Bush vs President Clinton

We understand KW. You want to raise taxes. We get it.

We want congress to stop wasting billions of dollars. We want congress to curtail their spending before any increase in taxes.

That is called is a difference of opinion.

0 Replies

Do you also want them to increase their spending before cutting taxes?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

woiyo wrote:

I just posted 2 simnple ideas where to make spending cuts. So, once again, you react without fully absorbing an objective approach.

I see you have offerred no alternatives, except to keep increasing taxes to cover the waste in the govt spending. BRILLIANT!

I'm glad you offered two simple ideas to make spending cuts, but you fail to show how they can ever be implemented.

Ronald Reagan said pretty much the same thing, yet his budgets grew at the rate of 5.8% a year. And he delivered big deficits besides. As I said previously, he inherited a bad situation coming in and he got the country economically moving again, so he's entitled to have some downside as well. But if you keep on mounting large deficit after large deficit, year after year after year, you put the country in the hole which gets harder and harder to get out of.

Woiyo, your economic "plan" is to cut taxes, advocate spending cuts which have never happened in your or my lifetime, even under Ronald Reagan, and if everything goes to hell, claim that it ain't your fault.

If you care about the future of America, you have to support a candidate with a realistic plan to balance the budget and cut these insame deficits.

And who might that candidate be? From my perspective, no one on the Republican side and no one on the democat side has been able to come up with a "realistic" economic plan. You have not been able to offer ANYTHING new from a objective perspective. All I hear from you is KEEP DOING WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING when clearly, that does not work.

0 Replies

McGentrix, I want to balance the budget.

Your man Bush came in five years ago talking about how cutting taxes to the wealthy will get them to invest more, resulting in more jobs, with more people paying taxes, and increased revenue in the end.

Since 1962, because of a growing population, more people working, etc, the Federal on-budget revenue, (ie, minus Social Security taxes), has increased an average of 6.7% a year.

Under five years of Bush, Federal on-budget revenue has declined 1%. And surpluses have turned into deficits. And the national debt is soaring.

Only by getting rid of those tax cuts for the wealthy can American work it's way back to fiscal health. If we continue the tax cuts to the wealthy, we put ourselves farther and farther down the hole.

And that is something for the public to consider in the elections of 2006 and 2008.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

And who might that candidate be? From my perspective, no one on the Republican side and no one on the democat side has been able to come up with a "realistic" economic plan. You have not been able to offer ANYTHING new from a objective perspective. All I hear from you is KEEP DOING WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING when clearly, that does not work.

What we did from 1993 to 2000 clearly DID work, as we turned massive deficits into surpluses, (although the on-budget surplus was not as great as the published surplus, which included Social Security taxes). We got rid of the deficits, we slowed the growth of the national debt down to almost a standstill.

Then a president took office who believes that cutting taxes to the wealthy produces more revenue, which therefore does not result in budget shortfalls. And five years down the line, the Federal revenue, which normally increases 6.7% per year, had declined 1% from 2000 levels. With huge shortfalls resulting.

Which candidates advocate what? Well, frankly, I don't even know who's running yet, let alone what their individual economic plan is.

But we know that most Republicans still believe in extending those tax cuts to the wealthy. So any Republican is out UNLESS he comes out against extending the tax cuts.

The Democrats do not believe in extending the tax cuts to the wealthy. That still doesn't mean that every Democrat's plan will work. They all bear examination, when these candidates appear. But any candidate who advocates tax cuts for the wealthy has disqualified himself as a viable candidate, if you care about the future of America.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

McGentrix, I want to balance the budget.

Your man Bush came in five years ago talking about how cutting taxes to the wealthy will get them to invest more, resulting in more jobs, with more people paying taxes, and increased revenue in the end.

Since 1962, because of a growing population, more people working, etc, the Federal on-budget revenue, (ie, minus Social Security taxes), has increased an average of 6.7% a year.

Under five years of Bush, Federal on-budget revenue has declined 1%. And surpluses have turned into deficits. And the national debt is soaring.

Only by getting rid of those tax cuts for the wealthy can American work it's way back to fiscal health. If we continue the tax cuts to the wealthy, we put ourselves farther and farther down the hole.

And that is something for the public to consider in the elections of 2006 and 2008.

I do not believe McGentrix is 100% behind the GW Tax extension, but I am sure he will speak for himself.

You however, are suggesting we get rid of tax cuts for the rich.

Which tax cuts are those? I will help you.

1. I would agree we maintain the Estate Tax and limit the exclusion to 1.5M per person.
2. I would agree we increase the Estate TAx Rate back to the highest marginal rate of 60%.
3. I would also agree we raise the ceiling on SS tax to 150K

However, I am not sure what to do with marginal income tax rates that top out at 35%. That seems quite excessive to me.

Maybe you can convince me that they could be raised.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

McGentrix, I want to balance the budget.

Your man Bush came in five years ago talking about how cutting taxes to the wealthy will get them to invest more, resulting in more jobs, with more people paying taxes, and increased revenue in the end.

Since 1962, because of a growing population, more people working, etc, the Federal on-budget revenue, (ie, minus Social Security taxes), has increased an average of 6.7% a year.

Under five years of Bush, Federal on-budget revenue has declined 1%. And surpluses have turned into deficits. And the national debt is soaring.

Only by getting rid of those tax cuts for the wealthy can American work it's way back to fiscal health. If we continue the tax cuts to the wealthy, we put ourselves farther and farther down the hole.

And that is something for the public to consider in the elections of 2006 and 2008.

Can you tell me at which time in history when a country at war has not had budget deficits?

Clinton's economic policies led directly to the recession that hit in 1999-2000. Taxing the wealthy will not stop congress from wasting the money. You say that there have never been spending reductions, so why should we expect them? That's a poor opinion. We should expect them because we need them.

0 Replies

McG wrote:
Can you tell me at which time in history when a country at war has not had budget deficits?

What a dumb-ass question! Bush started this war on the basis of WMDs that never existed. That's what we're paying for now. He got us into a unnecessary war, and giving tax breaks to the rich while increasing the national debt by billions every week. Jeeesh! Get real.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG wrote:
Can you tell me at which time in history when a country at war has not had budget deficits?

What a dumb-ass question! Bush started this war on the basis of WMDs that never existed. That's what we're paying for now. He got us into a unnecessary war, and giving tax breaks to the rich while increasing the national debt by billions every week. Jeeesh! Get real.

You didn't answer the question C.I. Instead, you have tried to distract other posters from it and continue the vitriol against Bush. If you can't answer the question, then please refrain from dystracting others from doing so.

0 Replies

Clinton did have spending reductions, in fact they were unpopular but that coupled with higher taxes did spur the economy and reduce the debt.

Quote:

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

People tried to say that you can't do it all, pay for government, pay for the war on terror (not to mention the unneeded Iraq war) and have a tax break which basically benefits the rich. I am not by any means whatsoever an economic expert but it don't take a genius to figure such a simple thing out.

0 Replies

McG, I'll do all the "distracting" I desire on a2k. With your wish to the contrary, you can look forward to more of them.

0 Replies

You forgot to mentioned that those gains were backed by the (or one of the) largest tax increases in history. Not to mention a failed attampt to curtain corporate welfare.

0 Replies

http://www.cato.org/dailys/4-01-97.html

"Two years ago both Congress and the Clinton administration pledged to attack corporate welfare -- programs in the federal budget that provide spending subsidies to businesses. Those promises have been largely unfulfilled. There has been a lot of talk about ending corporate welfare, but very little action. "

0 Replies

It doesn't matter
Since when does any pole ever matter. It's not going to change anything. I personally don't like Bush. What black person does? Okay that was extremely bias but some poll isn't going to change anything bottom line the White House doesn't care about the presidents popularity. ask Abe Lincon.

0 Replies

woiyo, Are you at all familiar with the history of tax rates in the US? Just wondering.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

woiyo, Are you at all familiar with the history of tax rates in the US? Just wondering.

Why do you ask stupid questions?

Oh..never mind, it is your nature to ask such questions.

When you have something interesting to discuss or offer, let us know and maybe a discussion can occur. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

woiyio wrote:
I do not believe McGentrix is 100% behind the GW Tax extension, but I am sure he will speak for himself.

You however, are suggesting we get rid of tax cuts for the rich.

Which tax cuts are those? I will help you.

1. I would agree we maintain the Estate Tax and limit the exclusion to 1.5M per person.
2. I would agree we increase the Estate TAx Rate back to the highest marginal rate of 60%.
3. I would also agree we raise the ceiling on SS tax to 150K

However, I am not sure what to do with marginal income tax rates that top out at 35%. That seems quite excessive to me.

Maybe you can convince me that they could be raised.

If you don't like my questions, don't write about something you know very little about. How old are you? Teenager I suspect.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

woiyio wrote:
I do not believe McGentrix is 100% behind the GW Tax extension, but I am sure he will speak for himself.

You however, are suggesting we get rid of tax cuts for the rich.

Which tax cuts are those? I will help you.

1. I would agree we maintain the Estate Tax and limit the exclusion to 1.5M per person.
2. I would agree we increase the Estate TAx Rate back to the highest marginal rate of 60%.
3. I would also agree we raise the ceiling on SS tax to 150K

However, I am not sure what to do with marginal income tax rates that top out at 35%. That seems quite excessive to me.

Maybe you can convince me that they could be raised.

If you don't like my questions, don't write about something you know very little about. How old are you? Teenager I suspect.

You really are an idiot.

I offer you agreement on a tax issue that directly hit the "wealthy" while offering you an opportunity to display some objectivity and creativity on marginal rates and you came back with such a childish response? That's being an idiot!

Have a nice day! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

In almost every way the nation and Americans improved economically under Clinton even with tax hikes. That tells me that tax breaks alone are not the cure all it is portrayed as being by the right.

As for corporate welfare; I don't think bush has done anything about it to say the least.

0 Replies

woiyo, Cool it! Your statement "However, I am not sure what to do with marginal income tax rates that top out at 35%. That seems quite excessive to me." is the most idiotic statement that can be made if you understood anything about the federal tax laws.

Go back and grow up before you call anybody else an "idiot." You understand nothing about tax rates or the tax laws.

0 Replies

Bush vs President Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know