tax cuts

[yawningdog]

I've got to get this off my chest before I go mad. (Perhaps its a little late for that.)

I've had it up to here (I'm holding my hand to my forehead) with the notion that the poor aren't going to get tax cut rebate checks from the gub'ment while rich folks are. Let's get one thing straight. If you lay out 2 g's in taxes in one year and get back 2 g's in refunds and benefits, then you're not paying taxes and you've no entitlement to a cut.

Oh yeah, one other thing.

"Gee y'dog, don't you suppose cutting taxes is a bad thing, seeing as how we have this war on terrorism to pay for and all?" Well, its federal economics 101 where you learn lower taxes lead to increased revenue. Works every time, without fail.

There. I'm going to sit back and let this one fester for a bit.

[Rick]

BUT !!!!

Where is My Rebate Check ???

I Only Paid in 10g's last year and got back None $0.00

No Rug Rats at home = NO Rebate check :(

[Ghost_Hacker]

2gs...10gs...somefolks should count themselves luckie....I payed more taxes then I use to make in gross income 11 years ago.

I didn't get a refund check last time (could it be because of "no rug rats" ??). Instead I had to wait till tax time rolled around to get that little extra cash. (a measly $600...big deal :rolleyes: )

"I'm sorry Mr. Taxpayer for taking that wad of cash out of your pocket, here you can have the loose change back."


rebate checks...blah :)

[Rick]

GH

I know the feeling

I didn’t even get the 600 last time .
In Fact they wanted even more of my $$

In the past we worked for Uncle Sam for 1/4th of the year
Today it’s 1/3rd .. ( Even after the tax cut .. What Tax cut ? )
How Long before we reach ½ ?

[Eutychus]

One note about the lower income folk (I've been there before in the military under Carter): if you are below or near the poverty level and have kids, your tax return can end up with your getting back a check that amounts to more than you paid in. A subsidy, if you will.

And if you paid in no taxes because of your low-income bracket, then you cannot get a rebate. A rebate implies you paid something in. I would happily see the poor get $600 checks this year and the rest of us fund it, but it could not be called a rebate. They need more money, they should in many cases get it, but it could not be called a rebate if they paid nothing in.

I don't know that lowering federal taxes is going to help the economy, because my state - which has a Republican Governor - is raising taxes every way it can. One hand gives and one hand takes. My net benefit in all the tax reshuffling is to pay less to Uncle Sam and more to my state. Take home pay only slightly smaller than before.

But with the economy in the toilet, I can't see how raising taxes is going to stimulate anything but the insatiable, government machine.

[ZURKE]

Well I think everyones state taxes will be going up somehow eventually.

The federal government had to get the money from somewhere to pay for any tax cuts.
So it is giving back to the people what it gives to the states.

I kinda prefer it that way. Atleast I don't have to drive to washington to get my hands on the problem, so to speak.

Cut more!!

I do think the poor should receive a fishing pole and not a fish all the time.
I don't think it should hurt to be rich, I would love to be.(I keep trying):)

I think big government is run much too inefficiently and in the end costs too much.

As I have said aloud to the dogs and anyone else interested in listening about raising taxes on a number of occasions"FIND THE MONEY WITH WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE".

If you want this then lose that. I do it all the time. It makes me crazy that the government thinks they should not have to.

Taxes should be levied more on a local level. Where the people know the people that are screwing them.

I say put the fed back where it should be in foreign policy.

[kayofcircles]

Was thinking about you yesterday, yawning dog. And about how I had said that we didn't need to discuss the tax cuts because it was a done deal..but apparently, a "done" deal is not what I thought it was because yesterday on the news they said they have added more tax cuts to the existing bill. Money for poor families who don't pay taxes and some money for richer people with kids.

If tax cuts work every time, without fail..then how come things didn't improve last time we got refund checks??? Things are definitely worse now. I am on the other side...this makes me so angry, and seems so counterproductive that I can't believe anyone is buying it. Did you hear that Bush had to raise the debt ceiling for the government to make this sucker fly?? All the interest rate decreases were supposed to stimulate the econony too..is that working? As far as I am concerned, it would be nice if the government took up the doctor's motto of "First, do no harm."

Oops, have to correct myself. Guess it will stimulate the economy some because saw on the news that part of tax cut bill gives deductions for small businesses to go out and buy vehicles...and they're buying SUVs because you get a bigger deduction for them.

I will agree with you this far. I think the whole "rich" and "poor" thing is a political ploy. I have no problem with tax cuts for the rich provided we can afford them, and are not just passing HUGE debt on to our children and grandchildren. What are they going to have to pay in taxes to clean up the mess we're making???

[Rick]

I double checked some of the fine print in that bill.
It does away with the married penalty ( Hurray )

For One Year ONLY .. BOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo

Next Year back to the same Old B.S.




I'm Not Poor .. YET.

[HeadachesAbound]

Stimulus can only come if the money being spent goes back into the economy. Buying an automobile does not stimulate the economy because the money just goes into big auto's pocket. Sure it keeps the factory open and may prevent another round of lay-offs, but i doesn't bring in new jobs or require an increase in manufacturing.

I have 3 kids, I get a refund every year as a result and I don't pay anything. Do I think it's fair? Some days I do, some I don't. But I do know that when I get that money, it goes straight back into the economy. Food, Diapers, Toys, etc. Do I expect to get a rebate check? Nope. Do I agree with the tax cut? Nope. Is there a better way? Always.

The way I see it is this...

If you want to stimulate the economy, then quit cutting out the taxes that bring in the biggest bang. For example, dividend taxes. Yes, I do hear the uproar growing, but get over it. If you have the money to invest in the market then you have the money to pay the taxes on it.

Provide some kind of concrete stimulus to get the economy going. Invest in clean fuel technologies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil (don't tell me it's too expensive, I know better). Do something besides flying around in Air Force 1 all the time.

And for the work I do, I am absolutely under-paid, but I make enough to be happy and for now that's enough.

Here's a thought on how to stimulate the economy, cut the amount of money that retired politicians get.

[kayofcircles]

Rick: Not to worry. According to news, they put the (think they called them) sunset provisions in the bill to disguise the fact that the bill is gonna "cost" at least twice what it looks like it will cost now. They said there is NO way that they're gonna let those "die" next year..it's an election year, and neither party wants to look like they're raising taxes on anyone, so they will renew it or revive it or whatever that's called.

Headaches...Don't know about stimulating the economy, but your "...cut the amount of money that retired politicians get" would certainly save some money..and I am all for that!

[HeadachesAbound]

Just a thought that I don't have the energy to research right now.

If my memory serves correctly, whenever the gov is in the black, the economy is in the black. When the gov is in the red ,the economy is in the red.

Am I mistaken or is this the case?

And if it is, then why haven't bush and his cronies figured this out?

After all, it doesn't take a brain surgeon and I would think that this is something like basic economics.

[Budfred]

Some of you can get by quite nicely without the infrastructure of our society, most of you can't. Taxes are how the infrastructure is supported. Without taxes, there would be no internet. There would be not military (which might be a good thing). There would be no highways. Any number of things that we assume as part of our due would be gone or would never have been created in the first place. As it is, the wealthiest of this country are now going to be more wealthy, the poorest are going to be poorer. The infrastructure is going to suffer and we will end up paying more later to make up for it. Or more accurately, our children will end up paying more for it. Unfortunately, they will also have to pay for our HUGE national debt and, of course, they will end up having to shoulder a considerable part of the burden for the huge growth in the elderly population, which includes many of us.

Most people say to cut taxes, but when asked which program to cut, they generally have completely unrealistic expectations about what the programs cost and what to cut. I believe that the military budget is now more than half of our total budget, yet people focus on the .01% that goes to programs to prevent AIDS or something similar as the place to cut and are usually shocked to find out that it saves so little to do so. I am disgusted with the tax cuts and the government that created them. We will all be paying for a long time for what will amount to less than 50 cents a day to all but the wealthiest....

[HeadachesAbound]

Budfred...Agreed.

[gracious]

Budfred, I agree that we as a society must give back but what upsets me is that the government has had the use of millions of dollars and they squander it all away! Look at how much money they had to help our school systems, what did they do with it? Where did it go? We give a ton of money to Haiti, squandered away. Everywhere you look our money is being misused, lost, there is no accountability whatsoever. Greenspan won't even do an interview and tell us what he is up to. What is up with that?

Social Security was suppose to be there in cases of emergency to help out our fellow neighbors. It use to be 3 paychecks would help cover one person but now it is 1 paycheck for 3 people.

I as a citizen would like a full accounting of the monies before I pay them a dime in taxes, but that is not the real world is it.:(

[HeadachesAbound]

I wonder if a petition with enough signatures would get a complete audit of the US Finances?

[Steve]

"I wonder if a petition with enough signatures would get a complete audit of the US Finances?"

I doubt it.

You might want to check out the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/) . ;)

[Budfred]

Some money is squandered (I think most of the military budget), but it is easy to say money is squandered based on our individual values while insisting that our pet programs should be supported. Any large organization is going to have waste and the waste will be bigger if the organization is bigger. But then, how many of us can say that we don't waste money also - whether as individuals or as business owners??? How many of us can say that we keep our level of waste below 1%? If you look at the size of the federal budget (and you don't assume most of the military budget is waste), the total level of waste is a tiny percentage of the total. I would rather have highways to drive on and programs to prevent AIDS and benefits in my elder years than to save another million on expenditures by cutting billions from programs.

One other note while I am ranting: when was the last time anyone out there got a job without figuring out your salary WITHOUT taking taxes into account? When I am offered a job and someone offers me a salary, I immediately determine what that means in actual funds for my use, not the total sum. Do you really think that business would be paying workers what they make today if taxes were not taken into account for determining wages? We are paid more because we pay taxes... If all taxes were repealed tomorrow, we would go through a few years of seemingly having more money to spend, but wages would stop climbing until it evened out again. We would also suddenly start having to pay a whole bunch of fees for things we didn't consider paying for before. You want to drive on this road and you want it smooth, pay a toll. You want medical care no matter what your age and condition, pay cash up front or pay insurance at high premium. You get disabled and you don't have a disability insurance plan.... well make your final peace with the world... You are concerned about crime in your city, hire private police to protect you, probably including a personal bodyguard for when you leave your immediate area. And so on, and so on, and so on......

[Steve]

Rant on Bud'...;)

But if it weren't for having the most advanced military in the world, you wouldn't have highways to drive on, programs to prevent AIDS or benefits to help you in your elder years.

[Ghost_Hacker]

Well, just having the most advance army in the world doesn't mean you'll always be free...just ask the Germans.


Still our taxes do go to help support our way of life and a big part of supporting that way of life is our "army".

[Mark Miller]

Kay,
Very close to the way things are. the gov makes money by collecting taxes and fees. The more taxes and fees the better the gov is doing. the more money people and business make the more they can pay in taxes and fees. so if the economy is doing well most of the time the gov is doing well. the exception is when the gov gets so indebt that it takes years after the economy gets better for the gov to go into the black. this happened in the 90's. we had a great decade but only a few years of the gov being in the black.
simple but basic way things work with the economy and gov.
Mark

[Mark Miller]

Another thought,
If you are unhappy with the way the gov handles your money there is only one way I know for it to change. VOTE!!! Pay attention to who your candidates are on all levels and make sure your vote is counted. Only 50% of the people who are eligible to vote, vote. Make a difference.
Mark

[Budfred]

Just a comment about being in the black:

When you manage to accumulate a few extra dollars, do you go to your employer and say: "please take this back, you are paying me too much"???

That is what the government did. We had the largest surplus in history. The gave it back in rebates and tax cuts. Now we are drowning in more red ink than anyone could imagine before. It boggles my mind...

[Mark Miller]

Actually a big part of todays debt is because of the collapse of the stock market and the recession. By this I mean less taxes on profits and less people working and paying taxes. A lot of the surplus was figured on things staying the same, which we all now know did not happen.
I for one feel that the Gov should never show a profit. Spend what comes in and give back if there is anything left. Yes some should be held for a rainy day or a war or two.
Mark:(

[HeadachesAbound]

Originally posted by Budfred
When you manage to accumulate a few extra dollars, do you go to your employer and say: "please take this back, you are paying me too much"???


Nope. I would turn around and say to my employer, "I'm worth more than this, please pay me more." And I would do so knowing that at least 15% and more likely 20% would go straight to the gov for taxes / medicare / etc.

Originally posted by Budfred
One other note while I am ranting: when was the last time anyone out there got a job without figuring out your salary WITHOUT taking taxes into account?

Do this daily. I take into account my estimated cost of living for the next 2 yrs (yes, I've budgeted that far in advance) and figure in a little extra for a rainy day. I still don't come out on top and I don't make enough to enjoy my job but I make enough to be happy when I get home.

And while were on the subject of voting...GORE, BUSH, CLINTON (Hillary that is), or LIEBERMAN in 2004. Taking wagers now.

[Steve]

We didn't actually have a surplus. That surplus we heard so much about was a "PROJECTED" surplus over the next ten years.

And just a comment on your comment: If I find I have a little money left over it is because I EARNED it. The government has never earned a penny.

[Budfred]

Whether or not the government earned any money is open for debate, I believe the services provided for the money (that infrastructure thing) earn the gov its money.

As for the surplus, some of it was real and they gave it back. What wasn't real is that we still owed trillions in debt, so they were not show a "profit", they were simply spending less than they took in and had some money to pay that debt down. Instead, they decided to throw a party which mostly benefited the top 10% of wealth in this country. If I did that rather than pay my house payment, I would soon be out of my house. If Bush does it, he simply signs another paper allowing him to go deeper in debt.

And yes it is true that the economy collapsed and that at least some of that would have happened no matter what, but I still wonder if it would have been as bad if we had put that money to paying off more of the debt. How many of you, with incomes under $250,000, can truly say you have been helped by the tax cuts of the last few years. I know I can't.

[YODA74]

And while were on the subject of voting...GORE, BUSH, CLINTON (Hillary that is), or LIEBERMAN in 2004. Taking wagers now.


BUSH The other three clowns aren't even viable candidates

While were on the subject I don't think a damn one of the people in washington even have a clue as to what the normal people need or want or even care.
I think instead of voting themselves raises (without asking) they should give it all back they forget it is a Privilege to serve as a representative for the People of the United states Not a Necessity The Federal Government is a joke!! The only thing they ARE good for, is raping and screwing the people.



FLY IT HIGH
FLY IT WITH PRIDE
FLY IT FOR HERITAGE
FIGHT THE HATE

[Ghost_Hacker]

I agree... tax cuts have not had an impact on my way of life. It's just a little "ice cream" money. (back in the '80s Reagan's tax cuts really where just enough for me to buy extra snacks with at the end of the pay period.)

Now if they where to hand back one month's worth of taxes, then that would be a tax cut worth having. :)

[Ghost_Hacker]

I would have to think twice about voting for Bush. Seems whenever a Bush is in office the economy tanks. Is it just bad timing for those guys?


Makes me go "hmmmmmmm...." :D :D

[yawningdog]

You're wrong GH. The economy began to decline before Bush took office. Check the dates.

It's rebounding now though. Four solid months of growth in the dow. Just because a person doesn't get a raise, doesn't mean the economy is failing him. (Bush will never get credit for this. At least, not in this forum, which appears to be festering with liberals of late.)

[Ghost_Hacker]

Oh, I'm sure your right as the internet boom, for example, was already over long before Bush took office. But frankly I never place the blame for a good or bad economy at the feet of whoever is in the White House. They don't really control the economy as much as we would like to think they do.


Still the appearance of bad times does seem to come with the appearance of a Bush in the White House. :D

[classicsoftware]

Well lets see:

This thread starts with the usual BIG LIE which if you repeat the BIG LIE often enough, the BIG LIE becomes truth.
Gee y'dog, don't you suppose cutting taxes is a bad thing, seeing as how we have this war on terrorism to pay for and all?" Well, its federal economics 101 where you learn lower taxes lead to increased revenue. Works every time, without fail.

This statemenmt is the BIG LIE

Since my birth in 1958, there have been two major reductions in federal income taxes. The first was the "Kennedy" tax cust passed by LBJ in 1964. While there was economic growth, was it the result of the tax cut or was it the result of the massive government deficit spending of the 1960's on The Great Society programs and the Vietnam War? The second huige tax cut was the Reagan tax cut during the 80's that preceeded economic growth. However just like the 60's, the tax cut was accompanied by huge amounts of government red ink that was spent as Reagan put booko dollars into one of the most massive miliary build ups in our history. In order to get these military budgets through congress he had to agree to more massive social spendings and our national debt was way out of control by any economic measure.

So there is no proof in economics 101 or economics 1001 that the BIG LIE that cutting taxes always causes increased government revenues. The reason is

IT HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED There is not one time in the history of the republic that we cut taxes w/o any other economic stimulus. Never, ever, ever , ever.......

And by the way, how did we get such econmic growth and increased government revenues during the 1990's when President Clinton increased taxes.

As for fair and right, what is fair or right. I am tired of middle class people who WHINE LIKE STUCK PIGS when they get a deduction and a tax credit for having childred, get to deduct the interest on their mortgages and have a host of other advantages that comes with being middle class.

How come you only complain about income taxes???? Whay is it the social security taxes stop at $85,000.00? Yes, if you make $500,000.00 or $1,000,000.00 you pay the same amount as the guy who makes $85,000.00. Is this fair?? You tell me!!

Anytime you think its better to be poor, give it a try, then let me know what is really fair.

[Budfred]

"At least, not in this forum, which appears to be festering with liberals of late"

That's funny, I thought it was festering with conservatives of late....:eek: :D

[ixl]

Steady as she goes people.... ;)

c

[yawningdog]

Oh give me a break classicsoftware. Have you ever actually stuck a pig? They sound absolutely nothing like this.

[Mark Miller]

Classic,
Just a note social security taxes are in realty a double tax. You pay the ss and you still pay from your top line. Also the benifits stop at a certain level so why should you pay higher taes [social security] if you have reached the top you will collect?
Mark

[YODA74]

How come you only complain about income taxes???? Whay is it the social security taxes stop at $85,000.00? Yes, if you make $500,000.00 or $1,000,000.00 you pay the same amount as the guy who makes $85,000.00. Is this fair?? You tell me!!


What are you supposed to punish someone for making it big?? I'm not exactly happy at the spread size of taxes. But you can't actually punish people who make a lot of money and blame them becouse some poor son of a gun didn't make it up the ladder?

I mean if there is no work where your at (not anyone in particular)Then MOVE to where the jobs are. you only get rich by working for it not waiting for a hand out. (unless your born with a silver spoon)

Whay is it the social security taxes stop at $85,000.00?

Well gee how long do you expect to be on SS? seems the retirment age is pretty high most don't live long enough to collect $85,000. Retirment size amount is based on how much you paid in and how long you've worked.

You only work for ten years and pay in say example..20.000 don't expect to collect 85.000??? or 1200.00 or 1500.00 a month

[Budfred]

I think he means that you don't have to pay SS taxes any more after the first $85K you make in a year, not that there is an $85K cap on SS payments.....

[classicsoftware]

To my good friend yawningdog:

The greatest thing about the USA is that you and I can have this discussion freely and openly. What makes our deomcracy the envy of the world is the free battle of ideas in the public arena.

Of course I have never heard a stuck pig, it's just a little hyperbole.

What I (as a someone who is to the left of center, but not a liberal in the Al Sharpton Ralph Nader sense of the word object to is the lack of honesty on the part of the right.

What the right wants is to reduce income to the government so after paying for defense and social security and a few other items, there will bo no money left for the left to spend on their constituency. It's not a bad philosiphy and it's not evil, I just wish the right would admit it.

I also hoped to point out that it is NOT true that decreasing income tax rates does not mean that there will be automatic economic growth. That does not always follow that increasing taxes will slow economic growth though it can. When taxes were increased in the early 1990's it co-incided with a hugh increase in productivity (due to people like us in the computer world who helped fuel this increase procuctivity). There were other factors involved and commend Bob Woodward's book the Agenda for a fuller understanding of how and why Clinton's economic policies resulted in sustained economic growth.

As a student of history, I find it amusing that the right was all for a balanced budget when Eisenhower was president but since then the two biggest deficit spenders have been Reagan and GW Bush.

If you would like to change the tax system and make it more equitable, I am all in favor in a fair progressive tax system. I don't know if it should be flat tax or a vat tax or some other form of taxation.

I welcome the debate with my friends on the right as long as you are willing to debate with real ideas and not with slogans. I don't like when the right says the Big Lie I wrote about earlier just like I HATE when people on the left cry about tax cuts for the rich. Neither argument is serious and neither advances the public debate about the best way to finance the necessary needs of the government.

And Budfred is correct as usual I mean the with-holding of SS taxes stops when your income hits $85,000.00.

[YODA74]

well don't pay your taxes then quit complaning

American citizens and permanent resident aliens, living and working within the States of the Union are not subject to the filing of an IRS Form 1040 and ARE NOT LIABLE for the payment of a tax on "income"!!! If this surprises you, you are not alone. You are among the vast majority of American citizens who have been mislead and misinformed.

Our Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic as our form of government. The Constitution gives the federal/national government limited powers. All powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States respectively or to the People. The Union was created to be the servant of the people! The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts of the government and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Congress is only permitted to levy two types of taxes.

1. DIRECT TAXES, which are subject to the rule of apportionment among the states of the Union.

2. INDIRECT TAXES -- imposts, duties and excises, subject to the rule of uniformity.

The US Constitution does not allow the federal government to use either of the two classifications to tax CITIZENS or PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS of the United States of America, DIRECTLY. The intent of the Founders was to keep the government the servant and to prevent it from becoming the master.

In 1862, Congress passed an Act (law) to create an "Income Duty" to help pay for the War Between the States. A duty is an indirect tax, which the federal government cannot impose on citizens or residents of a State having sources of income within a State of the Union.

Congress passed an Act in 1894 to impose a tax on the incomes of citizens and resident aliens of the United States. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged in 1895 and the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax that was not apportioned as the Constitution required


Join the club I haven't paid taxes in 20 years. And there isn't a darn thing they can do. or at least they haven't tried..

[Budfred]

YODA74,

That is a tired, old and inaccurate argument. They have prosecuted a number of people who make the same claim as you and it has held up in court repeatedly. You may get away with tax fraud (not paying your fair share), but only because the cost of catching and prosecuting cheaters is so high. If they ever come after you, you will probably have trouble posting from your jail cell....

If you are not willing to pay your share, I would encourage you to stop using any infrastructure or services associated with paying taxes. Of course it you choose to follow that suggestion, we will never know since you won't be able to use the internet anymore....

[yawningdog]

Cool. Look what I started.

Okay look. GH hit it dead square on the head when he said the credit and/or blame cannot be laid at anyone's feet decisively. I don't think anybody can say that one thing or another leads to economic growth conclusively.

But I know a few things for sure. One is that no civilization has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Another is that roughly a third of every penny I make is confiscated in taxes. The government is not my employee, as Budfred has posited (I would have fired it long ago.) It doesn't earn money, it takes it, at gunpoint if necessary. (Rare, I'll admit.)

The light bulb, the television, the radio, the automobile, the apple peeler, the can opener, all invented without the assistance of tax revenue. I say we shut down this behemoth of a tax code, and come up with something any jackass (me) can deal with. Oh sure, non-profit good-for-absolutely-nothing groups like PETA will actually have to provide a marketable service in order to survive (like the rest of us schmucks) and the welfare broodmares may actually have to find work and pay their own rent, instead of ante-ing up with money confiscated from my check, but life will go on pretty much like it always has and always will. Saying that life as we know it wouldn't exist without the benefit of taxes is like saying the Florida peninsula would have remained undiscovered if Juan Ponce DeLeon hadn't found it.

[YODA74]

Hey budfred I've paid my fair share mr moaral liberal speaker
I'm retired I'm allowed to make a certain amount of money and not pay taxes am also on disability from the military SO BiTE ME. Damn children.

When your liberal ass goes out a takes a couple of rounds for your country you let me know until then shut the %$#@ up

[kayofcircles]

Yoda: Now, we all know you're a bit quick tempered, but that was over the top. I remember you posting something years ago about making missiles for the military, or similar, so I know you paid taxes, but Budfred wasn't at the forum then. And your post did sound like you haven't paid taxes.

yawningdog: Okay, "festering" was maybe a bad choice of word? You were fussing not too many months ago that this forum had gotten boring, and now you're fussing because several of us don't agree with you? "Boring" is when everyone shares the same opinion. When it comes to fiscal policies, I am very conservative, but when it comes to social policy, I go way to the liberal side. For the most part, I hope I can achieve some sort of middle ground..:) I voted for Bush, but I won't be doing it again. My husband and I had some interesting discussions, and mini debates, during the Presidential debates before the election. At that point, it seemed to me that Gore would get us entangled all over the world "taking our American way of life" everywhere..and that Bush would not. I do think Bush probably handled 911 better than Gore would have done, but nothing since..and now I am just hoping we survive until he's out of office. The most revealing thing I can say is that recently, I have actually missed Clinton..and I disliked him when he was President.

Otherwise, seems like everything I would have said has already been said.

[yawningdog]

Sorry Kay, but "festering" is the perfect word. And the partial reason I started this thread was because this forum was getting boring again. I was hoping to cure that. I'm not fussing because you don't agree with me, in fact I'm elated. Otherwise I might not get a chance to use cool words like "festering".

and now I am just hoping we survive until he's out of office.

Huh? Are you seriously afraid for your life as a result of Dubya's policies? Get a grip.

[Steve]

??? fester: to form pus. huh???

[Budfred]

YODA74,

Once again you descend to name calling since your other efforts at baiting and attack have been less successful. You said you have not paid taxes in 20 years and I took that to mean that you were engaged in the very tax fraud you had just urged people to use. If that is not what you meant, any misunderstanding is your problem. You can call me names and attack anyone who doesn't believe the same things that you do, but that won't make you right....

[gracious]

ok we as a society need to pull together. It is healthy to have discussions as this but not to the point where you want to tell someone to go where the sun don't shine. There isn't one clear cut solution but I do think we need to stay informed about what our government is doing. Yes we need to vote and I do get upset at these numbskulls who rant and rave and then when you ask them if they voted and they so "NO" then I tell them that they really don't have anything to say about anything.

What exactly is a "Fairshare" anyway? Whose formula are we going to follow? When we have children starving in this so called great nation while our politicians run around going to parties and flying their own lear jets I get outraged. There is always going to be those who want to fight the system or defraud the system and they aren't going to go away.

We have no morals anymore as a society, we teach children that there aren't any consequences for anything anymore, they don't see any values that are worth adhereing to, so what do you expect?

As far as I am concerned a politician is a politician, it doesn't matter to me what we label them, those labels have been so corrupted that you really can't see a difference anymore so out with the labels. I use to be a democrat but I did vote for Bush and at least he has the guts to do what he feels is right instead of pandering to everyone else and worrying about re-election and polls. They are suppose to be working for us not the other way around. Taxes are needed but not to pick up the tab that our government has created because of their misuse of our money that we have slaved to make. We are the ones wondering if our next paycheck will cover the heating bill. We are the ones who have to decide whether or not to go to the doctor and fork out the dough or to buy little Johnny some needed new clothes. Do you think these politicians have to worry about that?

The blame game is a waste of time. Getting involved and staying informed is the only way we can get any type of control and that means paying attention to the elections and who is running and vote.

[Steve]

gracious, I agree. It is healthy to have discussions like this. And I think those who can't participate in an appropriate way should avoid posting.

What exactly is a "Fairshare" anyway?

I think "fairshare" means following the same rules and laws the rest of us follow.

If you know of any kids who are starving, please tell someone. No kid will starve in this country. If for some reason they fall outside government programs (and I have never seen that case) there are plenty of people who will help.

And yes, vote. It's hard to believe how many people don't. I say "if you don't vote, don't complain to me."

I have never voted for a democrat. But I'm not gonna vote for Bush next election. I'll vote for just about anyone else. If by some cosmic error Hillary is the candidate I'll write in someone else.

[yawningdog]

I think "fairshare" means following the same rules and laws the rest of us follow.
Aha. This is exactly the problem. I cannot get you to pay for my groceries using government sponsored plunder because the rules that appy to me are different from the rules that apply to a poor, single, unemployed, alcoholic, lesbian, black mother. Her condition is not my fault, but I get to pay for it, not that anyone asked me if I wanted to.

I realize that folks dislike the money that politicians make, but on the average, given their age and education, their salaries are much less than they could make commercially. I don't begrudge them their raises because currently they don't amount to squat as the big picture goes.

Budfred and Yoda. Love ya, baby, but please knock it off.

Steve. I use the term "festering" as a metaphor (as many writers do) to imply a spreading, growing infection.

I'm amazed at the amount of disdain for Bush here. I would think that liberals would love that gi-normous education bill he signed, not to mention all the federal employees he created for the airports. And Tom Daschle and Bill Clinton both thumped their chests over the diarmament of Iraq back in '98. Still sore over Florida, are we?

[Budfred]

As I said earlier, if anything is festering around here, it is the right wing... deep right even...

Those of us who are more of a liberal bent generally find Bush to be about as bad as it gets. He has raped the environment; committed us to a war that was not supported and based on what currently appear to be false pretenses; put us in debt to a greater degree than has been known in the history of this country; neglected the economy almost entirely with the exception of giving favors to his friends; and the list goes on and on and on.... All of this after taking the election through very dubious circumstances and without winning a majority vote.

Now if you don't mind, I am going to take my proceeds from my tax cut and go buy a cup of coffee, stimulating the economy with ripples that will result in the creation of millions of jobs.... (and if you believe that bit of twaddle, I know this great bridge in New York you might be interested in purchasing!!)

Oh, BTW, what is it exactly am I supposed to knock off. I have not been calling anyone names and I don't see anything I said that was disrespectful, so I am not sure what behavior I should curtail. Or are you just telling me to shut up???:confused:

[ZURKE]

What ever party has the presidency the other party is going to do its very best to make life tough on them.

Politics is about power in this day and age.

Parties don't work together to solve the big issues, each party wants to have the spot light. So they can have the election next term.

Allowing these tax cuts to work and anything else George Bush and the Republicans have planned is out of the question.
The Democrats will throw every wrench they have into the works even if it would help greatly the situation we are in. They don't want it to work.

The Republicans would do the same, they are no different in that way.

The existing President has a plan, it is not about creating a two class system(rich and poor) although you think so by what I have been seeing and reading daily. It is a plan like any other. Not a conspiracy to make the rich richer and screw the needy. It is just a plan, that wont work to its full potential because of certain people that don't want it to work.

It is politics baby, get used to it.

And I will take another $300.00 thanks.;)


Ps: lets be nice, intellegent, grown ups.

[Steve]

Heh heh...I don't think I've ever run into a poor, single, unemployed, alcoholic, lesbian, black mother. But I get your point. But you know, no one ever asked me if I wanted to help pay for the schools, the military, the war in Iraq or anything else. So don't hold your breath. It ain't gonna happen. We would be in tough shape if the gov. had to ask each time they wanted to do something.

Yes. I understood your metaphor. It was just my sarcastic nature showing itself. No offense intended.

I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks is when folks become idealogues. When someone can see only one side of an issue they are very limited. The conservatives are against the liberals and the liberals are against the conservatives. Blah...one is no better than the other. I'd rather be able to see clearly.

And I'm with ZURKE. I'll take another $300 any day. And I'll spend it. Not because I think it will improve the economy but because I could really use some more money right now! ;)

[kayofcircles]

yawningdog: "Survive" was an exaggeration, and not me personally. What I am concerned about is Bush alienating allies and enemies alike around the world (and doing the other things that Budfred mentioned above). If you have a neighbor you're not real thrilled about, does it actually help if you go over and tell him that he is "evil" and a twit??? You still have to live next door to him, only now he is ticked at you. Sometimes in life, the best you can achieve is a fragile sort of truce...and "live and let live."

People get weird about taxes..maybe it is because we hear about the waste sometimes, or whatever. We live in a very poor county. Every year, people living in this county are complaining about the many unpaved roads. Several times, the county has asked for a fraction of a cent raise in sales tax..and it's been defeated every time. At the same time, the government has passed new mandates coming from agencies like the EPA concerning trash disposal and such..so the county needs more revenue to cover such things and fix the roads..lol. Since we have a bad case of the "no new tax!" bug here..the county has come up with an alternative. They sent appraisers out, and reappraised everyone's property, which will result in higher property taxes without them having to get an increase passed on a ballot. I am not complaining because I know they have to do something to get needed revenue, and I also know that the feds are giving less to the states because the feds have screwed up so badly, and therefore the states give less to the counties.

[ZURKE]

On a state level, where in my mind most taxes should be levied, we in NH don't have have as many taxes as surrounding states. We do have a property tax which is quite high in some areas and I can live with that.

But what really gets my goat are people who move to this state from surrounding tax happy states because they say they can't deal with it all. Shortly after moving here they complain about not having trash pick-up or they have to drive their kids to school.

I have to wonder if they are really retarded or are sent here from other states to create taxes. It drives me into a spin when I hear
this stuff. The ignorance is overwhelming, to the point of screaming. Why cant people that want their everyday lives made easier by paying more taxes get together and stay together. arrrgggg:(

[deddard]

Can I have a refund please?...........damn, I don't live in the US.....I'm not American either. Ah well, if there's any money going free, throw it my way will you?:D

[Steve]

Can I have a refund please?...........

Sure guy! Just send me $10,000 USD and I'll send you a refund check for $300. Deal?

ZURKE, I agree completely. I grew up around Boston. The rest of my family is still there. They just can't comprehend how people live in New Hampshire. "What do you mean you have to take your trash to the dump!" "The town hall is only open Wed., Fri. and Sat.? Whaaa!" The one I like the best is, one time my mother came to visit. We were driving down, what to me, is a main road. To her, a country road. She turned to me and said, "What I don't understand is, where do all the people live?" What people, ma....;)

[ixl]

When your liberal ass goes out a takes a couple of rounds for your country you let me know until then shut the %$#@ up

Yoda, disagreement with others on this board is allowed and encouraged. Abuse of others is not allowed, and it's quite clear to me on which side of the line this sort of language falls.

There is simply no need to talk to people like this, and I don't want to see such a comment from anyone here ever again. If you can't deal with someone else or what they say, put them on your ignore list.

Also, Yoda, I will tell you that I knew someone who said exactly what you did -- and he was very knowledgeable about the laws and researched the case law and statutes for years. A couple of weeks ago he was sentenced to 20 months in prison for tax evasion.

If you really think you don't have to pay income taxes, that's between you and the Federal Government. I, however, do not agree with your reading of the law, and I would ask that you please not use these forums to encourage others to break the law. Thank you.

c

[Ghost_Hacker]

Ahhh New Hampshire. My parents use to live in Londonderry. Great place and no sales tax.

When it came to working on the roads in the Boston area it always took them forever to finish a project. Kinda always assumed the "mob" had a little hand in that.

Yeap, your tax dollars at work. :)

[classicsoftware]

This is a great discussion:

To Yoda: I'm really sorry you are so angry. It can't be all about taxes. Channel some of that negative energy into something more positive.

To Budfred: We seem to agree more and more........ Stay calm


To: Kay: We survived 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush and our conservative friends survived 8 years of Clinton. We will survive how ever many years of GWB. That is the beauty of our system of government. After 4 years we can change it.

To Yawningdog: I am glad you came to your senses. There is no proof lowering tax rates results in economic growth. I don't mean to say I support higher taxes or tax cuts, I just like arguments to be based on facts not fiction.

To Zurke: Politics has alwaus been a contact sport. Years ago when I worked on a congressional campaign in Philadelphia, I heard a great quote:
Politics is a whores game and bastards play it

They used to duel years ago and though I'm not that musch of hostory buff, I remember learning somewhere about one Senator killing another Senator right before the civil war. So Politics is probably cleaner now than in the past.

To everyone else: Keep the comments comming

[ZURKE]

Classicsoftware,

I realize politics has always been about winning. My point was that they could really give a rats you know what about fixing anything if they are not in power. Winning has taken the foreground over doing the job they were elected to do.

Now for some facts,

The Democrats want bigger government, why? Because it secures more votes.
Creating government jobs and services creates votes.
Tax cuts and bigger government don't mix.
If you are worried about losing a job or a service by voting one way then you will vote the other.

The problem is you can only tax so much and create so many jobs and services.
At some point the non government workers who are paying for the government workers and all these free services are going to be the minority. Were will the Democratic liberals get the money then?
It is a dead end street.

Oh, right, businesses. Tax corporations after they deplete the people.
Well why don't the Democratic go after them more often?
Its the Republicans that are in their pockets right?
Its the Republicans that support big business and don't care about the common folk.

A: Are they afraid to?
B: Or are they just as much in the pocket as the rest of them?
I choose B, Its a Big Lie.

Granted the Republicans are not something to preach about but I feel safer knowing I am getting screwed by them and not a Liberal Democrat.

[Budfred]

Zurke,

You start by stating a hypothesis as though it is a fact and then use that to support your whole argument. Unfortunately, it isn't true. The premise that BIG government leads to more votes for Dems is absurd. People who work for the gov don't vote Dem in any greater numbers than they vote Repub. Ironically, the poor, who benefit most from social programs, don't vote in impressively greater numbers for Dems either.

Republicans say Dems are in favor of BIG government, but the truth is that the size of government usually grows more under Repub rule than under Dems. The majority of cuts to government agencies came under Dem rule. Dems are clearly in favor of supporting infrastructure and developing programs to prevent problems down the line while Repubs are in favor of cutting today and damn tomorrow.

As I have pointed out before, historically the economy grows more under Dems than under Repubs. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it is more than a 20% growth in the stock market under Dems and less than a 10% growth under Repubs.

As for Dems and Repubs being in the pockets of big business... there IS some truth to that, but if you look at the numbers, it is less true for Dems than for Repubs. A significant reform of campaign finance laws would change that, since the cost of elections is what motivates it, but the Repubs have consistently blocked meaningful reform for decades...

classicsoftware,

I think we have mostly been in agreement for most of these political discussions... Also, what makes you think I am not calm?

To all: Since I have been admonished to both stay calm and "to knock it off" now, I would appreciate someone letting me know how I have appeared otherwise. As I said earlier, I don't think I have done any name calling, made any disrespectful comments or otherwise demonstrated a lack of social grace. I have disagreed with a number of comments made by various people on this thread, but that could be said of everyone else as well. Please let me know what behavior I need to curtail or stop telling me to cool it....

[ZURKE]

Budfred,
You have been great.
You start by stating a hypothesis as though it is a fact and then use that to support your whole argument. Unfortunately, it isn't true.
My "hypothesis" is based on fact and when the scare tactics start it is plain to see.
Ironically, the poor, who benefit most from social programs, don't vote in impressively greater numbers for Dems either.
Ironically, the majority of the poor that benefit from most social programs don't vote.
Republicans say Dems are in favor of BIG government, but the truth is that the size of government usually grows more under Repub rule than under Dems.
Usually?
You can attribute that to the Republicans compromising with democrats.
Dems are clearly in favor of supporting infrastructure and developing programs to prevent problems down the line while Repubs are in favor of cutting today and damn tomorrow
Clearly.
As I have pointed out before, historically the economy grows more under Dems than under Repubs. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it is more than a 20% growth in the stock market under Dems and less than a 10% growth under Repubs.
Where do you get that info? CNN economic data?
As for Dems and Repubs being in the pockets of big business... there IS some truth to that, but if you look at the numbers, it is less true for Dems than for Repubs.
How do you figure that? The Democrats steer clear of taxing big business just like the Republicans. Only the Republicans get a name for it.
A significant reform of campaign finance laws would change that, since the cost of elections is what motivates it, but the Repubs have consistently blocked meaningful reform for decades...
A change in the finance laws the way the dems want it means they could still get huge amounts of money from Unions and other special interest. While the Republicans are basically supposed to survive on the money individuals mail in. That sounds fair:eek:

[Budfred]

"My "hypothesis" is based on fact and when the scare tactics start it is plain to see."

"The Democrats want bigger government, why?"

Where are the facts to support this?? I know Repubs have been saying it for years, but that doesn't make it true.

"Where do you get that info? CNN economic data?"

Public Radio, in a discussion looking at common economic myths and debunking them.

[ZURKE]

Budfred,

What do you think the Democrats mean by creating jobs?
They start government programs and expand existing ones.
"Bigger government".

Well I listen to NPR myself as well as more conservative radio.
Funny that NPR should be debunking Republican myths:)

[Budfred]

"Public Radio, in a discussion looking at common economic myths and debunking them."

I didn't say anything about debunking Republican myths.

My point is that you believe: "What do you think the Democrats mean by creating jobs? They start government programs and expand existing ones. "Bigger government". "

You describe a belief of yours as though it is fact, but it is simply opinion. We could go through pages of debate about whether any of that statement is accurate. I will concede that the Dems are interested in creating jobs, but that is about all that I believe is true. Government shrank during Clinton's years and jobs increased. Those were not government jobs. Look at the data.

You can support almost any opinion if you state a premise and then argue from that premise as though it is fact. The point is that the premise is opinion as well. I have stated opinions here as well and I may also have indicated they were facts when they are not, but that only weakens my ultimate argument.

[classicsoftware]

Budfred: The staying calm part had to do with agreeing with me. There are not many people of our political persuasion as the country, much to my chagrin, us moving rightward at an alarming rate.

Zurke: It's all part of the BIG LIE. Democrats are tax and spend liberals who want big government. Republicans are fiscal conservatives that want to send your money back to you. It is the BIG LIE and it is repeated over and over again until it is gospel.

1992-2000: Clinton raised income taxes and the economy did not falter. Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government. Bill Clinton reduced the federal deficit and presented a budget that was balanced and projected surpluses for many years into the furture.

Big Lie Number one: increasing taxes will ALWAYS decrease economic growth. Decreasing taxes will ALWAYS increase economic growth. Even Yawingdog, the starter of the thread admits it is way more complicated than that.

Big Lie Number Two: Electing Democrats will result in increaswed government spending. False it is Repoublican Presidents Reagan and GW Bush that have spent more and had larger deficits than their democratic predecessors.

Just stick to the facts when you make your arguments.....

[Ghost_Hacker]

Ironically, the majority of the poor that benefit from most social programs don't vote.

Can we be sure of that? Remember a certain state that throws out votes if the "chad" doesn't fall right? Are there areas of a state where "how the chad falls" matters more than others? How many other states have this problem?


classicsoftware says it all a big lie, I say its all the big game and the game is called keep the folks fighting over the crumbs.
Take a hard look at any tax cut or rebate check,then take a look at how much money the feds take each paycheck.(not the state or city but just the feds)


Now in my case $600/52 weeks equals $11.53 per week "rebate". Is this going to make a big difference in my lifestyle? No, but it does go right back into the economy. (What else can I do with that little sum but spend it.) So the tax cuts help the rich more than the poor....well DUH of course it does simply because they have more taxable assets then the rest of us.Kinda hard for a tax break on stock "profits" to help somebody living in the projects. Oh wait... I forgot some of that falls down towards the poor in the form of more jobs and increased corp spending because ,after all, the very rich will want to take those profits and put them right back into the economy and , of course, they'll spend those profits in the poorer areas of the country (Sounds like more crumbs falling off the table to me ). Did Regan's tax cuts make life better for us today. If so then why are we still fighting over taxes?

Let's take the $400.00 per child credit some folks might get. Hmmmmm $400/52 weeks is $7.62 extra a week .Is that little amount of money going to make things better for any children I might have? Proably not. Do the folks in Washington even know how much money it takes to raise a child now days? $400...how about $4000? Sure poor folks get most, if not all, of their taxes back at the end of the year. hmmmmmmm....How about the feds do something about child care cost or increasing educational options for the poor so they can get a job that pays more than $7.00 an hour? Or try to keep some well paying jobs in this country instead of letting those jobs go over seas? Or doing something about the fact that ,in most places ,both parents must now work to support their kids?

Lets not forget the school voucher system. The feds would have us fight over the "left over" seats in some supposed "greater" private school. (lets face it not every kid is going to get into one of these schools even if they can afford to get there and there parents want 'em there)Hmmmmmm....how about making all of America's schools worth attending?

No, it easier to just throws us some crumbs and watch us fight over them. And we do so year after year after year.

[ZURKE]

You describe a belief of yours as though it is fact, but it is simply opinion.

20,000 airport workers is enough to support my facts.
And if National Health care ever gets going thats another anormous amount of jobs created using tax dollars. I can support my facts all day long.

Can we be sure of that? Remember a certain state that throws out votes if the "chad" doesn't fall right? Are there areas of a state where "how the chad falls" matters more than others? How many other states have this problem?

I dont believe any other state had the problems that florida did.
I also recall homeless people being brought to the polls after being offered ciggaretts as a carrot. That whole thing was a circus on both sides. Florida as a state in the end looked like the biggest idiot for letting it happen.

1992-2000: Clinton raised income taxes and the economy did not falter. Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government. Bill Clinton reduced the federal deficit and presented a budget that was balanced and projected surpluses for many years into the furture.

The economic boom had nothing to do with clinton. It was already starting to happen. The internet was already on its way. Clinton just road the wave and looked like something he was not. If you have that kind of money flowing why would you have to raise taxes in the first place? Your argument only leads to support mine.


Big Lie Number one: increasing taxes will ALWAYS decrease economic growth. Decreasing taxes will ALWAYS increase economic growth. Even Yawingdog, the starter of the thread admits it is way more complicated than that.

I dont care wether cutting taxes is going to spur economic growth or not I could really care less. But it will keep it out of the hands of the spenders and I will have it in my pocket to do with as I wish. It will force them to reduce spending, or that is what a balanced budget is supposed to do.
But no, what do the Democrats do hire on 20,000 airport workers.

[kayofcircles]

I agree with Classic..the whole slogan/brand thing makes me nuts. Democrats are this or that, and Republicans are this or that..it's just lazy thinking and actually, I just think they are ALL politicians which basically means they are out to get money for their state and to get re-elected and that's pretty much all. I think they start out, many times, with better motives and some intentions for doing "good" but after a few years in the "real" Washington..they've become "politicians."

Secondly, I know the buck is supposed to stop at the top..so President gets credit or blame..but I don't think that's very "fair." Many Presidents have had a Congress with the majorities being of the other party..and they opposed every single thing, and do their best to make that President look bad. We had a Republican governor who hardly got any of his good ideas through an entrenched Democratic legislature. Only thing that made him look good to the voters (served his two terms) was the line item veto..and every year his comments of the budget submitted by the legislature. He sent them back over and over every year until they came up with something better..and they would have to.:)

And last..I think there are many things that "sound" good but don't work well in the real world. The "trickle down" economic theory sounds good to me..except that, in the real world (as Ghost mentioned), the rich don't necessarily put the money into expanding business. And maybe the government has made it really easy to move the business somewhere like Mexico which doesn't have those pesky rules/laws about minimum wage, Social Security taxes, insurance, safe working standards, environmental laws, etc.

Zurke: I am a little unclear as to which airport workers we're talking about..but since we have had a Republican Congress and a Republican President during the time that we decided the "old" airport security stuff wasn't good enough for the "new" homeland security..would think one could lay that mess at their door. Heard last week on news that they had fired people doing airport security for many years..to replace them with the occasional ex-convict...OOPS.

[ZURKE]

I am a little unclear as to which airport workers we're talking about..but since we have had a Republican Congress and a Republican President during the time that we decided the "old" airport security stuff wasn't good enough for the "new" homeland security..would think one could lay that mess at their door. Heard last week on news that they had fired people doing airport security for many years..to replace them with the occasional ex-convict...OOPS.

It never stops amazing me how people do not do there home work.

It was the Democrats that would not pass the bill if the airport security personel and baggage handlers were not government workers. They faught tooth and nail. It was suppose to make better people of them(whatever).
If you cant do your job you should not be doing it. And now it is even tougher to get rid of the bad ones. As far as criminals go if you do your time, nobody should hold it against you if you are trying to change your life. Shame on you.

[yawningdog]

Man, I leave this thread for one day and look where it got, boring again.

To Yawningdog: I am glad you came to your senses. There is no proof lowering tax rates results in economic growth.

Oh man, how condescending can you get? I stand by my statement, which is that tax cuts result in increased revenue, and I never said anything about economic growth. Your only disagreement so far seems to be that the increased revenue follows, but is not a result of, tax cuts. Our disagreement is the cause of the increased revenue, which we both agree is speculative.

And yet, somehow this makes me a BIG LIAR, who is WHINING LIKE A STUCK PIG. That's a cheap shot, especially for one who then professes that I'm his "good friend".

Sometimes in life, the best you can achieve is a fragile sort of truce...and "live and let live."

Doesn't work. There are malicious, murderous dictators all over the world who salivate over peace loving nations as potential conquest. And don't think you're being clever by leveling this title at Bush. Want to know how to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys in a war? Look at how the winner treats the loser.

[classicsoftware]

Zurke:

You are 100% WRONG!!!!. I suggest you get a copy of Bob Woodwards nook The Agenda. You will see Clinton's budget and tax increase played a huge roll (not 100%) in the economic expansion during the 90's. Working directly with Alan Greenspan, the intention was to signal the Bond Market there would not be continuing defecit spending. This resulted in a huge fall in long term interest rates. That caused re-financing of mortgages and business loans. This money weas pumped back into the economy. In addition, low interest rates resulted in a shift from interest bearing CD's and bonds into teh stock market. This made it easier and cheaper for corporations to raise capital which also fueled the economic expansion. And it was actually PLANNED to work that way. Now that being said, the increase in productivity cuased mainly be the increasing use of computers, also helped fuel the expansion. The economy was on the upswing before Clinton took office, but it's pretty evident the upswing would not have been as strong or as long w/o the Clinton Policies.

[classicsoftware]

Yawingdog:


I did not say you are a big liar. I say you are repeating the Big Lie. Please point out one time there was a decrease in income tax rates without concomitant increase in government spending. You could also say the increased government spending also results in increased revenue. You are correct. The economy is way to complicated to be affected.

As for the stuck pig remark, get over it, its hyperbole and again not directed aginst you personally, unless your one of those middle class peiple who think poor people get all of the breaks.

The government, for better or worse, uses tax policy to influence the behior of the citizens. You think there would as much home ownership if there was not a deduction for mortgage interest and real estate taxes? Why do apartment dwellers get screwed?? Why do people pay less taxes because they have more kids????

Lighten up a little. This may be the time for a tax cut. If the economy slows the government should use defecit spending via tax cuts or direct government spending to stimulate the economy.

[ZURKE]

Classicsoftware,

I am sorry you feel I am wrong. But if you woul dhave me think that raising or lowering taxes has any major effect on th economy you are wrong.

More to my point was Liberals are for more spending and bigger government and their imposed taxes enable them. They are like alcoholics but with other peoples money.

as a side note, I vote Independent, I like some Democrats as well as some Republicans. I just can't stomach a liberal:)

[FrankSG]

Nothing hurts more than having to pay an income tax, unless it is not having to pay an income tax.
~Thomas R. Dewar~