Instead of showing your ignorance by calling liberals commies, why don't you look at this?

Question

“This might all be ancient history if the spectre of Supply Side economics had not reared its ugly head again once Bush II took office. In selling his $1.6 trillion tax cut-half of which went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans-Bush promised in 2001 that it would produce 800,000 new jobs. In fact, the economy has lost 2.7 million jobs since Bush took office, again, the worst economic performance since the Great Depression.
The effects of Bush's tax cut on the deficit and debt are exactly what we would expect having seen Reagan's results-only worse. Bush inherited from Clinton a fiscal surplus of $127 billion. In his first year he turned that into a deficit of $158 billion. In this, his second year, he will run a deficit of over $400 billion-a swing to the worse of over $600 billion in only two years.
Now Bush has sold us on still another megadose of this same Supply Side voodoo. Two thirds of his new $350 billion tax cut will go to the top 10% of income earners. Bush's Congressional ally, Tom DeLay, promises more such cuts for every year Bush is in office.
The long term effects of these policies are profoundly damaging. When Bush took office, the government's ten year surplus was forecast to total $5.6 trillion. This was critical to building fiscal soundness as the Baby Boomers begin to retire.
Now, the ten year forecast projects a cumulative deficit of $1.1 trillion, a net loss of $6.7 trillion in only two years. With the exception of World Wars, this is the greatest, most rapid destruction of public wealth in the history of the world.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html

Seriously, do you still think welfare programs are worse than that?

p I gray...the point is that at the end of Clinton's term, he had given the U.S. a profit of $127 billion. Instead of losing over half a trillion such as what Bush has done. It's not a myth. It's a fact that you fail to realize. I do not apologize if the truth offends you.

Bryan H, you fail to realize something too. Too much was being spent on the military meanwhile we hadn't had a war in quite a while. He did what EVERYONE believed was best for the nation, to reduce our deficit. Even with the WTC in 93, he knew we didn't need to start these wars. So that's why (which is another reason he was wiser than Bush). Clinton did, however, have a very comprehensive and agressive anti-terror campaign, which Bush ignored at the start of his first term. Read all about it.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml

Quantum, what do you mean there is a "net profit"? Did you read the facts? The simple fact is that tax cuts for the wealthy has not helped our middle-class. Maybe you didn't realize that.

Bob! come on...
I have spoken with so many other people who have complained about the economy and the unemployment. Sales might be doing well. But sales is your life. So before you attempt to discredit everything i have said, you must look at the broader picture.

Myportlandblue, it is both. Because, you see, most Americans are losing money in most professions. Less than 10% of Americans are not affected. So it's both of those things.
And by the way, your site clearly shows unemployment getting worse and worse.

Thanks again Myportlandblue, for proving my point :)

They are not really out poster children anymore. Additionally, by your chart i can see Clinton (and i already knew this) had reduced unemployment until Bush took office. Finally things are starting to get back on track, but not quite.

Answer 1

Instead of the War Machine, I would much rather given all to welfare programs. And have all the cost been in dollars not life and limb. After all "Baby Ben" is still been free.

Answer 2

A) surplus is all about the math.
B) yes, anything is better than welfare. I will give anyone who needs it and wants it to ONLY get by a helping hand. I will NEVER give anyone a handout. Give someone one handout and they want another, period. It's true and cannot be argued against.
C) Ever think what will happen if we overtax big corporations and the really wealthy? Let's think about this. First let's just drive minimum wage right up there and make every unskilled laborer happier than a pig in sh*t. So, now it costs the company/corporation employing that worker more money to employ the worker. Gee, how to generate that worker's paycheck, yep, raise prices on the products/service the company provides. This means net "pocket money" did not increase since other now higher minimum wage workers have to spend more for products and services. Hey, let's get more money by taxing the hell out of the company too. Pretty soon, the company cannot be profitable AND competitive so it goes under. Now, no tax revenue and all those workers are stuck looking for a job. They didn't get laid off, there is just no employer any longer.
D) If you think someone is just too rich, then don't buy their product. I won't buy any Exxon/Mobil product since they whined and said the took such a "devastating economic hit" with Katrina but somehow managed to report a 1st quarter PROFIT of $11 Billion for this year after Katrina. Not income, clear PROFIT. Wow, I'd like a devastating economic hit that would make me $11 Billion. Go ahead hit me, PLEASE.
E) If you really think the rich have it easy, then go get rich yourself. This is one of the biggest years for most new names being put onto the Forbes 400 list. Build a better mousetrap or make your TV show number one. You can do it!

Answer 3

Hold on. You are basically saying that the US Economy is a business and we had a profit.

Taxes are not supposed to be a profit. Government is supposed to spend only what it takes in. Nothing more, nothing less. Projected surpluses are just that - projected. I agree that Bush & co. are spending like drunken sailors. However its not the war or the social programs that are costing us the most, it is all of the additional items that the senators and house members are tacking on the bills . It is known as pork barrel spending.

For example, $320 million for a bridge in Alaska. A complete list can be found on the web at http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006

According to the IRS data, the rich pay 96.5% of all taxes. The numbers for 2003 are at this site: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls. So a 5% across the board tax cut for someone making is $20,000 is $1,000. For someone making $2 million, it is $100,000.

Let's assume that everyone pays a flat tax rate of 28%. A person making $2 million person pays $560,000 in taxes. A person making $20,000 pays $5,600. As you can see the rich pay 99% more taxes than a person paying $5,600. Or it would take 100 tax payers making $20,000 to pay as much taxes as 1 rich person.

So I don't want to hear about the tax cut for the rich because they pay far more into the system and support the lazy and disadvantaged people of society. You got a $1,000 tax break, did you write a check and send the money back to the government as a donation? I highly doubt that you did.

I am so tired of hearing this argument from the liberals. I am in sales and the economy is doing very well this year. My sales numbers show it. My sales numbers in 1998 & 1999 were in the tank. I am selling the same products to the same territory and have been doing it since 1992. So nothing is different. That is when your boy Bill Clinton was in office. Do you care to explain the difference between today and 1998 to me? My income is 60% commision based. So if sales are down, I don't make as much or pay as much in taxes.


5:14 PM

I am looking at the broader picture and basically what you are saying is that taxes is revenue and Bill Clinton is the best. Last time I looked the unemployment rate was as follows:

Dec 4, 1998 America's Economy Remains Solid and Strong. In November, unemployment dropped to 4.4 percent. However when Clinton left office, the unemployment rate was 5.6% and was still considered a "low" rate.

According to the Bureau of Labor, current unemployment is 4.7 as of Aug of 2006. Please see http://stats.bls.gov/

As for knocking sales, last time I looked sales were the gauge that everyone uses to predict the health of the economy. Factory order, car purchases, etc. There are very few organizations reporting bad sales. GM's problems were self induced. So you must be talking to all GM and Ford factory workers who are getting laid off. All of the people in my neighborhood (all factory workers) seem to be happy, people are buying LCD HDTV's, etc. So things are not as bad as you paint them.

If we went to a sales tax revenue system vs. an income tax revenue system, we would not be having this discussion. Income would be free, anything you bought would be taxed. Its called a consumption tax. People who make more money consume more, thus they pay more taxes. But the liberals don't want this. Just look at how they cry like stuck pigs when the topic is brought up. They call it a "tax cut for the rich"!

Oh I forgot, Bush is always wrong and regardless of what he does and or what anyone else says, it will not be as great as Bill Clinton.

Answer 4

You better go after your own poster children first. During their respective losing campaigns, both Al Gore and John Kerry quoted Reaganomics as contributing to the economic boosts that were enjoyed by later generations. Kerry quoted reagans policies positively several times. So before you show YOUR ignorance of supply-side economy, you better know that YOUR liberal brethren have publicly endorsed it. And I don't call them "commies", just "wannabe Reagan imitators".

That 10% of the highest paid taxpayers get two thirds of the cuts still leaves a larger tax cut for the 90% balance. The upper ten percent pay between 80%-90% of the taxes, so by not getting the same percentage back as they paid in, their tax cut is half of that received by the balance of the population.

In 1995, Clinton's unemployment rate had soared within a percentage point of what will be Bush's high point. The current unemployment rate is the same as Clinton's unemployment rate in 1997 (five years into his term), and is declining at the same rate as it did in Clintons regime. And Clinton did not have to support a post 911 war time economy. So unemployment performance is pretty much identical, except Bush provided tax cuts and is funding a war. So too the growth in real household net worth, which is significant to our future ability to pay off debt. See the newsweek article for explaination of why that's important.

I'll end it as I do with every liberal tirade that more taxes are needed. Go ahead. Pay more taxes. If you think more revenue paid from your pocket helps your personal economy, go ahead and pay more in, and tell you congressman to spend it as he sees fit. Show us conservatives how the government spends your funds for you better than you can for yourself.

Answer 5

I love people who still cling to the myth of the $127 billion budget surplus....

How many people realize that was a budgeted surplus and not an actual monetary surplus... at the end of the fiscal year the country did not have $127 billion discretionary funds laying around.

I can balance the federal budget and show a surplus... it doesn't mean that the economy was working.

Added: Your "fact" is a misrepresentation of economics. Sorry if the truth blows your argument. There is no such thing as a "profit" in a budget....

Answer 6

speaking of pathetic, you do not actually have a clue what a Nazi is, or what the structure says (or would not say), no longer to instruct why it says what it says. You had extra ideal examine your figures about money in peoples wallet. The monetary gadget remains very physically powerful. the federal authorities is taking in 20% extra in income taxes than a three hundred and sixty 5 days in the past. only very last week they set an all-time in some unspecified time sooner or later list. yet to call liberals "commies" lately, one only has to look on the leaders which have taken over the DNC. on the on the spot, Harry Truman would were tarred and feathered swifter than Joe Lieberman. JFK would were spit on. Why, because those gents would have by no skill placed poltics earlier the safe practices of our us of a at a time of conflict!

Answer 7

if you took all that has been spent on a war that could have been prevented, what would our surplus be. all clinton had to do was not treat the previous attacks on AMERICAN embassies, marine housing and naval ships like a crime and do what should have been done. treat it as an act of war and maybe all this spending "MIGHT" NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. do you honestly think if clinton had been able to stay in office( i know there is no third term) that spending would have been any different.

Answer 8

Your whole premise sucks, there are more americans working now then at anytime in American history.

Can't you liberals get your complaints straight....on one hand you say the rich are getting richer and on the other you say "this is the greatest, most rapid destruction of public wealth in the history of the world.”
Which is it?

Answer 9

Thank you. I appreceate you posting the truth! Its sad how some can be so quick to judge with out looking at the fact.