and clinton i believe in 1991 only paid 18% and that was after his big tax hike

i remember this becouse it was what they were taking out of my check ever month

Yes, they knew the 10 trillion dollar projection from Mr. Clinton was a lie by half and they knew that the economy was going into the tank. But neither fact stopped them from proposing massive spending to use up the surplus until Mr. Bush proposed a tax cut then they came out with doom and gloom.

there was a surpluse until the idiots in congress started spending their pork and the biggest spender was hillary clinton

you will not i did not say the democrats in congress i said the idiots

by the way the only reason congress doesn't want to give the pres. line item veto is that he would be able to veto all of that pork

danielost

By the way those tax cuts are still in effect and we do now have a surplus YES and we are borrowing the money and paying interest on that money to continue the tax cuts that were not justified in the fist place. Greenspan and O'Neil were correct. However the Idiot we have in the White House with the MBA from Harvard will not act responsibly!!!!

If I were the President of Harvard I would resend the diploma they issued to GWB!

I know you are not the brightest bulb in the room at only 1 watt, but try to understand simple little things. Like the word projection. Once you understand the word then you might be able to understand big issues and words. I remember when the Clinton tax increas made it through Congress and every one of the liberals was happy. Then the economy went into the toilet and no one knew what to do about it. Even your hero Mr. Clinton had to admit that he raised taxes too much. When asked if he would give a tax cut his reply was a tax cut would be a good idea but the people would not spend it correctly. Why is it that we tax payers don't know what to do with our own money and that we need the government to tell us what is best for us? That is socialism not a represntitive government. It is our money and if the government wants any part of it the government needs to justify why.



Try to grasp that the tax cut is the only thing that got us out of the recession. The money from the surplus is not supposed to be in hand for 10 years well, 6 years now. Tiny little things have gotten in the way of the surplus like the war on terror that we are fighting around the world. The peace keeping in Iraq, and other countries are on the expensive side. You conveniently forget that the war is being fought around the world but you focus only on Iraq. To stop AQ we need to fight them wherever they are. Right now they are massing in Iraq and doing there best to attack us in America. The last attempt was stopped in Saudi Arabia. What this tells me is that they are losing in Iraq and have no way of attacking us at home until they win in Iraq to distract us they were going to attack the Saudi oil fields. To you this sound like we are losing. Hope this does not hurt your 1 watt mind.

get this through your head

if you raise taxes on the rich

the rich are the ones that own the businesses

they consider taxes to be a business expense

what do you do with a business expense

you pass it on to your costumers

SO IF YOU RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH who is really paying the taxes we call that inflation

however if you done away with every tax in the country and imposed two sales taxes
one federal and one state at 18% then that wouldnt be a business expense and everyone is paying accourding to what they can pay

so the rich don't buy anything and they don't use utilities and they don't use gas in their cars

oh and they don't have domistic help

so we don't have to worry now do we becouse the rich will be dead in 2 weeks

now lets see the top 10% are paying 90% of the taxes and becouse of the tax cut their taxes where cut by 70% so that means what their only paying 20% in taxes right now

but you or someone said that the president paid 25% and the vice-president paid 26%

sounds to me like they over paid

did you know that when the tax cuts were imposed the big companies like at&t had to start paying a minimum tax and when reagon cut taxes the same thing happened

no i guess you didnt know that becouse the demos in washington didnt tell you that part

and whose economics where in play when clinton was in office it was reagons


if you payed attention you would know that these things do not usually go into effect for about 5 years after the vote so unless a president gets elected to two terms or they are passed in the secound term it is the next one or two presidents that get the credit

clinton did nothing to help the economy he tried to destroy it

Paladin - Gene is a member of the parasite class. It's impossible to convince him because, as a socialist, he is only interested in the government controlling as much as possible.

I've explained countless times what happens when taxes are raised. You simply dry up capital that "the rich" were investing in the economy.

People like Gene won't ever understand because he doesn't understand economics.

At the end of the day it can be explained simply (but not simply enough for Gene):

If you have two people investing money -- one person can take $1 and make it $2 and the other person will take that same dollar and end up with only 50 cents, which person would we all be better off having as much capital as possible?

The answer is the person who can take $1 and make it into $2.  But socialists like Gene don't understand that.  They keep wanting to take money from that person and give it to the person who keeps squandering it.

Gene thinks rich people are people who simply get a bunch of money and waste it all or something.  My standard of living wouldn't be affected at all by a tax increase. I'd simply lay someone (or more if necessary) to adapt.  That is what would happen across the country.

Like I said, I've explained this to him before, but Gene isn't intelligent enough to grasp it. And make no mistake, it's an intelligence issue. He simply isn't capable of understanding the complexities (which really it isn't that complex) of the issue.

A person like me (and I'm representative of the top 10%tile) makes $Y.  I live on $X which is a much smaller piece of $Y.  The remainder I invest back in my business or invest elsewhere as well as donate to charities and other institutions.

If my taxes are raised, I still make $X. I simply don't have as much to invest.  So the only question is whether some politician is better at using that money to help our society than I am. 

This week a report was released that said never since 1929 had so much of the total wealth been concentrated at the very top. Middle and low income Americans have scene almost NO improvement over the past 6 years and the very rich have experiences huge increases in their net worth! CNN aired the story today.

question if they did drop all of the taxes in the country and replaced them with sales tax

how would that affect you

would you stop buying things

would you stop hiring people

be brutally honest

this is from wiki

""the 31st President of the United States (1929–1933),""

this shows that he took office in 1929


""That position was challenged by the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the first year of his presidency.""

this also clear shows that the depression also started in 1929

this also means that the country was headed into the depression in 1928

and the reason it was called the great depression is that it affected every country on the planet

Dragional

"would you stop buying things"

If the amount of the sales tax I paid on my normal purchases was greater then the taxes that were eliminated I would cut my purchases.