they do pay more… always have and always will… the issue is taking that money and instead of feeding the ever growing debt, some party wants to hand that money over to the ‘poor’… while this might ‘help’ from some varying argumentative degree, it is not practical or helping the society as a whole. So while the rich do pay more, shouldn’t that money be purposed for the community as a whole? rather than handouts to specific targeted groups of people, those of which already have issues managing personal economics (based off the situation they are in)?
cliffs: get rewards from those who work for their money by not working as hard for your money.
How are the 101 million Americans the poor? Why is he going to feed the debt? How does that not help our society as a whole? This money is being purposed to the community as a whole. This ‘targeted’ group is 101 million people…that’s 1/3 of the USA…the previous administration was purposing it the 1/3 of the fiscal community, now it’s 1/3 of the USA.
i don’t know what you are talking about. where did i say that 101 million Americans are poor??? i don’t get it… I strongly disagree with one person’s money being taken from them and given to other people within the community, let alone people that do not contribute.
“feed the debt” means pay it off… this helps society because our current-day issues revolve around our economy and national debt. you are participating in plenty of threads surrounding these very issues.
use tax money to pay for government spending, to pay for social reform, to pay for state subsidiaries, but don’t ‘make’ tax $$ off the working public just to turn around and give it to people… use it for society as a whole. we all thought the income tax refund bullshit was a dumb way to spend $$$ why would we turn around and not only do it again, but at a much more sever and illogical degree???
i didn’t get the feed the debt…regardless,
when you say: " some party wants to hand that money over to the 'poor" … this some party wants to help out the 101 million that are currently struggling and the ones that will help pay for these lovely bailouts! They do want to use (they is the same as ‘some’ party you were talking about above)
the money to help pay for people to have healthcare and other such things instead of the party that you seem to prefer, which wants to continue excess spending, especially with Iraq…now that’s going to be a great ‘bailout’ just to save face…we already goofed with Vietnam and we did pull out, look nothing happened…both are still alive and ~ well!
would you say that Clintons cutting of the military, cia, fbi, etc… made us a stronger country becasue we saved money? i wouldnt
we were weak?
i know that invading a country for some pointless war ass raped our country.
raping the cia and fbi resulted in the lack of intelligence to prevent events that lead up to 911
i though there was intelligence regarding it & nothing was done.
i believe it was in the 9/11 commission report
9/11 was an economical attack…& all this $ we are spending, war…etc… is proof they are winning…we are not winning, here @ home or in iraq.
our economy is in the toilet…& we just keep on spending.
You didn’t answer my question, so i will answer it for you. Supply side (or trickle down) economics did work. It worked when John Kennedy did it. He proposed tax cuts in 1961, and they were finally enacted in 1964. Don’t they teach history any more? It worked when Reagan did it in 1981. If it did not work, then the revenues to the government would not have doubled. When Reagan took office, the poverty rate was 14%. It peaked at 15.2%, when approx 75% of the Reagan cuts were in place. By 1985, it was back down tot he level it was when Reagan took office, and the last 3 years of his second term, it dropped each year. The poverty rate rose 3 out 4 years of the Carter administration, but fell 6 out of the 8 years of the Reagan administration.
As to no one but the rich benefitting, wrong again. The real income of the median family rose $3,000 under Reagan, after having fallen that same amount between 1973-1981. Keep in mind that the median family income in 1981 was a tad over $20,000, so a REAL increase of $3,000 was meaningful!
The top 0.1 percent of all taxpayers (roughly speaking those making over $200,000 a year) saw their share of income tax payments rise from 7 percent in 1981 to 14 percent in 1986. The share of taxes borne by the top 2 percent of taxpayers (roughly those making over $60,000) rose from 26 percent in 1981 to 34 percent in 1986. Taxpayers on the bottom half of the income scale saw their share of tax payments fall from 7 percent at the start of the decade to only 6 percent by 1986. The American middle class, people earning between $20,000 and $60,000 in the early 1980s saw their tax share fall from 67 percent to 60 percent between 1981 and 1986. They received the bulk of the Reagan tax cuts. If the rich ended up paying a bigger share of taxes, everyone else must have taken a bigger cut than the rich.
BTW, tax “loopholes” come from congress, not the president. Trying to tie Reagan to Enron is just ridiculous.
Bottom line is, supply side works. Redistributionist policies do not. No country has ever taxed itself to prosperity.
you keep bringing up the past…that is not going to work now. the way our economy is right now, if you give the rich the money, they are not going to “trickle it down” to the middle & lower class by creating jobs, etc…they are going to invest overseas, or secure it in other ways. you need to give the cuts to the middle class who do all the spending, therefore it will increase demand & that will spark growth. I’m not talking about using the money for condoms & clean needles…i’m talking taking the strain off the middle class. taxes are going to go up, period… i just think that giving the breaks to the rich & big business @ this point in time is not the way.
either way it was clintons fault. the ball was rolling full speed by the time bush was in office.
Stronger in what sense?
Economically we were pretty strong. The economy was booming. Unemployment was at it’s lowest ever.
Militarily? We were handicapped in many ways. The biggest problem was an antiquated training doctrine. When I went to basic in 1988 the current training doctrine was to fight the Soviets in trench type warfare. When I went back on Active Duty in 1993, the exact same training doctrine was still in effect EVEN THOUGH the Wall was torn down 5 years prior. The enemy was not so clearly defined in the early 90s, and there was no new training doctrine in place for many years. I support the military whole heartedly, but this goofy shit in Iraq is senseless and asinine. At one time Saddaam had weapons of mass destruction, but if he had any during the time of our invasion, we would have found them.
Clinton knew how to respond to today’s modern threats.
Bomb the fuck out of them until they give up. Most importantly, very FEW American lives lost. Secondly, very few American dollars were spent. A 3 day bombing campaign and troop mobilization posturing costs WAY less than 10 Billion dollars a month we are spending know. There is a time and a place to put troops on the ground. Iraq was never that place.
The logic that because someone has something, they should share it is bullshit and third grade. If I hit the power ball for $20 million, I COULD give money to just about everyone I know. SHOULD I give everyone some money? I don’t think so. Just because someone CAN doesn’t mean they SHOULD.
Why wouldn’t it create jobs? The rich don’t go over seas. The wealthy do !
Ever hear the expression “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”? Of course i bring up the past, becasue i use the past to illustrate that supply side economics works. It worked in teh 60’s, it worked in the 80’s, and it can work now also. Of course you need to give tax cuts to the middle class. That is one of the things Reagan did. EVERYONE should get a tax cut. Washington doesn’t have so much a tax problem as they have a SPENDING problem. But you said that supply side doesn’t work, and i provided facts that demonstrate that it does indeed work. Of course, i had to go into the past the get the facts.
If you had purchased $1,000 of shares in Delta Airlines one year ago, you
would have $49.00 today. If you had purchased $1,000 of shares in AIG one
year ago, you would have $33.00 today. If you had purchased $1,000 of shares
in Lehman Brothers one year ago, you would have $0.00 today. But, if you had
purchased $1,000 worth of beer one year ago, drank all the beer, then turned
in the aluminum cans for recycling refund, you will have received $214.00.
Based on the above, the best current investment plan is to drink heavily &
recycle. It is called the 401-Keg.
A recent study found that the average
American walks about 900 miles a year.
Another study found that Americans
drink, on average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year.
That means that, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon!
