Go back to Clinton's rates. The economy was better than when GW cut em'!
Gotta Raise Dem Taxes!
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
Better idea, Lets have Clinton era spending.......Can we have 1.7 Trillion worth of govt? It worked out just fine in 98-99.
More than that, Can we have some policies that encourage domestic production? In other words, stop enforcing rules & regulations which make the country uncompetitive.
If you want jobs to come back to the country, we must compete on a "global" scale.
More than that, Can we have some policies that encourage domestic production? In other words, stop enforcing rules & regulations which make the country uncompetitive.
If you want jobs to come back to the country, we must compete on a "global" scale.
It's not an either/or proposition. Raise revenue, cut spending.
And if cutting regulations and "competing" means getting rid of environmental and worker protections (the "competition" argument is never about other first world, European nations but with third world Asian and Latin American nations) then just declare the class warfare over and the wealthy have won (and not just winning as they are now).
And if cutting regulations and "competing" means getting rid of environmental and worker protections (the "competition" argument is never about other first world, European nations but with third world Asian and Latin American nations) then just declare the class warfare over and the wealthy have won (and not just winning as they are now).
Really? As I've illustrated before, when the Bush "tax cuts" were implemented, Tax revenues increased to 2.5 Trillion. In Clinton's best year, revenues were at 2 Trillion.
Bush just spent a lot more than he collected. This was his flaw.
Of course in an earlier post I posted a link about how the republicans blocked legislation about making items in the US. It got no positive response from you.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Rkgx1C_S6ls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here is an even better idea. Raise the federal tax rate back to Clinton's era, cut the Department of Offense 45%, we will still have the biggest military in the world by far. Eliminate all corporate tax loop holes and tax every stock transaction .001 cent per transaction.
Just for a start!
Last edited:
Which economy was better?
I don't know what legislation you are refering to.
Why does legislation need to be enacted for a business to produce a good in the US. If a businessman felt they could make a good, at a profit, it would happen without intervention from the govt, right?
If that businessman can't make a profit, he may need to alter his/her business model OR congress may need to get input on why this good cannot be brought to market for the benefit of its citizens.
I like ideas, and I agree with you in regards to military spending, however, you will get resistence from those who advocate Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes, drone warfare, perpetual war etc. (you know the crowd....and they represent both sides)
Another idea, eliminate the entire Dept of Homeland Security. Just because Bush created it doesn't mean we need to continue it.
What about cutting funding from the DEA that is used to carryon this war on drugs?
Raising taxes isn't always the best solution. California is exhibit A. I don't see where raising taxes has given them any type of advantage, but I could be wrong
both were "bubbles"!
Clinton had the dotcom bubble & Bush had the housing bubble.
President Obama, Clinton Prosperity Requires Clinton-Sized Government
There is a way for Congressional Republicans to reach an accord with Democrats that would enable the nation to avoid falling off “the fiscal cliff” into a searing recession.
Obama Democrats argue that the President only wants to restore the top rates that reigned during the Clinton presidency, which was a prosperous time. We should say: Absolutely, let’s do it. But in order to achieve a Clinton economy, you also must enact the other Clinton policies critical to the prosperity of those years: They include:
I. A Freer Economy
The oppressive ObamaCare of that time was HillaryCare, which was never enacted. If we want to re-create the Clinton economy, then we have to repeal ObamaCare. Are Democrats willing to do that?
The federal-regulation regime was also much easier then than it is now. Will the White House become serious about genuine deregulation?
II. Clinton-era Federal Spending Levels
Federal spending as a proportion of the economy was smaller in those days. That would mean budget cuts now of around $500 billion – not spread over ten years, but right now. How likely is that?
III. A Strong and Stable Dollar
The dollar in those days was almost as good as gold – a critical factor in that time’s economic boom. Will the White House ax Ben Bernanke and his destructive monetary policies?
The Republicans should tell Mr. Obama that, if he’s truly serious about restoring Clinton-era prosperity, he has to combine Clinton tax rates with the former president’s wise management of the economy that encouraged free enterprise and a true recovery. If not, we will see a return to recession in 2013 and continue on our current path toward European-style malaise and stagnation
There is a way for Congressional Republicans to reach an accord with Democrats that would enable the nation to avoid falling off “the fiscal cliff” into a searing recession.
Obama Democrats argue that the President only wants to restore the top rates that reigned during the Clinton presidency, which was a prosperous time. We should say: Absolutely, let’s do it. But in order to achieve a Clinton economy, you also must enact the other Clinton policies critical to the prosperity of those years: They include:
I. A Freer Economy
The oppressive ObamaCare of that time was HillaryCare, which was never enacted. If we want to re-create the Clinton economy, then we have to repeal ObamaCare. Are Democrats willing to do that?
The federal-regulation regime was also much easier then than it is now. Will the White House become serious about genuine deregulation?
II. Clinton-era Federal Spending Levels
Federal spending as a proportion of the economy was smaller in those days. That would mean budget cuts now of around $500 billion – not spread over ten years, but right now. How likely is that?
III. A Strong and Stable Dollar
The dollar in those days was almost as good as gold – a critical factor in that time’s economic boom. Will the White House ax Ben Bernanke and his destructive monetary policies?
The Republicans should tell Mr. Obama that, if he’s truly serious about restoring Clinton-era prosperity, he has to combine Clinton tax rates with the former president’s wise management of the economy that encouraged free enterprise and a true recovery. If not, we will see a return to recession in 2013 and continue on our current path toward European-style malaise and stagnation
I'm all for this if the alternative is Medicare For All or some other government run health care system. Without taking into account the fact that American companies cover their employees health care, making them less competitve with their foreign counterparts, then this is nothing more than a poltical rant and not a serious suggestion.
We need to make a distinction between somebody that has to meet payroll every two weeks and those that suck down a fixed paycheck and can bail if the company fails such as the HP CEO. Having their paycheck taxed heavily will not affect the business they are managing at all. If there was a shortfall, would they cover the difference with their own money? I doubt it...
These glorified employees need to be taxed at 75% like France. The people that have to meet payroll with their own money that built their business from nothing should pay ten percent.
The effective tax rate should be raised, not just the tax rate, because a loophole could be passed that allows the rich to escape these higher tax rate such as a lower capital gains tax.
These glorified employees need to be taxed at 75% like France. The people that have to meet payroll with their own money that built their business from nothing should pay ten percent.
The effective tax rate should be raised, not just the tax rate, because a loophole could be passed that allows the rich to escape these higher tax rate such as a lower capital gains tax.
Last edited:
Duh! 2 wars off the books, unfunded Medicare part D. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
President Obama won. Obamacare is law. Deal with it!
not only the "continuation" of the Bush policies.....but the expansion.
What was it that you disliked about Bush again......Patriot Act, Drones, warrantless wiretaps, Wars, Debt?
Forward!
Not serious at all.
Deficit reduction must include spending cuts and revenue increases. Even the Republicans don't believe you can cut your way to a balanced budget.
edit
Not only not a serious question, not a honest question
Tax cuts are spending and these tax cuts are very expensive. We can't afford them. We can't afford to be in Afghanistan. We can't afford to be in Iraq. We can't afford to lock up people for marijuana. We can't afford an entirely redundant Dept of Homeland Security.
It would be detrimental to the economy to go back to the original tax rates on everyone all at once but we will have to so we should start with those who can afford it the most.
If we can afford to keep those cuts, then stay away from every middle class/working class cut/exemption or program because we must be able to afford those too.
Last edited:
It's very serious, only because I want someone to prove that income taxes go towards whatever the govt allocates them for. I don't know if you're familiar with the Grace commission but I will share some of their findings:
-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984
The government operates on a deficit that is created from nothing by the Privately Owned Fed (owned by the same folks who own the major commercial banks) at interest, i.e. what could be created debt free and usury free by the Treasury has been usurped by the Banking Dynasties who have been ruling the World since ancient times. Taxes are a way of controlling, or manipulating the economy.
-Thomas Edison
Schools, roads and bridges are not funded by income taxes at all. Property taxes fund schools; roads and bridges are funded by gas taxes; airports, sewer and water systems are funded by user fees.
The power to tax is the power to destroy!
And fuck Van Jones!
Last edited:
To destroy? Really? As opposed to...?
Fuck Van Jones? Did he do something to you or you just blindly hate him for supposedly espousing a political pov you despise?
You didn't really counter what I said. I didn' mention any of those things you listed because I already know how they're funded. I pay all of those taxes and fees in Charlotte so I'm aware (though bridges count as infrastructure and the federal government is directly responsible for a lot of it and indirectly for even more, as cities and states lining up to get that money proves).
as opposed to not taxing people...at all. Think of the disposable income people would have. That, alone, would stimulate our feeble economy.
We've seen California, their economy is deteriorating and the only answer their legislature proposes is; We need more taxes! And this has been the answer for at least 20 years
just dont really care for communists, I value freedom too much
point taken! and yes, taxes should be raised, however, what sacrifices will the govt make to "get our fiscal house in order". All the govt has offered so far has been "a reduction in the rate of increase". Once again, where' the sacrifice? I'm a believer that you can't tax your way to prosperity (if it can be done, I'd like to see an example). It's just troubling when the Fed can print money "out of thin air" to finance the endeavors of the govt, and the citizens get left holding the debt
So, get everybody out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia etc. 2) Stop the War on Drugs 3) Get rid of the Dept of Homeland security (while we're at it, reverse every f*ckin thing Bush enacted)
Look, if we couldn't afford those things then, we really can't afford to continue down this path. I look around and see good people cutting back their lifestyles to get by, Why shouldn't I expect the same for a govt who claims to have my best interest at heart?
So why specifically has California's economy deteriorated over the last 20 years? Actually closer to 30 years. And after you ignore/deflect that question as you always do, why has Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina and other conservative, southern states never had a significant equitable economy?
I'm not holding out much hope that you will or can answer these simple questions.
But as I have said over and over, you don't value justice. You are unable to understand and will never be able to understand that you cannot have one without the other.
According to Moody's Investors Service, California's debt has tripled over the past decade.
Not only is this unsustainable but equally predictable!
Taxes and regulation have obviously misallocated resources necessary for this region to compete.
Cotton is still abundant in the south but how many Textile operations are here?
Land is plentiful, Is sustainable agriculture even possible with the regulations in place? The land is what made the South attractive, in the past. Schools like Alabama A&M, Tennessee State A&I, Tuskegee, Grambling etc. were formed to provide education to freedmen. If we research our roots, we could tackle a lot of these present day issues. Even these Universities are moving away from their "core" principles.
Last edited:
And be a nightmare for everyone not already financially well off and/or politically connected.
Taxes, as both of us have noted, pays for all of the services people need and use. So without those "destructive" influences, we would be relying on the goodwill and altruism of the people to provide education and protections for the poor, disabled, and the elderly and that's a proven failure.
I find this a very curious post because I know you know California's problem isn't taxes. I know this because you made a later post explaining it exactly.
Californians, as most Americans would do, voted for every spending bill but then voted down every means to pay for them.
But not someone else's freedom to believe differently from yourself, apparently.
I knew if we talked long enough, we would find a place of agreement.
There are also ways to change Medicare and Social Security (which is a separate issue)that don't cut benefits but make them more sustainable
Wrong! The wealth distribution in the southern States has always be abysmally. From when cotton was king to today. And what gave the south wealth was slavery. In the whole of the Americans, from South American to North America, anywhere African slaves worked on the land was made wealthy. When slavery ended, much of the wealth slowed or shrunk. It wasn't until social Democratic policies were enacted like tax laws and labor laws that the majority of the populations received some sort of increase in their living standards.
You need some serious education in economic history. You think cutting taxes will make a nation prosperous? Taxes have been falling since the 1980s and more so in the last 15 years.
Try again!
BTW, the first "Black" college was founded in 1837, before slavery was abolished. Cheyney University of Pennsylvania.
Actually, California has taken hits by anti tax crusaders in the 1970s and beyond. 1978's Proposition 13 was a major blow for the states tax collection. As a result, the tax assessment for the state is way under valued.
Also the California electricity crisis in 2000, caused by the deregulation of the state's electrical utility industry cause long term debt and lowering the states credit rating. This was one of the capitalistic schemes that brought down Enron.
Outside of your sentence structure, Maybe I'm suggesting black folks mobilize, recognize the land for it's potential and recreate our own wealth. I had an opportunity to hear Farrakhan speak a few months ago, he said "We built this, cultivated the land etc" & I stand by those beliefs wholeheartedly. You think raising taxes will make the country more prosperous?
So you'd rather see the money in the hands of the govt & not in the hands of consumers?
See JFK
Your point is?
Like I said, "Informed".
Obama On $1.2 Billion Black Farmers Settlement: 'Brings Us Closer To The Ideals Of Freedom and Equality'
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964
Let's go back to the 1964 rates.
So where are the jobs?
The north has HBCUs and their economies have faired better.
Get it!
I got it, let the citizens give the fruits of their labor to the govt. & prosperity is on the horizon.
It worked so well in the Soviet Union
Forward!
You know you have a problem when you are happy that someone is taking someone else money.
Republicans never have any problem taking some's personal freedom, liberty or life but will fight til the death over a rich person's money. Their priorities are hilarious to me.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VDW0ZnZxjn4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Their priorities are hilarious to me.
not sayin I'm republican but I say the same in regards to "secret kill lists" and expanded drone attacks all to impose democracy at the barrel of a gun.
sad, sad, sad
