I agree with you about shrinking the size of government (BTW, something that has never actually been done), but in a progressive income tax system, the people who make more money pay more in taxes. That is just the way it is.
Clinton also cut the capital gains tax. Obama wants to raise it. And Clinton raised income taxes during a healthy economy. Obama won't exactly be in the same situation. And if we're gonna harp on the economy in W's last year, let's not forget that Clinton handed a recession over to his successor. No argument here on the record deficits, but that's because of out-of-control spending, not tax policy.
actually, ur wrong with this one. the economy was in bad shape near the end of Bush Sr' term; the bad economy was the reason that Bush Sr. was fired by the American voters. when Clinton took office, the economy was in sad shape. one of his first acts was to raise income tax for the wealthy
That doesn't mean they won't vote... She didn't set herself up as the women's candidate. That came to her after she started losing. When she got into this, her campaign, particularly Mark Penn, wanted to give the appearance that she was the presumptive nominee. They thought the primaries would be over by February 5th. They underestimated Obama's fundraising and the importance of early caucus states. The DNC didn't "throw her away." If "they" wanted to, they could have started moving towards him rapidly after Wisconsin, or ended it with the superdelegates when he won North Carolina and barely lost Indiana. "They" held off until the day of the final two primaries. Anyway, talking about the DNC (Democrats!) as if it was monolithic sort of confirms your lack of knowledge on this campaign, considering people like Harold Ickes, Don Fowler, Mame Reiley, etc. are a major part of the DNC, with a lot of other Clinton supporters. It's not a large portion. Poll numbers have already shown that... But, pretending that it was a large number, if they were to vote for McCain, how would that hurt turnout? Voter turnout increased in 2004 from 2000. To suggest that turnout this year would decrease by over eight percentage points from 2004 (to get down near a record low) is ridiculous, considering how much voter registration there has been and the record number of people that voted in the primaries.
Not true. The Bush 41 recession was technically before 1992. By the time the Presidential election was in full swing, the economy was on the rebound. Of course, Bush 41 did a lousy job pointing this out during the campaign.
I find this one interesting It seems to be an Admission that White People get favorable treatment to other minorities because White people are in office. and . ..that the person saying it . . is ok with that but not ok with the shoe being on the other foot IN TER REST ING rocket River
According to the Fed, the top 1 percent of Americans own a third of all wealth, as much as the bottom 90 percent combined. Are you advocating the super rich should pay fewer taxes when their percentage of income and wealth continues to increase faster than anyone elses? From the WSJ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119215822413557069.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news The richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record, surpassing the highs reached in the 1990s bull market, and underlining the divergence of economic fortunes blamed for fueling anxiety among American workers. The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks. The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000. The IRS data go back only to 1986, but academic research suggests the rich last had this high a share of total income in the 1920s.
They own a third of the wealth and pay a third of the taxes. Sounds fair to me. Seriously though, why don't we establish what politicians consider "fair". A 40% tax rate? 50%? 70% like in the Carter years? I'm just tired of every election hearing the same BS about the "rich" not paying their fair share.
Actually, according to Bush '43 in 2004, the rich don't pay taxes anyway: "When they say, "tax the rich," those are the folks who have got the accountants to see to it they don't pay tax, so guess who gets stuck with the bill?" And I hate to say it, but he's right. Why do you think the tax code is so complicated? It's a patchwork of loopholes and work-arounds, mixed in with a good pinch of pandering and pork. I don't see why people get so freaked out about taxes anyway. In the end, my paycheck is my paycheck, and my spending power is based PURELY on my take-home pay relative to the Jones' down the street. They can take 10 percent more from me, as long as they take 10 percent more from everybody else. Lowering taxes causes growth, but how much of that growth is inflationary, meaning you end up back where you started?
Shrinking big government is never going to happen in our lifetime. Both parties love the power and privileges it brings. The average American citizen abhors social responsibility that requires individuals to do something that isn't for their personal benefit and subsequently defers it to some abstract political monster. You'd probably have riots on nationwide if the government hinted at cutting entitlements in half.
I was forwarded this on email yesterday. It reads like a parody of all the others, but the person who sent it out believes it.
Oh, well, if there would probably be riots, then we better not try. Better we as individuals cut our own standards of living in half, in order to pay for the higher taxes. Nobody would riot about that.
Thanks for forwarding that Wes. Thankfully Obama's a Christian Male Extremist over the age of 40. He doesn't fit the profile. I think we'll be safe.
Damn... I think my favorite part was that Revelations said the Antichrist would be a Muslim descent even though it'd be a couple centuries after it was written that Mohammed would be born. Also, I like the 17 to 40 bit, when Obama is 46. I think we dodged a bullet on that one.
You don't get it. Politicians would rather overspend and pass off debt to future generations than work out unpopular career ending budgets with the national interest in mind. It's really the fault of the American electorate, and wishful thinking of what Americans should do is just that.
No, I get it. It's why Conservatives are so fed up with the republicans, because there does not seem to be a one among them with a backbone who will stand up and tell the country that he WILL shrink this giant turd that is the federal government. But I keep hoping that some day someone will, and when he (or she) does, it's going to resonate with the people, maybe even enough that that person will keep the promises made. In any case, increasing taxes and growing the government even more is definitely not the answer.
W said that. but, once in office, he did the opposite. Clinton's presidency is proof positive that it can be the answers. conversely, W's presidency is proof positive that tax decrease across the board, in and of itself, is not the answer !!!
