hey democrat bashers, you do know the way to reduce the deficit is to tax the top 1.5 %?

Question

clinton had to to this to cut the 12 years of mess of reagan and bush sr. he did this and we had a suplus after this. source: the way clinton got us a surplus. his book-my life.

Answer 1

Ahhh yes, us lover 98% are the ones that USE the services because we are the ones that NEED the services. And we are the lower 98%. Im sure some people in the top 2% use some of the services as well.

Answer 2

wrong again, idiot. clinton never had a surplus, only a projected surplus, which is meaningless. there are ONLY two reason the deficit got as low as it did during the clinton years.

1. only overseas spending creates debt, and usually this is military spending. clinton never retaliated to any terrorist attacks while president, so he didn't spen any money oversaes on the military, thus never creating new debt

2. interest rates plummeted while clinton was president. every month of his presidency the government got to pay off 12 to 15% twenty year bonds from the carter years, and replace them with 5% bonds. we cut interest payments on the debt by 300 billion a year. and THAT was the only reduction in spending. tax increases did not increase revenue to the government, it remained the same percentage of manufacturing as always.

Answer 3

Don't be so silly to assume one answer is the solution.

Many of those people in the highest tax brackets are business owners and get the cash from their business to pay their taxes.

Are you really in favor of that?

The "mess" is complex, and cannot be solved by just one thing. All things need to be considered and resolved, which never really happens. At times, I understand the need to run a deficit. Some days I wish they'd have more balance. But being completely paid up would not necessarily be a good thing either.

PS - I'm in favor of debating any issue with someone that has support. I don't mind people standing behind their positions as long as they aren't flinging hate. Break the cycle.

Answer 4

The deficit? How about the debt?
tax the top 1.5 %? ROFLMAO

Debt near $9 Trillion and counting.

Was it low under Clinton, $575 Trillion?
Increased $900 Million.

What surplus? DUH!

Amortize it! Go ahead!.
Do it for 100 years, Wear a diaper when you do. Maybe 2.

Dipshit politicians. Geo. Washington left $75,000.00 debt. Gone up ever since.

Answer 5

Your continued ignorance is astounding.

First, there never was a surplus. It was PROJECTED, but never happened.

Second, the way to reduce the deficit is to stop SPENDING. If you take in $2 trillion and spend $2.5 trillion, you have a deficit. Easy solution is to stop spending $2.5 trillion and only spend $2 trillion. It's called math and common sense, you should try it sometime. Unfortunately, neither party is cutting spending, and we still elect them, so we are all to blame.

Answer 6

The top 1% paid 34% of ALL INCOME TAX REVENUE in 2003.

Download the Excel Spreadsheet from the IRS, look on line 194.

The top 1% pay 34% of all Income Tax Revenue.
The top 5% pay 54% of all Income Tax Revenue.
The top 10% pay 66% of all Income Tax Revenue.
The top 25% pay 84% of all Income Tax Revenue.
The top 50% pay 96% of all Income Tax Revenue.

Class warfare isn't the answer.

Answer 7

Then why did tax revenues increase AFTER the Bush tax cuts? The way to reduce the deficit is to REDUCE SPENDING!

Answer 8

Gas $3 per gallon, bread $1.50 for everyone rich or poor.
Income :
Poor $16,000 year (minimum wage)
Rich Millions of dollars a year (2% of population)


Go figure.

Answer 9

and you are listening to Clinton why!? and the next election Hillary is probably going to run and shes probably going to win because every one hates bush and i really don't know why what did he ever do like one man could cause all of the trouble in the world !! it is stupid and obviously so are you!!

Answer 10

I've always thought that the mantra of Democrates/Liberals was "fairness". If that's so, how can one make a case that it is "fair" to tax one person a higher percentage than another person?