Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tes_Presidents

    potentially relevant to the discussion
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Polk is in the top 10?! Craziness!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Why do you think lower taxes has to automatically mean less funding? The government is collecting record amounts of money now. Everytime taxes have been cut in the US, revenue has increased. After the first year of tax cuts, the federal government's revenues increased every single year by an average of 10 percent. When Reagan was president the same thing happened. A lot of conservatives say that after Reagan's tax cuts, revenue doubled. This isn't quite accurate when you take inflation into account, but the point is that you can grow the economy by cutting taxes. Even though there is a long established record of tax cuts paying for themselves, you still hear arguments about not being able to "afford" cutting taxes.

    President Clinton, who I think is one of the worst presidents in American history, raised taxes in the beginning of his first year as president and we only saw revenues increased by a yearly average of less than 3.7% during the 8 years of his presidency.
    Laffer curve anyone?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by decola)
    Laffer curve anyone?
    That picture assumes we have a flat tax system, so it would look quite different for the US economy. I'd say we are still way way on the right side of the curve just based on hearing all the time that the US treasury is collecting record amounts of money in our nation's history. Even if we were on the left side of the curve, I'd still be strongly in favor of more tax cuts. Monthly tax recipts in April reached a whopping 315 billion dollars. That's a lot of money and much more than what they need...more of it should be back in our pockets.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Monthly tax recipts in April reached a whopping 315 billion dollars. That's a lot of money and much more than what they need...more of it should be back in our pockets.
    Yet somehow, over $500m annually is being borrowed to make up the spending deficit. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think he's one of the best personally
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsrrocks)
    I think he's one of the best personally
    Is your father the head of an arms company?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    That picture assumes we have a flat tax system, so it would look quite different for the US economy. I'd say we are still way way on the right side of the curve just based on hearing all the time that the US treasury is collecting record amounts of money in our nation's history. Even if we were on the left side of the curve, I'd still be strongly in favor of more tax cuts. Monthly tax recipts in April reached a whopping 315 billion dollars. That's a lot of money and much more than what they need...more of it should be back in our pockets.
    I completely agree. But even when we are past peak revenue tax should continue to be cut, accompanied with a corresponding cut in spending, at first simply getting rid of needless red tape and bureaucracy, but then eventually shifting what is currently public spending to private spending. For example, in the Netherlands 70% of schoolchildren are educated in the independent sector. Here the figure is just 6%. That requires a big culture change, which can only be instigated with strong economic reforms to encourage efficiency and growth.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salisbury III)
    I completely agree. But even when we are past peak revenue tax should continue to be cut, accompanied with a corresponding cut in spending, at first simply getting rid of needless red tape and bureaucracy, but then eventually shifting what is currently public spending to private spending. For example, in the Netherlands 70% of schoolchildren are educated in the independent sector. Here the figure is just 6%. That requires a big culture change, which can only be instigated with strong economic reforms to encourage efficiency and growth.
    Dude, privatization of essential services like education can only be a bad thing (again, a totally different debate though)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    Is your father the head of an arms company?
    No, it's just my personal opinion based on my views on certain topics
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Yet somehow, over $500m annually is being borrowed to make up the spending deficit. :rolleyes:
    Which is another reason why I want their grubby hands off my money. If they have less money, it forces them to spend less. They are always going to spend more than they have though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well if popularity counts for anything, Bush is looking pretty bad. His approval ratings are <30% these days. Perhaps because of this his fellow Republicans are increasingly distancing themselves from him (eg. rejecting the iraq war).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wave_o_mutilation)
    Well if popularity counts for anything, Bush is looking pretty bad. His approval ratings are <30% these days. Perhaps because of this his fellow Republicans are increasingly distancing themselves from him (eg. rejecting the iraq war).
    The democrats haven't been able to capitalize on his unpopularity though. The approval ratings for congress are even worse than Bush's numbers! I don't think they'll be able to hang onto their majority for much longer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The democrats haven't been able to capitalize on his unpopularity though. The approval ratings for congress are even worse than Bush's numbers! I don't think they'll be able to hang onto their majority for much longer.
    That is true (although I'm not sure why it's the case). But equally true is that most people want a Democratic president. In certain combinations of Democratic and Republican candidates (eg. Clinton vs. Giuliani) the Republicans lead the polls, but generally speaking, people want a Democrat. Regardless, lots of people hate Bush!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That is true (although I'm not sure why it's the case). But equally true is that most people want a Democratic president. In certain combinations of Democratic and Republican candidates (eg. Clinton vs. Giuliani) the Republicans lead the polls, but generally speaking, people want a Democrat. Regardless, lots of people hate Bush!
    The problem is that there is no credible true-blue conservative in the running. All the Republican frontrunners, like Giuliani and McCain, are very much on the liberal side of the Republicans, and the more conservative candidates, like Tom Tancredo, for example, are really political lightweights who are very one-issue focussed, like Tancredo and immigration. Until the Republicans can field a credible heir-to-Bush (but obviously not terming him/her in that way!), I'll think they'll find it very difficult to beat the Democrats by running a more liberal campaign.

    In my opinion, I think Romney is one of their most credible hopefuls and might just edge ahead in the Republican race, though he is admittedly electorally hampered by his Mormonism. Condoleeza Rice would have been a superb choice, and I've no doubt she would win a Presidential election, but unfortunately she's not up for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salisbury III)

    No Child Left Behind Act - improving education by setting higher standards for teaching and imposing goals-driven education, providing options to parents with students in low-performing schools, and targeting more federal funding to low-income schools.
    It has done the exact opposite! If there is a lower-performing school, they keep losing funding and have no way to hire new teachers, make classes smaller, etc in order to improve the student's education. My mother has been a teacher for 15+ years and she believes (with every other teacher in her school) that it is a horrible policy. Also note she is not even in a "bad" school, they recieve some of the highest scores in the state, and it's still negativly affecting them.

    If only they (The Supreme Court) didn't steal the election from Gore....:mad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salisbury III)
    Condoleeza Rice would have been a superb choice, and I've no doubt she would win a Presidential election, but unfortunately she's not up for it.
    Would have been interesting to see her vs Hillary or Obama...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syracuse315)
    If only they (The Supreme Court) didn't steal the election from Gore....:mad:
    I'm used to reading goofy stuff like this from people living in other countries, but I guess there are a lot of Americans who are ignorant about the court's decision as well. In Florida, they used an archaic system for tallying votes which has been scrapped following the confusion in 2000. The machines counted all the punch cards several times and, each and every time, Bush won.

    The issue was with what people call the undervote- Punch cards rejected by the machines that count the votes. These are votes that didn't get counted because there was a problem with the way the ballets were filled out and the machines rejected the punch cards. Gore wanted to try and determine what the intent of the voter was and have the rejected punch cards counted. Sounds reasonable so far, right?

    Gore's problem was that Bush would pick up votes if the rejected punch cards were recounted in republican counties, which would not change the results.

    Gore is smart enough to know that there is no such thing as republican or democrat machines. Plenty of rejected cards were votes cast in Bush's favor. His solution? He decided that he only wanted a hand count in counties where he knew the majority of people voted for him. That was the only way he could guarantee that he would pick up enough votes to win. He wanted to count the undervote in democratic counties of Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach, but there was no way in hell he would ask to recount the undervote in Duval County. Gore got less than 37 percent of the vote in that county and recounting there would only help Bush score more points in his column.

    When the courts forced him to apply the same standards all counties in all of Florida, he knew he couldn't win and conceeded. Bush wound up winning the state by several hundred votes. Florida law says the same standard must be applied to all counties in counting votes and that standard is applied before the election takes place. You can't just keep changing the rules because you don't like the results.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    And how many people arguing have actually been alive in America during the presidency of more than 2 seperate Presidents?

    Probably 1 or 2, I don't really think you are able to comment on this debate otherwise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salisbury III)
    All the Republican frontrunners, like Giuliani and McCain, are very much on the liberal side of the Republicans, and the more conservative candidates, like Tom Tancredo, for example, are really political lightweights who are very one-issue focussed, like Tancredo and immigration.
    Ron Paul is a conservative who is strong on almost all issues. IMO Giuliani is on the authoritarian side of the GOP, but there you go.

    Until the Republicans can field a credible heir-to-Bush (but obviously not terming him/her in that way!), I'll think they'll find it very difficult to beat the Democrats by running a more liberal campaign.
    Well it's their own fault for not giving him any funding. If Paul got the nomination (unlikely) he would beat any democrat.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.