Democrat campaign promises to tax the rich! we heard it all before!

[steveox]

Remember Bill Clinton said he promised to raise taxes on people making $200,000 and more? Well after he made those promises when you elected him

He Raised the Gas tax 5 cents a gallon more.
Raised the BTU tax 10% more.
Raised Communcations Tax 10% more.
Raised the Cigarette and Alcohol tax 15 cents more.

Now who does that hurt? IT DOESNT HURT THE WEALTHY!!! It Hurts people like you and me the little guy.

Just like BUSH LIED too on his Tax cuts. He promised to cut taxes on all americans. But he really cut taxes for BIG OIL Companies and gave the wealthy tax breaks. But Middle class people didnt get a tax break.The Moddle class people didnt see a bigger paycheck.And they Continue to work longer and harder for less. So DONT BUY THIS FROM THE DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES! Cause when they get in office theyre gonna turn right around and give everyone the shaft like BILL CLINTON DID!

[top gun]

Bill Clinton was a GREAT president! In fact he may have been one of our GREATEST presidents!:)

He moved the entire Democratic Party to the center and did many important things such as MAJOR welfare reform. Unlike the neo-cons that have tried so hard to hijack the Republican party over to some medieval Christian Conservative Taliban Party.

President Clinton completely wiped out the budget deficit actually creating a surplus. Which is now an insanely unspeakable amount again under President Bush.

If we recall there was a Republican Congress to deal with back then so laying these increases at President Clinton's feet is a bit distorted. Especially now that we're all watching the pubbies spend like there is no tomorrow during the Bush administrations time at the helm. They make the Democrats look darn near frugal... :D

[steveox]

You might been paying Gasolene for less if yall voted for BOB DOLE!! Cause BOB DOLE was gonna roll back gas taxes to 8 cents a gallon in federal gas taxes. But NOOOOOO YOU BOZOS Had to RE-ELECT BILL CLINTON and yall paying 17 cents a gallon in federal gas tax when it could have been 8 cents a gallon.

[PLC1]

Cut taxes and increase spending. What a great formula for a balanced budget.

Republicans: borrow and spend
Democrats: Tax and spend.

Who really stands for a limited government and fiscal responsibility any more?

[vyo476]

Who really stands for a limited government and fiscal responsibility any more?

That'd be the Libertarians. They're the only ones who stand for the traditions of American political conservatism.

If you don't believe me, just ask them.

Humor aside, if you're actually looking for limited government, they're probably the biggest group still advocating it.

[PLC1]

That'd be the Libertarians. They're the only ones who stand for the traditions of American political conservatism.

If you don't believe me, just ask them.

Humor aside, if you're actually looking for limited government, they're probably the biggest group still advocating it.

Yes, I think you're right about that, and a very small biggest group it is. The real conservatives have gone the way of the whooping crane.

[vyo476]

Yes, I think you're right about that, and a very small biggest group it is. The real conservatives have gone the way of the whooping crane.

A state of affairs I'm not at all pleased about. Actual conservatism - the idea of a limited government - was one of the things that was truly revolutionary about America, and if we've lost that completely...well, that'd be bad.

[USMC the Almighty]

A state of affairs I'm not at all pleased about. Actual conservatism - the idea of a limited government - was one of the things that was truly revolutionary about America, and if we've lost that completely...well, that'd be bad.

I agree with you, but aren't you .... a self-described liberal?

[steveox]

Why not start a GREEN PARTY REVOLUTION? Remember what Richard Pryor message was in the movie Brewsters Millions? He said
NONE OF THE ABOVE!!

[r0beph]

Remember Bill Clinton said he promised to raise taxes on people making $200,000 and more? Well after he made those promises when you elected him

He Raised the Gas tax 5 cents a gallon more.
Raised the BTU tax 10% more.
Raised Communcations Tax 10% more.
Raised the Cigarette and Alcohol tax 15 cents more.


I've no problem with those taxes. I mean gas, I get 45mpg, I don't care ;). Now if you feel the need to complain about gas prices, get a better car, instead of that macho militant SUV you may be feeling the urge to drive. I also despise soccer mom's, especially soccer mom's with no kids.

Cig and alchy tax, good, if they insure that this taxation will go towards medical care of those who have medical costs from the use of these, since after all it does create a huge burden on the medical system.

Communications, well I think this is fine, with a lot of new technologies comes the need for government subsidy for cables, technologies, etc.


the problem is NOT the taxation but the use of these taxes.

We're taxed, regardless of party in power. What bugs me out is the way this tax is used. We need to ensure that the tax dollarts are well spent.

[steveox]

I've no problem with those taxes. I mean gas, I get 45mpg, I don't care ;). Now if you feel the need to complain about gas prices, get a better car, instead of that macho militant SUV you may be feeling the urge to drive. I also despise soccer mom's, especially soccer mom's with no kids.

Cig and alchy tax, good, if they insure that this taxation will go towards medical care of those who have medical costs from the use of these, since after all it does create a huge burden on the medical system.

Communications, well I think this is fine, with a lot of new technologies comes the need for government subsidy for cables, technologies, etc.


the problem is NOT the taxation but the use of these taxes.

We're taxed, regardless of party in power. What bugs me out is the way this tax is used. We need to ensure that the tax dollarts are well spent.

The american Auto companies wont build cars they above 50+ MPG & 40+ in city. Id would vote for any democrat who pleadges to get the american auto company CEOs to force them to build better cars with 50+ MPG and 40+ in city or were raise taxes on them.Tell those CEOs if you dont wanna pay those taxes i suggest you build better cars or youll pay the taxes!

[PLC1]

The american Auto companies wont build cars they above 50+ MPG & 40+ in city. Id would vote for any democrat who pleadges to get the american auto company CEOs to force them to build better cars with 50+ MPG and 40+ in city or were raise taxes on them.Tell those CEOs if you dont wanna pay those taxes i suggest you build better cars or youll pay the taxes!

The auto industry will make more fuel efficient cars when the public demands more fuel efficient cars. The government isn't the answer.

[steveox]

The auto industry will make more fuel efficient cars when the public demands more fuel efficient cars. The government isn't the answer.

The government is the answer.Cause the japanese auto companies are doing it.Look at this car!
http://www.toyota.com/prius/

GM,Chevy,Ford,Dodge and Saturn wont build a car like this.

[PLC1]

The government is the answer.Cause the japanese auto companies are doing it.Look at this car!
http://www.toyota.com/prius/

GM,Chevy,Ford,Dodge and Saturn wont build a car like this.

They could build a car that gets 60 MPG. The problem is, it would be small, light, and not very fast, and would be a marketing failure. The auto industry understands what people want, and so they build larger and more powerful vehicles. If the government were to impose some kind of restriction, the industry would find a way around it.

For example, the fleet average standards were imposed to improve the fuel efficiency of cars, but large commercial vehicles were left out of the equation. What did Detroit build, and the public snap up? That's right, trucks and SUVs, large, powerful vehicles that did not have to live up to the fuel efficiency standards.

The government is not the answer to this problem. It hardly ever is the answer to problems.

[steveox]

I blame the Democratic Party for not allowing Drilling at ANWR and not allowing drilling on the coast of California. And not allowing refineries being built.Lets face it democrats wont allow 20 new refineries around the nation.This is why Gas Prices are out of line today.Democrats promised they would solve the gas price problems if theyre elected.In fact Hillary pledged this"" If Republicans are in minority,,We will promise to get the price of oil down and she said that exactly 1 year ago today. Well last year at this time gas was 2.85 a gallon now its 3.05 a gallon.Its seems to me THEY LIED!!! There was a campaign protest called
"" PAIN AT THE PUMPS=PAIN AT THE POLLS"" And this cost the Republicans the Election. I even Voted my senator and congressman out of office. And this Protester Yelled at D.C rally and said this,,, YOURE GONNA LOWER THESE GAS PRICES,, SECURE OUR BORDERS GIVE BACK OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS OR YOU CAN FIND YOURSELVES ANOTHER JOB!!!,,, And It Worked..Now were gonna Focus on DEMOCRATS in Congress and in Senate and were gonna throw them out too if we dont see these signs in november in 08
http://www.thechathamnews.com/gasprices31105.jpg
You can find yourself in this crap.
http://www.ipriority.com/images/unemployment.jpg
I Dont have a choice democrats.I gotta do what i have to do.You can ether get the gas prices down or YOURE OUT!!! Its very simple!

[chad750]

Raising taxes on the wealthy is a ****ing joke always has been always will be
for one reason only 10% of individual americans make 90,000 or more a year this pole was done by CNN so if that is true then if you raise taxes on people who make this much or more you will never get enough tax revenue to pay for all of the US's expenditures. Of course they will have to raise them across the board it is the only way they can take in any revenue I just hope we are not stupid enough to fall for it again.

[steveox]

If i was elected senator id vote for the wealthy to pay and extra 5% on income taxes and extra 10% on an CEO tax.Which means if youre an corperate excutive you pay 10% more. But here are the tax breaks. You get an deduction if your company together builds fuel efficient cars gets 50+MPG or more. If your company has solar power in building. Utilty companies get extra tax credit if they build a windmill farm and use electric hybrid vechiles. If you dont meet these requirements youll be paying a lot of taxes to the IRS!!

[PLC1]

I blame the Democratic Party for not allowing Drilling at ANWR and not allowing drilling on the coast of California. And not allowing refineries being built.Lets face it democrats wont allow 20 new refineries around the nation.This is why Gas Prices are out of line today.Democrats promised they would solve the gas price problems if theyre elected.In fact Hillary pledged this"" If Republicans are in minority,,We will promise to get the price of oil down and she said that exactly 1 year ago today. Well last year at this time gas was 2.85 a gallon now its 3.05 a gallon.Its seems to me THEY LIED!!! There was a campaign protest called
"" PAIN AT THE PUMPS=PAIN AT THE POLLS"" And this cost the Republicans the Election. I even Voted my senator and congressman out of office. And this Protester Yelled at D.C rally and said this,,, YOURE GONNA LOWER THESE GAS PRICES,, SECURE OUR BORDERS GIVE BACK OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS OR YOU CAN FIND YOURSELVES ANOTHER JOB!!!,,, And It Worked..Now were gonna Focus on DEMOCRATS in Congress and in Senate and were gonna throw them out too if we dont see these signs in november in 08
http://www.thechathamnews.com/gasprices31105.jpg
You can find yourself in this crap.
http://www.ipriority.com/images/unemployment.jpg
I Dont have a choice democrats.I gotta do what i have to do.You can ether get the gas prices down or YOURE OUT!!! Its very simple!

Good argument, except for this (http://www.manufacturing.net/article.aspx?id=142694):

WASHINGTON (AP) - A push from Congress and the White House for huge increases in biofuels, such as ethanol, is prompting the oil industry to scale back its plans for refinery expansions. That could keep gasoline prices high, possibly for years to come.

Oil industry executives no longer believe there will be the demand for gasoline over the next decade to warrant the billions of dollars in refinery expansions originally anticipated as recently as a year ago.

Biofuels coupled with efforts to get automakers to build more fuel-efficient cars and SUVs have been portrayed as key to countering high gasoline prices, but they are likely to do little to curb costs at the pump today, or in the years ahead as refiners reduce gasoline production.

Gas prices are based on supply and demand. As long as the supply can be limited, the price will remain high. It's basic economics. Why would the oil companies want to increase production and decrease their bottom line?

Democrats, Republicans, the federal government in general has little to do with the price of gas, except to levy taxes on it.

[USMC the Almighty]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Bill Clinton was a GREAT president! In fact he may have been one of our GREATEST presidents!:)

That's really a laughable statement. He was an adequate peacetime president. He didn't do anything spectacular. He didn't have any major screwups (other than refusing to capture bin Laden).



He moved the entire Democratic Party to the center and did many important things such as MAJOR welfare reform.

You can thank Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America for this one.



President Clinton completely wiped out the budget deficit actually creating a surplus.

That's what happens when you slash the military capabilities by 40%. And you can also thank Newt Gingrich for this. His Congress was on the verge of making an amendment that made it mandatory for the budget to be balanced in times of peace.

[PLC1]

That's really a laughable statement. He was an adequate peacetime president. He didn't do anything spectacular. He didn't have any major screwups (other than refusing to capture bin Laden).

Yes, and there was the lying under oath thing, but with a wife like Hillary, what man wouldn't lie about an affair with another woman?


You can thank Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America for this one.

Whatever happened to the Contract with America? Was it a casualty of the demise of the Republican party?

That's what happens when you slash the military capabilities by 40%. And you can also thank Newt Gingrich for this. His Congress was on the verge of making an amendment that made it mandatory for the budget to be balanced in times of peace.

Which still left the US as by far the biggest military spender on the planet.

The balanced budget was a part of the now roundly ignored contract with America. Can the Repbulicans now be sued for breach of contract?

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;13950]That's really a laughable statement. He was an adequate peacetime president. He didn't do anything spectacular. He didn't have any major screwups (other than refusing to capture bin Laden).

President Bill Clinton did a phenomenal job! He kept people talking. He kept the economy booming for all 8 years of his presidency. He completely wiped out the budget deficit. He helped make a lot of friends around the world. And he did try to kill Bin Laden, he came close... closer than anyone else before or since.

You can thank Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America for this one.

Newt Gingrich was and will always be a worm. His "Contract With America" was more like a "Contract On America". This is the slimy type of political pundit that would scream bloody murder about Clinton having an adult consensual affair... do anything he could to smear and highlight a persons personal life. While all the while he himself was cheating on his wife with his secretary and even was so low as to present divorce papers to his wife while in the hospital suffering with cancer. This is why he didn't even try to run for re-election.

Yes I'm glad you brought up old "Newt" because that's the exact example to a tee of the Republican Party. Thank you. :eek:

That's what happens when you slash the military capabilities by 40%. And you can also thank Newt Gingrich for this. His Congress was on the verge of making an amendment that made it mandatory for the budget to be balanced in times of peace.

The Democrats believe in "pay as you go". They strive for balanced budgets. This is how we worked down the killer Reagan deficit that was dropped in Bush seniors lap.

After the Cold War ended phasing out older weapon systems and building a somewhat smaller but much better equipped, quick strike type of military was and still is a smart and cost effective way to go. Granted it's not built for invading and lifetime occupation of other countries... but then no one though back then we'd let ourselves get sucked into another Vietnam situation.

Bush thinks we have plenty of disposable troops to do this. We will see.

[USMC the Almighty]

President Bill Clinton did a phenomenal job! He kept people talking. He kept the economy booming for all 8 years of his presidency. He completely wiped out the budget deficit. He helped make a lot of friends around the world. And he did try to kill Bin Laden, he came close... closer than anyone else before or since.

He was a mediocre president, which is fine. Not every president has to do something spectacular and revolutionary. He did some good things, he did some bad things, but to put him up in a category with this country's best presidents is really laughable.

And he could've had bin Laden if him (or Dick Clarke) were willing to be more aggressive.

Regarding the economy -- he handed Bush a recession, but to say that is to give him way too much credit. The President has little to no influence on the economy. The Fed Chairman and the international market override any president.


Newt Gingrich was and will always be a worm. His "Contract With America" was more like a "Contract On America". This is the slimy type of political pundit that would scream bloody murder about Clinton having an adult consensual affair... do anything he could to smear and highlight a persons personal life. While all the while he himself was cheating on his wife with his secretary and even was so low as to present divorce papers to his wife while in the hospital suffering with cancer. This is why he didn't even try to run for re-election.

...to say nothing of his politics. Sure he was hypocritical in going after Clinton for his affair (i.e. perjury). He's still the smartest man in Washington and the only one who has anything meaningful to say on every issue.


The Democrats believe in "pay as you go". They strive for balanced budgets. This is how we worked down the killer Reagan deficit that was dropped in Bush seniors lap.

Balancing the budget is a patently conservative (though not necessarily Republican) ideal -- Andrew Mellon, Calvin Coolidge...


After the Cold War ended phasing out older weapon systems and building a somewhat smaller but much better equipped, quick strike type of military was and still is a smart and cost effective way to go. Granted it's not built for invading and lifetime occupation of other countries... but then no one though back then we'd let ourselves get sucked into another Vietnam situation.

Not at all. He believed in slashing, slashing, slashing. The person your thinking of with the phasing out and creating a quick, light military focused around Special Operations is Donald Rumsfeld, not Clinton.

Clinton didn't merely reorganize or cut military spending -- he cut military capabilities by 40%.

[Abraxis Axis]

Clinton didn't merely reorganize or cut military spending -- he cut military capabilities by 40%.

that is because he wasnt going to start a religious crusade
__________________

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;13990]He was a mediocre president, which is fine. Not every president has to do something spectacular and revolutionary. He did some good things, he did some bad things, but to put him up in a category with this country's best presidents is really laughable.

You are entitled to your opinion. I believe you to be totally incorrect... but you are still entitled. President Clinton just recently spoke here in Columbus at The Ohio State University. He was great as usual.

It is true he didn't have a huge war to deal with during his presidency and those sort of things do often define a president. But he kept us out of major international military quagmires, he worked with the UN and or allies and he did a stellar job with the economy. He even had a plaque on his desk from day one that read, "It's the economy stupid". He did what I elect a president to do. Not try to be my preacher... not try to be my father... just run our country. And except for his personal attractions he did that seamlessly. So seamlessly it looked almost easy... even with an extremely hostile Republican Congress! :)

And he could've had bin Laden if him (or Dick Clarke) were willing to be more aggressive.

As I said still closer than anyone else.

Regarding the economy -- he handed Bush a recession, but to say that is to give him way too much credit. The President has little to no influence on the economy. The Fed Chairman and the international market override any president.

Revisionist history aside Bill Clinton had the economy as his main objective. He was handed a terrible situation and he worked with everybody to make it right. Again... just a great job at working difficult situations out to a good conclusion.

...to say nothing of his politics. Sure he was hypocritical in going after Clinton for his affair (i.e. perjury). He's still the smartest man in Washington and the only one who has anything meaningful to say on every issue.

Hypocritical is an understatement but of course I agree. As far a shear intellegence... Newt couldn't carry President Clinton's jock strap. President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Newt was just a loud, mean spirited little man that happen to be in the majority at the time. While Clinton is just the opposite. He actually cared about people and not just an agenda.

And it's funny because I actually had short conversation with Mr. Gingrich by chance at the Atlanta airport about a year or so ago waiting between flights. And trust me if you talked with him face to face... his personality would pretty quickly take the hero worship away.

Balancing the budget is a patently conservative (though not necessarily Republican) ideal -- Andrew Mellon, Calvin Coolidge...

Well you would definitely have to go way far back to find any of that "Calvin Coolidge:rolleyes:" because if you look at anyone in recent history, Reagan... Bush... Bush. You'd see that is no longer any part of their agenda.

Not at all. He believed in slashing, slashing, slashing. The person your thinking of with the phasing out and creating a quick, light military focused around Special Operations is Donald Rumsfeld, not Clinton.

Well again I remember things totally different. I clearly remember Clinton initiating the downsizing policy, why he did it, and the type of military believed to be most useful in the "21st century".

I'll be glad to stick with President Clinton. You can have Newt & Rummy. We'll just have to see how they all fare in history.

Clinton didn't merely reorganize or cut military spending -- he cut military capabilities by 40%.

And again we come back to this. The Cold War was over. We had no intentions of invading and occupying whole other countries on vast Nation Building campaigns. The military of the past was set up to be deployed to fend off major Russian Divisions... this was no longer the case.

(SIDEBAR: Wife ex-Army military intelligence, a Russian linguist specializing in code translation stationed at the Army lingquistics base in Monterey California.)

The bottom line is the military isn't supposed to be some massive "jobs program". It's extremely expensive and has to be operated cost effectively and in tune with the times. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Bunz]

A few things I will point out.
Gasoline in my hometown: Clinton years at its highest 2.30, right now under Bush, 4.93
Cigarettes under Clinton- 3 bucks, Bush 6 bucks
12 pack of cheap beer- Clinton $10-Bush 14.50
I know where I live has a very high cost of living and I make these comparisons to show real market movement. Where the difference is often minor on that sort of thing, out here in rural Alaska, the difference is very noticable.
Also keep in mind, it is true that gas prices are based on supply and demand. But that is also based on supply and demand of the futures market. Anytime there is an international upheaval as people saw a year ago during the Israel-Palestine scuffle, the price went through the roof. If Bush had half a heart and any brains whatsoever and could pull his head out of his ass concerning the progress in Iraq, we wouldnt be in the situation we are in with gas prices. A stable Iraq with production similar to what they had in 1989 would cause gas prices to drop faster than Bush approval rating, or faster than Clintons pants at a ugly girl convention....however you want to look at it.

[Bunz]

Also USMC, I notice that you harp on Clinton for cutting back the military...which is fair to a point because the military was down sized during his tenure, but the process was started during the Daddy Bush administration. Also keep in mind that there wasnt the need for as much military forces after the end of that little misunderstanding we called the Cold War. The GOP were in on that as well. Unfortunately, with our current administration and the wars going on, piss poor planning resulted in a real stretching of the military resources available to them. Rummy himself said you go to war with the force you have and not the force you wish you had. I will also point out that he said he wanted a smaller, more mobile military which is exactly what one has now compared to 1992-93. I dont think many would disagree that we have/had more than enough military resources to handle what was the real pressing issue of importance and that was Afghanistan. It was the diversion of men and materiel to Iraq and attempting to settle whatever score lil' Bush did have with Saddam that has caused the serious drain on the military.

[USMC the Almighty]

You are entitled to your opinion. I believe you to be totally incorrect... but you are still entitled. President Clinton just recently spoke here in Columbus at The Ohio State University. He was great as usual.

Clinton was a good speaker, no doubt (though I'd still take the Great Communicator).

It is true he didn't have a huge war to deal with during his presidency and those sort of things do often define a president. But he kept us out of major international military quagmires, he worked with the UN and or allies and he did a stellar job with the economy. He even had a plaque on his desk from day one that read, "It's the economy stupid". He did what I elect a president to do. Not try to be my preacher... not try to be my father... just run our country. And except for his personal attractions he did that seamlessly. So seamlessly it looked almost easy... even with an extremely hostile Republican Congress! :)

I'm in agreement with you that a president doesn't have to (nor do I really want them to be) some great revolutionary figure who alters the course of history. I really just want strong defense, secure border, low taxes, and minimal government interference everywhere else.

But Clinton was far from flawless -- there were a number of large terrorist attacks that he failed to respond to, not to mention the disgraceful mishandling of the Somalia crisis which Osama bin Laden still maintans gave him his most successful propaganda opportunity.

Furthermore, you are giving him way too much credit with the economy. He didn't confront terrorism which removed the area where he should've been spending the money (the military) and his presidency happened to be right in the middle of the internet/computer age which ignited our economy. Lastly, I'll say again -- the president has a minimal effect on the economy anyhow.

BTW -- Bush ain't doing too bad either.

As I said still closer than anyone else.

What kind of thinking is this? "Oh he could've easily had bin Laden but decided he didn't want the hassle. However, he was still close." At least Bush tried.

Hypocritical is an understatement but of course I agree. As far a shear intellegence... Newt couldn't carry President Clinton's jock strap. President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Newt was just a loud, mean spirited little man that happen to be in the majority at the time. While Clinton is just the opposite. He actually cared about people and not just an agenda.

Okay, Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Who cares? Newt Gingrich is a PhD in history which is much more relevant to politics anyhow. Your last two sentences are quite comical. It is a well-known fact by the staffers that Clinton had probably the worst temper of anyone who had ever lived in the White House. It is also a well known fact that all he cared about was crafting his legacy (i.e. an agenda). Of course, this agenda was fixing the Israel/Palestinian mess -- that worked real well.

And it's funny because I actually had short conversation with Mr. Gingrich by chance at the Atlanta airport about a year or so ago waiting between flights. And trust me if you talked with him face to face... his personality would pretty quickly take the hero worship away.

That's funny, because really the only reason I liked Gingrich so much is because of a 10 minute face-to-face conversation I had with him back in '04. I walked away from that conversation saying to myself, "That's the only guy who has a clue what's going on in Washington." My conversation was also at an airport, and he came up to my friend and I (who both happened to be wearing our BDUs) and started talking about the Marine Corps, the war, and then the election.

Well you would definitely have to go way far back to find any of that "Calvin Coolidge:rolleyes:" because if you look at anyone in recent history, Reagan... Bush... Bush. You'd see that is no longer any part of their agenda.

You obviously didn't read what I had written. I said that balancing the budget was a conservative ideal starting with Andrew Mellon, Coolidge's Treasurer.


Well again I remember things totally different. I clearly remember Clinton initiating the downsizing policy, why he did it, and the type of military believed to be most useful in the "21st century".

I'll be glad to stick with President Clinton. You can have Newt & Rummy. We'll just have to see how they all fare in history.

Didn't you listen to Clinton? He didn't say he was slashing the military to make it more equipped for 21st century warfare. He said he was doing it as part of his "peace dividend". He didn't want to be the strongest military country.

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;14259]Clinton was a good speaker, no doubt (though I'd still take the Great Communicator).

Reagan was a good actor I'll not argue that point. However I don't think many would say he had the warmth of Clinton. He also bankrupted the USSR by putting our military spending out of control knowing they could not keep up. The end result could be seen as good because it caused the collapse of the USSR. However economically it was deficit spending pure and simple and it was terrible. It made Bush senior have one of the all time bad economies to deal with. I remember well hearing the gory details almost every night after work on the news.


I'm in agreement with you that a president doesn't have to (nor do I really want them to be) some great revolutionary figure who alters the course of history. I really just want strong defense, secure border, low taxes, and minimal government interference everywhere else.

Keep us out of war if possible. Keep the economy on a good track. Protect the necessary domestic social programs the poor, the sick and the elderly need. Protect a woman's right to choose. Appoint good Supreme Court Justices.

But Clinton was far from flawless -- there were a number of large terrorist attacks that he failed to respond to, not to mention the disgraceful mishandling of the Somalia crisis which Osama bin Laden still maintans gave him his most successful propaganda opportunity.

Furthermore, you are giving him way too much credit with the economy. He didn't confront terrorism which removed the area where he should've been spending the money (the military) and his presidency happened to be right in the middle of the internet/computer age which ignited our economy. Lastly, I'll say again -- the president has a minimal effect on the economy anyhow.

Never said he was flawless. But I still to this day think his decisions were sound. And the country after seeing what happens when you go the other way sees the folly of trying to attack terrorists like the are some foreign country. It's like invading Sicily to try and eradicate the Mafia. It does not work.

I like the Qaddafi technique. Lob a couple cruise missiles into his tent. Kill a few people very close to him... in his case his son. Do this enough and it can produce a somewhat more peaceful atmosphere. No sucking the treasury dry and sacrificing our brave soldiers to occupy, Nation Build and referre a Civil War.

BTW -- Bush ain't doing too bad either.

You know I don't agree. His plan has been a disaster. He had absolutely no exit strategy or even a basic understanding of the region.

What kind of thinking is this? "Oh he could've easily had bin Laden but decided he didn't want the hassle. However, he was still close." At least Bush tried.

Clinton being the person he is concerns himself with things like collateral damage and he did make attempts to get Bin Laden.

If it's so easy why hasn't the cowboy got him? He's had what a four and a half year all out offensive and is still totally clueless as to where he is. And the one time he had him cornered he turned the job over to "sub-contractors". Of the two I'd still take the Clinton approach.

Okay, Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Who cares? Newt Gingrich is a PhD in history which is much more relevant to politics anyhow. Your last two sentences are quite comical. It is a well-known fact by the staffers that Clinton had probably the worst temper of anyone who had ever lived in the White House. It is also a well known fact that all he cared about was crafting his legacy (i.e. an agenda). Of course, this agenda was fixing the Israel/Palestinian mess -- that worked real well.

See you're making a very common mistake their. It's much more important to be smart across the board than experienced in one area. An extremely smart person like Clinton or even like Obama can adapt and make their decisions on good research.

Bashing Clinton's personality is lame my friend. He's loved all over the world and you know it.

That's funny, because really the only reason I liked Gingrich so much is because of a 10 minute face-to-face conversation I had with him back in '04. I walked away from that conversation saying to myself, "That's the only guy who has a clue what's going on in Washington." My conversation was also at an airport, and he came up to my friend and I (who both happened to be wearing our BDUs) and started talking about the Marine Corps, the war, and then the election.

I'm going to attribute that to the "birds of a feather" analogy and leave it at that. I could quickly see the mean spiritedness. I played him like I was one of his own. I knew that's the only way I'd really get to see how he was... and he was about what I expected.

You obviously didn't read what I had written. I said that balancing the budget was a conservative ideal starting with Andrew Mellon, Coolidge's Treasurer.

You obviously didn't read what I had written. They haven't done anything like that for decades.

Didn't you listen to Clinton? He didn't say he was slashing the military to make it more equipped for 21st century warfare. He said he was doing it as part of his "peace dividend". He didn't want to be the strongest military country.[/QUOTE]

Dude... probably no one on this planet listened to President Clinton more than I did. He wanted both a 21st century military (are you seriously saying there were not major technology advances in our military under President Clinton) and he definitely also wanted to use the "peace dividend" to fix your Republican created economic mess. Which he did just as he said he would. ZERO DEFICIT... SURPLUS... remember those things? Got to love the guy!:)

[USMC the Almighty]

Protect the necessary domestic social programs the poor, the sick and the elderly need. Protect a woman's right to choose. Appoint good Supreme Court Justices.

And here's where you're wrong. This is not part of the government's job, per Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

I like the Qaddafi technique. Lob a couple cruise missiles into his tent. Kill a few people very close to him... in his case his son. Do this enough and it can produce a somewhat more peaceful atmosphere. No sucking the treasury dry and sacrificing our brave soldiers to occupy, Nation Build and referre a Civil War.

Ironic considering you go on to herald Clinton for his concern with collateral damage in the very same post. Anyway -- this technique was a failure. Say what you want about Bush, but we haven't been attacked in 6 years. That's more than Clinton could say.


You know I don't agree. His plan has been a disaster. He had absolutely no exit strategy or even a basic understanding of the region.

I was talking about the economy under Bush, not the war.


Clinton being the person he is concerns himself with things like collateral damage and he did make attempts to get Bin Laden.

If it's so easy why hasn't the cowboy got him? He's had what a four and a half year all out offensive and is still totally clueless as to where he is. And the one time he had him cornered he turned the job over to "sub-contractors". Of the two I'd still take the Clinton approach.

It was easy back then because bin Laden wasn't hiding. In fact, ABC News interviewed him. Now that bin Laden is on the run, probably in some cave in Pakistan, it's much more difficult to get him.


Bashing Clinton's personality is lame my friend. He's loved all over the world and you know it.

Denial.


You obviously didn't read what I had written. They haven't done anything like that for decades.

This is clearly a futile point to try to get across with you.



Dude... probably no one on this planet listened to President Clinton more than I did. He wanted both a 21st century military (are you seriously saying there were not major technology advances in our military under President Clinton) and he definitely also wanted to use the "peace dividend" to fix your Republican created economic mess. Which he did just as he said he would. ZERO DEFICIT... SURPLUS... remember those things? Got to love the guy!:)

Technological advances were made in spite of President Clinton, not with his help. This is a self-evident fact. Palerider and I talked about this in a thread somewhere on this board, I'll try to locate it.

[steveox]

Bill Clinton TAXED the Little guy!!! instead of getting the Millionares and Billionares. He raised taxes on the working class people instead getting those millionares and billionares.If you had voted for Bob Dole he would had rolled back those stupid gas taxes before George H W Bush and Clinton raised them.When Reagan was President the Federal gas tax was just 7 cents a gallon. Now its 18.5 cents a gallon thanks to Bushs dad and Bill Clinton.

[USMC the Almighty]

Bill Clinton TAXED the Little guy!!!

The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes, so the "little guy" doesn't really have a right to complain.

Personally, I have no problem with user taxes so long as it lowers the damn income tax.

[steveox]

Well i didnt see a raise in my paycheck.When When Bush became president i didnt see a decrease in my tax deduction witholds.

[top gun]

The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes, so the "little guy" doesn't really have a right to complain.

Personally, I have no problem with user taxes so long as it lowers the damn income tax.

Well of course the "little guy" has every right to complain. An earned income credit or a larger child deduction or college tuition deduction might make the difference between a child going to college or a family possibly buying a small home instead of forever renting or for that matter just more food on the table of a large family. On the other end you're talking about buying a summer home or another big boat.

This benevolent upper income group you're talking about pays a higher amount in dollars and why wouldn't they? It's an "INCOME TAX". The more you earn the more the dollar amount would be as a percentage of that income. It's not the dollar amount paid... it's the relationship between that dollar amount and how much you make overall. And if you're already at poverty level you shouldn't be paying any income tax... YOU'RE WORKING AND STILL IN POVERTY!

[USMC the Almighty]

Well of course the "little guy" has every right to complain. An earned income credit or a larger child deduction or college tuition deduction might make the difference between a child going to college or a family possibly buying a small home instead of forever renting or for that matter just more food on the table of a large family. On the other end you're talking about buying a summer home or another big boat.

If everyone was taxed the same percentage (excluding those in poverty for you) then that would be fair, but that's not the case. There is no ratio. This is why all tax cuts benefit the rich because they pay the most.

For instance -- if you have 4 guys go out to dinner every day and the bill is $100. Person 1 doesn't pay anything, person 2 and 3 pay $25, and person 4 pays $50. If the owner gets generous and reduces the bill by 25% and thus the amount everyone pays gets reduced by 25%. Now obviously, the guy who pays $0 doesn't benefit from this and the guy who pays the most (the rich guy) benefits the most.

This benevolent upper income group you're talking about pays a higher amount in dollars and why wouldn't they? It's an "INCOME TAX". The more you earn the more the dollar amount would be as a percentage of that income. It's not the dollar amount paid... it's the relationship between that dollar amount and how much you make overall. And if you're already at poverty level you shouldn't be paying any income tax... YOU'RE WORKING AND STILL IN POVERTY!

I know you're a proponent of big government, quasi-Socialism, but one thing is certain: the Founding Fathers never intended for a country where people are forced to pay half of everything they earn to the government.

[vyo476]

This benevolent upper income group you're talking about pays a higher amount in dollars and why wouldn't they? It's an "INCOME TAX". The more you earn the more the dollar amount would be as a percentage of that income. It's not the dollar amount paid... it's the relationship between that dollar amount and how much you make overall. And if you're already at poverty level you shouldn't be paying any income tax... YOU'RE WORKING AND STILL IN POVERTY!

Actually, it's a "progressive" income tax. "Income tax" really only means that income is being taxed, without defining any of the workings of the tax. Tacking on the word "progressive" is what makes the income tax do what you're talking about here.

Don't you love semantics?

[palerider]

Well i didnt see a raise in my paycheck.When When Bush became president i didnt see a decrease in my tax deduction witholds.

You have to fill out a w-4 if you want your withholding to change. Your withholding doesn't change just because your tax rate changes.

[Rokerijdude11]

The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes, so the "little guy" doesn't really have a right to complain.

Personally, I have no problem with user taxes so long as it lowers the damn income tax.

BULLSH&T

the little guy works every year till june 4 to pay his taxes

[Rokerijdude11]

ohhh you turned off the edit featire for me huh? cool alot more posts then

test

[USMC the Almighty]

BULLSH&T

the little guy works every year till june 4 to pay his taxes

It's a fact.

Top 1% pay 34.27% of income taxes

Top 5% pay 54.36%

Top 10% pay 65.84%

Top 50% pay 96.54%

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

[USMC the Almighty]

ohhh you turned off the edit featire for me huh? cool alot more posts then

test

Yeah, Roker, you got it. I turned off your edit feature.

[vyo476]

It's a fact.

Top 1% pay 34.27% of income taxes

Top 5% pay 54.36%

Top 10% pay 65.84%

Top 50% pay 96.54%

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

This is my favorite explanation of how the tax system (and especially tax breaks) works.

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;14355]If everyone was taxed the same percentage (excluding those in poverty for you) then that would be fair, but that's not the case. There is no ratio. This is why all tax cuts benefit the rich because they pay the most.

Being a good person I'm presuming you too would be against taxing people already in poverty.

There are tax brackets with higher income earners paying a stepped up rate that is true. But something that's never mentioned in these "unfair to tax the rich more" discussions is this. What about all the tax shelters available and often used by this group? I'll ask you this question... Are you taxed on your total income?

No you are not. You are taxed on your TAXABLE income. This is the part often forgotten. Once you have enough money to become "comfortable" it is then possible to shelter some of your assets "income" so it is not taxed at all. Even something as basic & common as the mortgage interest deduction is something not available to those of less means that do not have the money to buy a home and must rent a place to live.

These are just examples and I'm not against various types of tax reform. I don't however think it's a blatant raping of the rich as some might have you believe.

I know you're a proponent of big government, quasi-Socialism, but one thing is certain: the Founding Fathers never intended for a country where people are forced to pay half of everything they earn to the government.

Well comrade... LoL:D ... I'm not all that big on taxes either. I do stand up for basic social needs programs. I think they are necessary in our modern day society. I'll take Social Security for an example. There was a time when many generations stayed together in one residence (usually a farm) and took care of each other. As times changed and city life became more the norm families started separating by generation more and more and we had a rampant outbreak of poverty stricken old age where the elderly were in many cases living on the streets homeless.

Somethings are just relevant now that weren't back in 1776. If we base everything as only being the right and necessary things for that time period and not today you can see there would be a problem. We'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be voting. So I try not to get too stuck in the past.

I agree with you though... a 50% income tax would of course be excessive.

[USMC the Almighty]

You make a decent argument, but I still believe that the tax system is unfairly biased against those who earn more money.


Well comrade... LoL:D ... I'm not all that big on taxes either. I do stand up for basic social needs programs.

And this is our fundamental disagreement. I, like this country's Founders, believe firmly in the concept of self-responsibility. This is not mutually exclusive with the idea of helping people, but the federal government is NEVER the solution to social issues. Everything the federal government gets involved in just becomes slower, inefficient, and expensive.

This is why I support charity and faith-based programs. It should come as no surprise that, for this reason, conservative individuals and capitalist countries are more charitable. Conservatives and capitalists believe in personally helping one another out through direct action. Liberals and other big-government countries have this feeling that the government will take care of everything and the government is the source of every solution.

This is the fundamental departure of ideals. I believe that the government which governs least, governs best. You believe that the government that governs most governs best.

I think they are necessary in our modern day society. I'll take Social Security for an example. There was a time when many generations stayed together in one residence (usually a farm) and took care of each other. As times changed and city life became more the norm families started separating by generation more and more and we had a rampant outbreak of poverty stricken old age where the elderly were in many cases living on the streets homeless.

Social Security was nothing more than another one of FDR's "reform" measures in attempting to create a welfare state of perpetual dependence on the government. A lot like today's Democratic party.

And it makes sense. The Democrats depend on this impoverished bracket (the "lazy bums" as steveox refers to them) to vote for them. So they really have no incentive to get these people out of poverty. Because once they start making money, and paying taxes, well -- that's when people start moving right.

Somethings are just relevant now that weren't back in 1776. If we base everything as only being the right and necessary things for that time period and not today you can see there would be a problem. We'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be voting. So I try not to get too stuck in the past.

Of course, but you always have to keep the intent of the Founders in mind. If nothing else, they stood for limited federal government. It was most certainly never the intention of the Founders to have a state where the top 1% of the country pays for themselves and the lower third of the country, for example.

Read Jefferson. He wanted a country where everyone built nice families, worked with their own land out on the farm, and made a good, decent living with absolutely no interference from the federal government.

The Founders would absolutely hate welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all these other big-gov't programs, but moreso they would fear that this is the beginning of the one thing they unanimously wanted to avoid: a large federal government that could potentially deteriorate into tyranny.

I agree with you though... a 50% income tax would of course be excessive.

So you support cutting taxes?

[PLC1]

Also USMC, I notice that you harp on Clinton for cutting back the military...which is fair to a point because the military was down sized during his tenure, but the process was started during the Daddy Bush administration. Also keep in mind that there wasnt the need for as much military forces after the end of that little misunderstanding we called the Cold War. The GOP were in on that as well. Unfortunately, with our current administration and the wars going on, piss poor planning resulted in a real stretching of the military resources available to them. Rummy himself said you go to war with the force you have and not the force you wish you had. I will also point out that he said he wanted a smaller, more mobile military which is exactly what one has now compared to 1992-93. I dont think many would disagree that we have/had more than enough military resources to handle what was the real pressing issue of importance and that was Afghanistan. It was the diversion of men and materiel to Iraq and attempting to settle whatever score lil' Bush did have with Saddam that has caused the serious drain on the military.


There is a lot that can be blamed on Bush's policies, but is he really in charge of the price of beer in Alaska?

The point is, the power of the president is limited.

[Bunz]

There is a lot that can be blamed on Bush's policies, but is he really in charge of the price of beer in Alaska?

The point is, the power of the president is limited.

I didnt suggest that he was souly responsible for the price of beer, or anything for that matter. I was merely giving a snapshot of how the price of things have increased somewhat dramatically since Clinton left office, despite the notion that Bush decreased taxes and therefore the price of a commodity should be less. Some of it can be credited to inflation. But the point of the whole thing was to point out that things were cheaper in many cases under Clinton. A huge part of this is the increasing price in energy which the President does have plenty of influence on. Keep in mind that there are no roads connecting towns in rural Alaska, so goods must be flown in. When 7 years ago, the cost of jet fuel was much less than it is now about a dollar a gallon vs about $4 now. This comes from energy and foreign policy that is the responsibility of the President.

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;14556]You make a decent argument, but I still believe that the tax system is unfairly biased against those who earn more money.

We can agree to disagree. :)

And this is our fundamental disagreement. I, like this country's Founders, believe firmly in the concept of self-responsibility. This is not mutually exclusive with the idea of helping people, but the federal government is NEVER the solution to social issues. Everything the federal government gets involved in just becomes slower, inefficient, and expensive.

This is why I support charity and faith-based programs. It should come as no surprise that, for this reason, conservative individuals and capitalist countries are more charitable. Conservatives and capitalists believe in personally helping one another out through direct action. Liberals and other big-government countries have this feeling that the government will take care of everything and the government is the source of every solution.

This is the fundamental departure of ideals. I believe that the government which governs least, governs best. You believe that the government that governs most governs best.

You are right this is where we part ways. I'm emphatically against the American people being put at the mercy of the church when they need help. The church with today's population just absolutely could never handle the load and if left only to them they would do a 1000 times worse job than the government know matter what flaws may be in the current system. Remember the Reverend Jim Baker... PTL TV network, and Heritage USA theme park??? :eek:

Social Security was nothing more than another one of FDR's "reform" measures in attempting to create a welfare state of perpetual dependence on the government. A lot like today's Democratic party.

And it makes sense. The Democrats depend on this impoverished bracket (the "lazy bums" as steveox refers to them) to vote for them. So they really have no incentive to get these people out of poverty. Because once they start making money, and paying taxes, well -- that's when people start moving right.

I hate to see people write stuff like this because it is so unfair and completely untrue. Social security was never meant as a major retirement plan nor was is some welfare for bums. Social Security was designed the same way a "Christmas Fund Account" is. You pay into it your whole working life (YOUR OWN MONEY) and you can't draw from it until Christmas or in this case RETIREMENT. It was developed as a self enforced savings plan to give some small measure of income to help prevent poverty stricken old age.

The fact that the government has raided the fund so many time that if it's not shored up some while the baby boomers move through it will face shortfalls is certainly no indication that the plan is bad.

That's like saying if I rob the hen house and eat all the chickens I have a right to complain about the lack of eggs for breakfast. :D

Of course, but you always have to keep the intent of the Founders in mind. If nothing else, they stood for limited federal government. It was most certainly never the intention of the Founders to have a state where the top 1% of the country pays for themselves and the lower third of the country, for example.

Read Jefferson. He wanted a country where everyone built nice families, worked with their own land out on the farm, and made a good, decent living with absolutely no interference from the federal government.

The Founders would absolutely hate welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all these other big-gov't programs, but moreso they would fear that this is the beginning of the one thing they unanimously wanted to avoid: a large federal government that could potentially deteriorate into tyranny.

Come on... We don't really know any of this to be true. People change with the times. It's like saying the Founding Fathers would hate automobiles because they loved their horses. :D

So you support cutting taxes?

I support the Democrats version of "pay as you go". You have to work at a balanced budget. If you want to spend more over here... then you have to find a place somewhere else to cut.

[DrWho]

Remember Bill Clinton said he promised to raise taxes on people making $200,000 and more? Well after he made those promises when you elected him

He Raised the Gas tax 5 cents a gallon more.
Raised the BTU tax 10% more.
Raised Communcations Tax 10% more.
Raised the Cigarette and Alcohol tax 15 cents more.

Now who does that hurt? IT DOESNT HURT THE WEALTHY!!! It Hurts people like you and me the little guy.

Just like BUSH LIED too on his Tax cuts. He promised to cut taxes on all americans. But he really cut taxes for BIG OIL Companies and gave the wealthy tax breaks. But Middle class people didnt get a tax break.The Moddle class people didnt see a bigger paycheck.And they Continue to work longer and harder for less. So DONT BUY THIS FROM THE DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES! Cause when they get in office theyre gonna turn right around and give everyone the shaft like BILL CLINTON DID!

I do believe the democrats. They will raise the taxes on those making more money. And they will raise a bunch of other taxes too. An they will eliminate the Bush tax breaks. And make some new useless social programs. So by all means don't vote for them.

And P Bush did not do as well as I had hoped in many areas. But I clearly remember getting a check from the government as a result of his tax breaks. And my income taxes have been lower each year since.

[PLC1]

I do believe the democrats. They will raise the taxes on those making more money. And they will raise a bunch of other taxes too. An they will eliminate the Bush tax breaks. And make some new useless social programs. So by all means don't vote for them.

And P Bush did not do as well as I had hoped in many areas. But I clearly remember getting a check from the government as a result of his tax breaks. And my income taxes have been lower each year since.

The Democrats will probably let the Bush tax cuts sunset, should they have enough votes or should they win the White House. They could raise some other taxes as well. They probably will increase spending, too. All of this is quite different from the Republican strategy of increasing spending, lowering taxes, and borrowing the difference.

[steveox]

Thats why we need a GREEN PARTY REVOLUTION!!!! Give them a chance to see what they can do!!

[PLC1]

Thats why we need a GREEN PARTY REVOLUTION!!!! Give them a chance to see what they can do!!

Or, better yet, a Libertarian Party revolution.

[9sublime]

Agreed PLC1

[Dr.Who]

The taxes on the rich are unfair. It makes no sense for a progressive tax in which a person pays more than another person just because he has more. If his lifestyle means that he is benefiting more than another then it makes sense. So if he has a bigger home and needs more fire protection than another person his real estate tax would logically be higher than the person's with the small home.

However, the taxes on the poor are unfair too. It makes no sense for a person who has nothing to go get a loaf of bread and pay sales tax on it.

But as long as we get caught up in the game of rich verus poor instead of realizing that the problem is politicians versus taxpayers we loose.

Everyone should pay a flat tax between 5 and 10%. This would limit the size of government. Everyone should get a standard deduction high enough so that the legitimate poor are not paying any tax.

There should be no special exemptions that everyone cannot take. Not even for being married or having kids. This is just uncle sam's way to influence social decisions we make and it's none of his business.

Once your money is yours then you should not pay taxes on it again. And if you want to give it away or leave it to your kids then that should not be taxed. When you use it to engage in commerce then it can be taxed.

The taxes we pay should make sense. Why should the spanish american war be funded with money on today's telephone tax? Not only is it over but it has nothing to do with telephones. When we need to regulate phone service through the FCC then it makes sense to have a tax just high enough to cover the costs of running the FCC.

The taxes we pay should be clearly described and easy to understand and track. I should know every time I am being taxed and how much I am paying and what it is being used for. Does that seem like too much to ask?

[PLC1]

Everyone should pay a flat tax between 5 and 10%. This would limit the size of government. Everyone should get a standard deduction high enough so that the legitimate poor are not paying any tax.

There should be no special exemptions that everyone cannot take. Not even for being married or having kids. This is just uncle sam's way to influence social decisions we make and it's none of his business.

I think that would work, but the government would have to be a whole lot smaller than it is right now. The first step would have to be to cut back the federal government until it was only doing what the Constitution allowed it to do.

Consider the federal budget currently being debated for the coming year. It totals 2.9 trillion dollars, or about $10,000 per person, children included. If the flat tax was 10%, the average income would have to be $100,000 per year over the standard deduction, and that average would have to include people with no income (children, homeless, etc.), so productive working people would have to have incomes much higher than that for the current budget to work.

Not that cutting back is a bad idea, but that would have to come first.



The taxes we pay should be clearly described and easy to understand and track. I should know every time I am being taxed and how much I am paying and what it is being used for. Does that seem like too much to ask?

I really like the idea of tracking taxes. Do you know where your taxes are going right now? You would have to wade through over 400 pages of budget data to know.

How many realize that the war in Iraq has already cost over $5,000 per taxpayer, for example, or that $1,770 each was "borrowed" from SS to sort of balance the budget to only a $3,000 per taxpayer in additional deficit?

[FRYandBENDER]

Everyone should pay a flat tax between 5 and 10%. This would limit the size of government. Everyone should get a standard deduction high enough so that the legitimate poor are not paying any tax.



Have you heard of the fairtax?

http://www.fairtax.org

Here are the reasons I support it.

1) It gets rid of the IRS. No more income tax, "death" tax, as well as many other idividual taxes and it also gets rid of taxes on businesses (They only include it in the price of their products anyways). With our businesses being able to make their decisions based on what is best for their company, and not on the tax implications, not only will we see our businesses coming back to America, but we will also see more foreign businesses coming here.

2) It is a sales tax that will be included into the price of NEW goods and services we purchase. With the taxes on businesses having been removed, and the fairtax added on, the price of goods and services will stay the same, and in many instances be lower. It will be fair to everyone be they rich or poor. When a poor person spends $100 dollars only $23 will be in taxes. When a rich person spends $100,000, $23,000 will be paid in taxes. The government will collect taxes only on what we spend, and not what we earn.

3) A prebate check will be given to everyone (rich and poor) at the beginning of every month, based on family size, to cover the amount of tax that would be spent on the necessities of life; food, clothes, baby formula, etc. This will ensure that the most destitute of citizens will not pay taxes unless they purchase something that is not a necessity; cigarettes, booze, rims, whatever. Also, since people will be getting their whole paycheck, there will be more opportunity for people to save, invest, or decrease their debt.

4) Since this will be a sales tax, there will be no loop holes for anyone. Illegal immigrants, drug dealers, those with enough $$ in the bank to not work and therefore have no income to tax, etc. will all be taxed like every other American.

There are a lot more details on the website. Virtually any answer to any question can be found there.

What do you think so far?

[ChairmanMeow]

Tax the rich! I’ve never heard that before!

[Dr.Who]

Have you heard of the fairtax?

http://www.fairtax.org

Here are the reasons I support it.

1) It gets rid of the IRS. No more income tax, "death" tax, as well as many other idividual taxes and it also gets rid of taxes on businesses (They only include it in the price of their products anyways). With our businesses being able to make their decisions based on what is best for their company, and not on the tax implications, not only will we see our businesses coming back to America, but we will also see more foreign businesses coming here.

2) It is a sales tax that will be included into the price of NEW goods and services we purchase. With the taxes on businesses having been removed, and the fairtax added on, the price of goods and services will stay the same, and in many instances be lower. It will be fair to everyone be they rich or poor. When a poor person spends $100 dollars only $23 will be in taxes. When a rich person spends $100,000, $23,000 will be paid in taxes. The government will collect taxes only on what we spend, and not what we earn.

3) A prebate check will be given to everyone (rich and poor) at the beginning of every month, based on family size, to cover the amount of tax that would be spent on the necessities of life; food, clothes, baby formula, etc. This will ensure that the most destitute of citizens will not pay taxes unless they purchase something that is not a necessity; cigarettes, booze, rims, whatever. Also, since people will be getting their whole paycheck, there will be more opportunity for people to save, invest, or decrease their debt.

4) Since this will be a sales tax, there will be no loop holes for anyone. Illegal immigrants, drug dealers, those with enough $$ in the bank to not work and therefore have no income to tax, etc. will all be taxed like every other American.

There are a lot more details on the website. Virtually any answer to any question can be found there.

What do you think so far?

I didn't actually go to the website but you mention some interesting things. However, if all taxes were sales tax would that mean that things like fire protection were paid for with taxes on the kinds of things that one buys in the store. So the really wealthy single guy who lives in the vintage wood frame mansion has a high fire risk but buys very little to support the fire department that protects him. Meanwhile the average family of 4 living in a brick apartment building with the latest in smoke alarms and sprinklers buys a ton of groceries per week and ends up paying more for fire protection.

I suppose that a tax system that included a variety of taxes (sales, income, real estate, direct billing) would end up being more balanced and fair.

[PLC1]

I didn't actually go to the website but you mention some interesting things. However, if all taxes were sales tax would that mean that things like fire protection were paid for with taxes on the kinds of things that one buys in the store. So the really wealthy single guy who lives in the vintage wood frame mansion has a high fire risk but buys very little to support the fire department that protects him. Meanwhile the average family of 4 living in a brick apartment building with the latest in smoke alarms and sprinklers buys a ton of groceries per week and ends up paying more for fire protection.

I suppose that a tax system that included a variety of taxes (sales, income, real estate, direct billing) would end up being more balanced and fair.

Doesn't that single guy living in the vintage wood frame mansion have to pay the fair tax on the mansion? My understanding is that the tax covers everything, including real estate.

[steveox]

The Only Sales tax id support is Luxery Sales tax. Like 10% Extra whern you spend on Jewlery Gold & Diamond Watches,Gold or Diamond Necklaces,Cars thats over $40,000,Yachts, Mink Fur Coats,Private Planes,Suits over $500 and Homes over $500,000.Thats the sales tax i support

[FRYandBENDER]

Sorry, duplicate.

[FRYandBENDER]

I didn't actually go to the website but you mention some interesting things. However, if all taxes were sales tax would that mean that things like fire protection were paid for with taxes on the kinds of things that one buys in the store. So the really wealthy single guy who lives in the vintage wood frame mansion has a high fire risk but buys very little to support the fire department that protects him. Meanwhile the average family of 4 living in a brick apartment building with the latest in smoke alarms and sprinklers buys a ton of groceries per week and ends up paying more for fire protection.

I suppose that a tax system that included a variety of taxes (sales, income, real estate, direct billing) would end up being more balanced and fair.

I'm not sure I understand. Why would a wealthy single guy not buy anything? And for the average family buying groceries, technically they won't pay taxes on those groceries because at the beginning of the month they will get a prebate check, based on family size, to cover the cost of the fair tax for the necessities of life... like groceries.

Meanwhile, if the rich single guy goes out and buys expensive clothes, or a new car, he will be paying his share of the fairtax to the government.

[palerider]

The Only Sales tax id support is Luxery Sales tax. Like 10% Extra whern you spend on Jewlery Gold & Diamond Watches,Gold or Diamond Necklaces,Cars thats over $40,000,Yachts, Mink Fur Coats,Private Planes,Suits over $500 and Homes over $500,000.Thats the sales tax i support

That is because you aren't very bright steveox. They tried the luxury tax and it failed miserably. It put regular joes who sell luxury items to the rich out of work because the rich simply went off shore to by their luxuries. Your point describes exactly why liberals are the kings of unintended consequences.

[palerider]

I'm not sure I understand. Why would a wealthy single guy not buy anything? And for the average family buying groceries, technically they won't pay taxes on those groceries because at the beginning of the month they will get a prebate check, based on family size, to cover the cost of the fair tax for the necessities of life... like groceries.

Meanwhile, if the rich single guy goes out and buys expensive clothes, or a new car, he will be paying his share of the fairtax to the government.

Not to mention the fact that via the fair tax, we will recoupe some of the money that is currently being lost due to illegals sending money back to their country of origin and eventually every single penny of illegally made money (drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.) will be taxed since it has to be spent rather than banked.