Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now that is too funny. In 1993 the CBO predicted the deficit would still grow to $455 billion even with tax increases. They were DEAD WRONG. In 2000 they predicted we would be on track to pay off the debt by 2012. They were DEAD WRONG again.
.
LOL!
Bush coming along and inheiriting a balanced budget with the administration arguing with the congress about how to spend the surpluses and immediately cutting taxes in 2001 and again in 2003 had nothing to do with it??
Don't you see that when Reagan and George W. Bush cut taxes for their rich supporters the debt skyrocketed?? Reagan quadrupled it and George W. Bush doubled it again.
BILL CLINTON RAISED TAXES AND GENERATED A SURPLUS...WHETHER YOU RIGHT WING FAUX NEWS ADVOCATES WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT. HOW OLD ARE YOU??
I'm 76 and by gawd I was a Republican all the way through the Nixon years...voted for him three times. The Republican party used to stand for balanced budgets, small government and individual rights. Now they stand for corporations and the elite. I quit them when they became the party of spend and borrow. It makes more sense to tax and spend...or do you run your personal budget the same way your party does their's?
Now that is too funny. In 1993 the CBO predicted the deficit would still grow to $455 billion even with tax increases. They were DEAD WRONG. In 2000 they predicted we would be on track to pay off the debt by 2012. They were DEAD WRONG again. The CBO used grossly unrealistic claims that the economy would grow at 4-6% throughout this decade. The last budget that would have been under Clinton's watch was FY2001. And already that budget year showed the surplus would not remain. And before any of you D's start b-tching, the left wing has long claimed that Nixon's balanced first budget, FY 1969, was actually the work of the Johnson administration.
Bullsh-t! Clinton did not put the tax rates anywhere near pre-Reagan levels. And even at pre-Reagan levels, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson all ran budget deficits. Your point is moot. When taxes were even HIGHER in the 50s and 60s, the US still never ran a budget surplus.
Even with the 1993 tax hike, it took 7 YEARS to balance the budget, and even then it was largely result of economic growth and less strain on social programs as a result. Not to mention the fact that there was no longer a need to maintain such a large military following the end of the Cold War.
We'd better just let this one die on the vine. Somebody might be enlightened with some cold hard facts instead of the bold BS Hannity and Ann Coulter are so good at shooting.
The Republicans' shameless cynicism was perfectly captured by Vice President Dick Cheney, who in 2002 proclaimed, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
George Bush and his clueless republican bunch were given a SURPLUS and turned it into a RECORD DEFICIT. Why weren't the Repubs in Congress screaming then when the deficit was running out of control? I suppose running up a record deficit is OK with Repubs if it's for warmongering efforts. Because they want the economy to fail, in their ongoing effort to make this great president look bad, they now suddenly are concerned about the deficit at the expense of the economy. Republicans, you stink.
The Obamamaniacs are scared to death and are doing and saying anything they can to do what their leader does, point the finger and blame someone else for your epic failures.
The Obamamaniacs know full well he was and is a mistake and know full well that Obama has just destroyed the entire loon party and ended liberals running things in America for a long, long time.
Thank you Obama for the gift!
Please excuse the Obamaniacs, they get facts confused all the time and just make up stuff to feel better about there wild mistake of allowing this anti-American socialist to be their golden boy.
2012 cannot come soon enough people.
Republicans are the biggest socialists in world history having made all corporate loss public bills.
National socialists true, but socialist to the bone.
Bush coming along and inheiriting a balanced budget with the administration arguing with the congress about how to spend the surpluses and immediately cutting taxes in 2001 and again in 2003 had nothing to do with it??
forgot about a small thing called the dot com bubble, under Clinton with a recession. And forgot about another "small thing" called 9/11 that could have brought us economically down, but didn't as much because of the tax cuts.
Don't you see that when Reagan and George W. Bush cut taxes for their rich supporters the debt skyrocketed?? Reagan quadrupled it and George W. Bush doubled it again.
BILL CLINTON RAISED TAXES AND GENERATED A SURPLUS...WHETHER YOU RIGHT WING FAUX NEWS ADVOCATES WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT. HOW OLD ARE YOU??
Remember who took the house Two years into Clinton's Presidency, and I admit he was a smart practical President and worked with the Republicans. This President isn't practical
I'm 76 and by gawd I was a Republican all the way through the Nixon years...voted for him three times. The Republican party used to stand for balanced budgets, small government and individual rights. Now they stand for corporations and the elite. I quit them when they became the party of spend and borrow. It makes more sense to tax and spend...or do you run your personal budget the same way your party does their's?
Yes Republicans have spend a lot, but this guy & the Dem can teach us al about spending, and we can NOT afford it any longer.
Sorry my friend, corp are the ones that employed, with many many small business. This environment of punishing success, is not conducive for grow, it's conducive for more and more business moving out of here.....
Then all you'll have is low and middle class, who are you going to tax then?
Yes Republicans have spend a lot, but this guy & the Dem can teach us al about spending, and we can NOT afford it any longer.
Sorry my friend, corp are the ones that employed, with many many small business. This environment of punishing success, is not conducive for grow, it's conducive for more and more business moving out of here.....
Then all you'll have is low and middle class, who are you going to tax then?
BS...in the late 1940's a corporate executive earned four or five times what an hourly worker earned. By 1980 that multiplier had grown to 45 times. By 1990 80 times and now...are u ready for this? 551 times what an hourly worker in a company earns. Just how much of the total do you think an ivy league graduate is actually worth? It's unadulterated greed which has grown in this country during my lifetime.
Now that we have that out of the way what about taxes on those people? In the 1950's anyone who earned more than $300,000 per year paid 93% of that excess to the government. Back then everybody paid their way. Reagan was the first president who believed it to be kosher to borrow money from foreign banks and funnel it to the wealthiest 1% in the form of lower taxes. Modern rich folks are the ones who suck...big time suck.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who will you tax?
