Thank you ex-president Clinton

[me4osu]

I hear a lot of lefties whining about their tax cut. I certainly don't hear any of them offering to voluntarily give it back to the govt.



Hmmm, makes you wonder.....

 

[Udaloy]

Tax Me More

Actually, I think there was a bill going around the hill that was called the "Tax Me More" bill. It was to create a way for people to voluntarily send more money to the gov't come tax time. I think they were going to have a check box on the tax forms that allowed you to send in more than your share. I wonder why it didn't pass or what happened to it?



One thing is for sure, I'll never (I think this is one case were you can use the word never) send in more than the required amount. They spend too much as it is.



Udaloy

 

[Scot]

Re: Money

Originally posted by Champane Flight

After listening to all the whining from the Republicans for eight years, it turned me against the party. I have always voted for the best man and not the party.

I think you contradicted yourself.

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by illflem

Bush's '03 deficit is projected to be the largest in history by over two times and he still wants to cut taxes, would you trust this clown with your credit card?

But not as a percentage of GDP.

 

[RonaldLarson]

Sham Pain Flop

By all means, send more of your income to the feds ! It certainly does no economic good in your hands.

Ron

 

[dalton4]

Illflem, let me answer your credit card question. As for me, I would trust the President two to one over Gore, the spotted owl groups and most Democratic politicians.

 

[loncray]

But if we send in less in taxes, how's the guv'mnt supposed to pay for the war? Oh, that's right - I forgot - deficit spending. In exchange for lower taxes on the rich now, we get much higher taxes later - unless of course we get another surplus - but wait, the only president to have a surplus since, what, the 1950's? - was Bill Clinton.

 

[Udaloy]

Originally posted by loncray

But if we send in less in taxes, how's the guv'mnt supposed to pay for the war? Oh, that's right - I forgot - deficit spending. In exchange for lower taxes on the rich now, we get much higher taxes later - unless of course we get another surplus - but wait, the only president to have a surplus since, what, the 1950's? - was Bill Clinton.

Does the contract with America bring back any memories? We can go round-n-round but you will not get it. Have you taken any economics classes? It's very simple. Like it or not, the people with all the money are the ones that create jobs. You and I with our measley payrolls aren't going to buy enough or invest enough to impact the national ecomony. The best and easiest way to get more money flowing, is to keep it in the hands of the people that are going to invest it in some venture. When that happens, it creates more jobs and viola, you have more tax income.



Ronald Reagan, like him or hate him, proved that tax cuts are exactly what the economy needs to get moving. Yes, we went into deficit spending for a while but it created so many new jobs that the increased revenue paid off the difference. He cut our tax rates drastically (mostly for the rich because they went from a 75% bracket to a 32% bracket) and it doubled the gov't income from $500 million to just under $1 trillion. If the taxes are too high, why would you want to make the extra money if it just goes to the gov't?



Besides the pure economics of it, he who pays the most in taxes deserves the biggest break. People who make $40,000 or less don't pay squat in federal taxes anyhow. You need to quit worrying about how much the other guy gets and be happy with your tax break. For christ sake, he wants you to keep some of your money too!! BE HAPPY ABOUT IT.

 

[loncray]

I was in HS when the Contract on America came about. We overspent while cutting taxes. Basically the Reagan Administration just used the big credit card and left the bill for the Bush Administration. We also weren't fighting any wars then, so I guess it didn't cripple us. But the economy didn't really get better until the Clinton Administration - Bush41 lost the election because of it. I agree that the rich pay the most in taxes, so get the biggest breaks. The poorest pay the least. That's fine, and I won't complain about a tax break - but I don't think a real tax break is gonna happen, at least not a permanent one. My belief (and I took plenty of economics classes getting my Business degree) is that the tax cut's gonna hit, the economy is going to stay in the dumper, and the costs of the war, rebuilding Iraq, and the next war (Syria? North Korea?) are going to either force a big tax hike or make the biggest deficit in the history of the world.

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by loncray

I was in HS when the Contract on America came about. We overspent while cutting taxes. .

Congress was supposed to cut spending at the same time, they didn't.

Reagan actually FROZE government growth spending, but the Democrats couldn't have that, they screwed us again.



No new taxes, remember that? The democrats promised Bush if he would raise taxes, they would cut spending.

Guess who lied and didn't keep their end of the bargain?

Then they hammered Bush for not keeping his word.



The truth is out there, but you have to look for it.



Cut taxes, cut spending, =GROWTH=MORE tax revenue.



No matter what the 1980s cost, it ended the cold war, well worth it.



I better repeat that,

Cut taxes, cut spending, =GROWTH=MORE tax revenue.

 

[Udaloy]

First of all, the Contract with America was in 1993 so it didn't have anything to do with Reagan. Secondly, Bush lost the election because of the "No new taxes" fiasco. Thanks to the democrats for that one. I see I'm too slow in typing. Sled Puller is dead on.

 

[loncray]

I agree that cutting govt. spending would be great as part of the package - but it isn't happening under the Republicans either. The GOP holds the House, the Senate and the White House - is spending going down? Even non-military spending? And what would you have cut? The Clinton Administration got welfare reform done (oh, wait, that was the GOP Congress - can't let Slick Willy get any credit for anything), so that's not as laden with lard anymore - what Federal Govt. services would you cut for less taxes?



And I guess I wasn't in HS when the Contract was done - got my dates wrong!

This is my conservative side coming thru - I'm a deficit hawk.

 

[Udaloy]

I would cut everything but education and military. I would give the money to the states to divide among the local school systems. Hopefully, they could decide on their own how to spend it without too many stipulations from the state. Everything else can be cut 4% a year for my first term. Provided I get a second term, maybe only cut 3% a year thereafter.

 

[loncray]

Spending cuts

What would you do about all the unfunded mandates put out by Congress - and signed by the President? Right now, the states don't have any money to pay for anything - they're all cutting like mad.

What about roads? What about drug intervention? These are just two small examples. Obviously, for you the priority is education and military. Nothing at all wrong with that - but not everybody thinks the same.

If I were suddenly Emperor of the US (President doesn't have enough power to do what I'd want to do), I don't think I'd lower taxes a bit. There's just too many things the people (who elect those members of Congress that keep upping spending) want. Might try a national sales tax in place of income tax though.

 

[Sled Puller]

Re: Spending cuts

Originally posted by loncray



If I were suddenly Emperor of the US (President doesn't have enough power to do what I'd want to do), I don't think I'd lower taxes a bit. There's just too many things the people (who elect those members of Congress that keep upping spending) want. Might try a national sales tax in place of income tax though.

Ok, that is whats called "Socialism"



We are a Republic. Doesn't worrk that way.



You are within 1 inch of us just working, and accepting what the government gives to us.



We are fighting a war about that sort of thing right now.

 

[Udaloy]

I didn't say I was trying to make everyone happy. That's what I'd do with the budget. Once the gov't is out of the way enough, people will have more money to do with it what they will. They won't need it from the gov't.



I'd also think about doing away with income tax altogether and going to tarrifs like the Constitution allows for and sales tax.

 

[loncray]

Socialism - you are correct sir! At least I'd like to think mine would be a benign dictatorship!

But I don't think we're that close to socialism now. Too many checks and balances, at least right now. The federal government scares a lot of people (and we fought a war about that, oh, 'bout 138 years ago - but I don't think it's a particularly malign organization.

 

[loncray]

But the government IS people. And when they spend, it ends up in people's hands - thru government contracts. All those taxes we pay end up paying a lot of people's salaries - out of the govt. as well as in. Granted, there is probably some waste in there - and every President since George Washington has tried to clean that up - but you sound as though the Federal government is some giant monolith, sucking in your tax dollars on one end and spitting confetti out the other.

 

[Udaloy]

But your money is YOUR money, not the government's money.



"when they spend, it ends up in people's hands - thru government contracts. "



You are so wrong. Just like in every other aspect, the gov't is so bloated that they are inefficient, even in spending money. You are talking about tax and spend theories that the democratic party likes to use. Don't you know by now that it doesn't work? Tax and spend is known by another name: socialism.



I don't know about anyone else out there but I do not get a damn thing from a gov't "contract" and want it that way. I make my own money and I want to keep, spend or save it any way I want.

 

[loncray]

But it's exactly what our government is doing right now - taxing us and spending it on the war in Iraq. Later it'll be on the rebuilding of Iraq. And even if you aren't getting a direct benefit from a govt. contract, you're still seeing an indirect benefit, maybe a long way away but you're still seeing one. You said you'd keep up spending on the military - all that spending is either military personnel - or stuff they buy thru contracts. Besides, if the govt. REALLY cut spending, then you'd have a lot of people out of work - govt. workers and contractors and so forth - and no govt. is gonna survive that happening.