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.
Your statement is almost exactly what the GOP said in 1996, when Clinton proposed raising taxes. The result was four years of solid surpluses until Bush got in and cut them back.
In other words, there isn't any empirical evidence to support your position but there is blind ideology, though.
The credit for the alleged surpluses goes to Newt Gingrich, the GOP Congress and the Contract With America that dragged Clinton to a balanced budget that he claimed could not be obtained for "10 years....12 years....8 years.....etc etc."
Huh?? Obama wants to restore the tax rates to the wildly success Clinton era plan like they were suppose to. Simple put just look at the Clinton era where we had a booming economy with the biggest surplus in US history. Then we go to Bush and the republicans tax cuts to the rich that did nothing but tank the economy taking the biggest US surplus to the biggest deficit.
It takes a real idiot to pull that one off and just like all republican fiscal plans they lead to nothing but deficits, massive spending and a horrible economy.
IF there was a surplus.for 2-3-4 years...........why did the DEBT go from 3.9 trillion to 5.80 trillion????????????????????????
fact clinton/newt had near PROJECTED budget surpluses...but that doesnt count the OFF BUDGET costs
fact because of off budget spending there NEVER was a surplus
an example
you earn(takehome) 60k...you BUDGET 57k...wow you have a PROJECTED surplus of 3k.....during the year your transmission goes down...2k....your need a new washer/dryer...2k...you choose to get a big screan tv..1k.....now your PROJECTED surplus of 3k has turned into a DEFICIT of 2k because you spend 5k that was not on the original budget
sorry. but liberals are just dumb
bush's tax cut for the rich.....a LIBERAL LIE
Quote:
uhm
1. the 'bush' tax cuts/credits were not for the rich...they were mostly for the poor and middleclass...leting them expire will HURT the already hurting poor and middleclass
2.the 01/03 (aka "bush' ) tax cuts/credits were for EVERYONE..with the poor and middleclass getting the biggest part of the cuts/credits.....\prior to the 'bush' tax cuts there was not a 10% bracket..it was 15%....the rich was cut from 39% to 35%
3. but the biggest part of the cuts/credits was not the tax rates ....... but the CREDITS ( child care credit, child credit, energy efficiency credit, retirement 401k credit, education tuition credit, and the health costs credit) which the "rich" those households over 180k could NOT take
to even say 'tax cuts for the rich'...is a LIE
and when did the spending start going through the roof..........when the liberals took control of congress jan 2007
The credit for the alleged surpluses goes to Newt Gingrich, the GOP Congress and the Contract With America that dragged Clinton to a balanced budget that he claimed could not be obtained for "10 years....12 years....8 years.....etc etc."
That's called revisionist history.
First, holding spending increases to 1% was in Clinton's original budget proposals.
Second, without the tax increases there wouldn't have been surpluses.
Third, the main point that I'm making is that you are claiming that tax increases do not produce more revenue. That is plainly false and discredited by the historical record. The issue we were discussing was tax revenue and surpluses were a side issue. The very fact that tax revenue increased under Clinton disproves your claim.
Taxing those that make allot of money will not make a noticeable dent in anything. Taxing a rock would have the same effect. Obama is going to lose, and lose huge in the next election, not even debatable.
Well if taxing a rock brings in 860 billion over ten years then I am all for it.
and when did the spending start going through the roof..........when the liberals took control of congress jan 2007
It's funny when someone who lacks facts claims others are misinformed.
Let's tackle them, one by one:
Claim: "clinton left office with a recession": The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. Bush was President in March 2001, not Bill Clinton.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
Huh?? Obama wants to restore the tax rates to the wildly success Clinton era plan like they were suppose to. Simple put just look at the Clinton era where we had a booming economy with the biggest surplus in US history. Then we go to Bush and the republicans tax cuts to the rich that did nothing but tank the economy taking the biggest US surplus to the biggest deficit.
It takes a real idiot to pull that one off and just like all republican fiscal plans they lead to nothing but deficits, massive spending and a horrible economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Can you explain your arithmetic?
Your statement is almost exactly what the GOP said in 1996, when Clinton proposed raising taxes. The result was four years of solid surpluses until Bush got in and cut them back.
In other words, there isn't any empirical evidence to support your position but there is blind ideology, though.
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company (after Cargill) by revenue in the United States.[2][3]
First, holding spending increases to 1% was in Clinton's original budget proposals.
Second, without the tax increases there wouldn't have been surpluses.
Third, the main point that I'm making is that you are claiming that tax increases do not produce more revenue. That is plainly false and discredited by the historical record. The issue we were discussing was tax revenue and surpluses were a side issue. The very fact that tax revenue increased under Clinton disproves your claim.
History also shows an exuberant economy driven by technology excess during much of Clinton's terms. His tax rates didn't cause the dotcom buildup, did they? The internet explosion began right about 1992-1993 and fueled unprecedented innovation and risk-taking. Some of the most important (and stupid) ideas were hatched during that time.
politically toxic for the GOP if they stick with there current game plan on this issue now.
overwhelmingly the majority agree with obama on this issue.
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.
.jpg)
