Everyone gives bush so much credit for the economy, but wasn't it Clinton who let homesellers keep up to $250,000.00 tax free from the sale of their homes and $500,000.00 for married couples?
Did that help the middle class more than Bush's tax cuts?
C'mon Repub's, just answer the question without attacking the democrats.
2006-09-05 13:23:58 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
All Clinton did was further the marriage incentives that Republicans tend to love so much. Also, it was W. Bush that made the second half better: Home sales over those limits (and, where I live I'm not sure where you could find a house for $250k) get taxed at only 15% now, but you can still deduct the full year's worth of the mortgage (on the house you're selling and the one you're buying). In some states, that would make the Fed tax on the sale lower than the State tax on the sale. While Clinton did, for sure give housing tax breaks, it was because of the high rental rates. W. Bush expanded this as part of a broader economy stimulant package. The Long-Run affect of who had the bigger impact is negotiable, at best, Clinton did open the door.
2006-09-05 13:37:07 · answer #1 · answered by what? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stop think, research, Bush cuts gave more lower income people No or less taxes to pay, those are the ones who can't afford to buy. More poorer people have homes then ever before. Bush makes it more attractive to invest less capital gains on stocks like us poor folks invest in mutual funds it helps individuals and creates money for investments, then that means jobs. Jobs and economy were tanking when Bush took office . Drives the Left Nuts LIFE IS GOOD SUCK IT UP LIBS
2006-09-05 20:38:30 · answer #2 · answered by retired_afmil 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clinton is regarded a alot of people as being quite good on pro-growth and pro-business. He also cut the size of gov during his tenure and also had a budget surplus- When was the last time we had a prez with a budget surplus?
When taxes were raised (with a Republican controlled legislature) it affected the top 1% generally.
Hey getting "favors" in the oval office may not have been all that bad afterall.
2006-09-05 20:30:48 · answer #3 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
time to stop blaming Clinton for the ills of America
2006-09-05 20:28:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
When I sell my half million dollar house I'll let you know.
2006-09-05 20:26:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
clinton was an "ok" president...he did nothing remarkable..his legacy will always be impeachment for lying under oath tho.
2006-09-05 21:28:29 · answer #6 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think you are right ! but bushes policy was effective too.
2006-09-05 20:27:51 · answer #7 · answered by hooman reisi 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
CLINTON WAS THE BEST PRESIDENT WE EVER HAD.
2006-09-05 21:06:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋