying to articulate your clumsy (and incorrect) take on the Laffer Curve (revenues don't ALWAYS go up when taxes go down).

Even if that were true - when you cut taxes, prudence demands that you cut spending (because you can't rely on revenues going up). The Bush Administration did not do this - instead they took on a two-front war and started giving away money hand-over-fist to private corporations.
Posted by IronHead60 9 years ago
IronHead60
Kenito:

Look up information on the laffer curve (and the related assumptions). When taxes go up, not all revenues go down. When taxes go down, not all revenues go up. As far as proving supply-side economics don't work, that's up to you. Good luck.
Posted by hoodzy 9 years ago
hoodzy
The difference in the two economic systems is pretty visible.

Republican Economic Ideals favor tax cuts, in hopes that people will spend the money cut from their taxes in order to drive the economy. This system has several issues:

1.) Sometimes, people save the money given to them through a tax cut, and it does not recirculate through the system.

2.) Most of the tax cuts given by the Bush administration were "sweeping" in that they cut the same % of the tax for everyone. This includes the people making $10,000 to the people making $10M a year. A person making $10M a year isn't as likely to make the same investments with their tax cut as the person making $10,000 - because the person making $10,000 will do a lot more investing in the system on a need-driven basis, as opposed to the millionaire who invests on a desire-driven basis. When you have everything you want, what's left to desire? Very little, and so very little is invested.

The Democratic Economic Mantra is to raise money through federal taxes, in order to invest that money FOR the American people. In essence, the Government spends money in order to create jobs, fund public necessities such as education, health care, road production and services etc. The problems with the Democratic system are that

1.) It takes money away from the consumer, and is forcefully injected back into the system - a much more "hands on" approach to controlling the economy. It does not allow for the consumer to control the interests of themselves or the market

2.) Sometimes the investments are bad ones, such as failed weapons systems or poorly managed space exploration sciences - and the money is wasted, forever withheld from the economy.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kenito001 8 years ago
kenito001
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by fightinirish1985 9 years ago
fightinirish1985
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by VoterBot 9 years ago
VoterBot
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by miraquesuave 9 years ago
miraquesuave
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by fightinirish1986 9 years ago
fightinirish1986
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gabriel04 9 years ago
gabriel04
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30