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.
Yes we have, and the facts don't change. Under the BTC we had record high revenue.
In spite of that, I support letting them expire. Lets run the experiment and see what happens when you take that much discretionary spending power out of the economy.
Yes, there has. But a budget surplus is meaningless because the Feds came up with a little trick called "off budget spending". So a budget surplus does not mean the Feds spent less than they collected.
The last time that Federal Debt declined from one year to the next was 1957. Which means every year since 1957 the Feds spent more than they took from the taxpayers.
Even in the so called "Clinton surplus" years, Federal debt increased.
Here are the DEBT growth amounts in billions associated with the past eight presidents;
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,528,010 times
Reputation: 2038
I'd rather see Obama's plan, but, I'd would also rather see the tax cuts expire for everyone (including me of course), as opposed, to having them be extended for everyone, including the top 2%.
I voted "NO"...but it seems that is what is going to happen and we will pay more capital gain tax, etc....but that is it, the rest wil go to my kids and family and friends...
Let liberals give more to charity and we will see how that will work out. I have seen it in The Netherlands. Raise taxes means lower gifts to charity and less other things provided by the people with money...less jobs, etc. Means more poor people...but Liberals and the president have a hard time doing the math!
It will not be hard when they will see the higher percentages of unemployed people and more people on welfare!
That's the biggest myth since the tooth fairy. Structural is there by law and laws can be changed or repealed.
Yes, it will take a few years, but spending could be cut by 50%. Defense could be cut very quickly by ending all wars (Obama is spending $170 billion per year on wars) and closing all foreign bases. Individual and corporate welfare could be cut quickly. Product subsidies could be eliminated quickly. Wasted spending on agencies like ATF and DEA could be cut instantly.
"Structural" is just a politician's excuse for not wanting to cut the size and power of government.
And since Obama didn't do anything to change the rates, shouldn't they now be called the 'Obama era tax rates' and any upward change as the Obama tax increases?
But, he's only been in office four years
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.
