The Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives. That means you don't spend more money than you have. Unfortunately, they always INCREASE spending and DECREASE the amount of taxes to pay for it. It's just reckless.
Then, when Democrats act responsibly, and raise taxes to try and get the budget back in line, the GOP bitches and moans. It's like dealing with a 4 year old who thinks you can buy a house for $10. Luckily, the grown-ups are back in charge.
2006-11-11 15:42:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by truth be told 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Reality check folks! Stop learning your civics from political pundits.
Fact one- Clinton nor any other president cannot raise or lower taxes
Fact two- Clinton nor any other president have only little control over govt. spending ergo balancing the budget
The Governments purse is controlled by congress not the president and spending is specifically controlled by the House of representatives all spending must originate in the house read the constitution.
Fact 3- the budget was balanced under the speaker of the house Gingrich's watch after the contract with America swept Republicans into power in the house..
Fact 4- Every major tax cut in the last half century from JFK's to Regan's To Bush's has actually dramatically increased revenue s into the treasury
Fact 5- Bill Clinton was not, I repeat, WAS NOT a liberal democrat. He was a conservative one. So just why do all these progressives act like Clinton Was a Liberal Democrat and throw it in the face of conservatives? he actually had much more in common with conservatives than progressives when handling the economy.
So Please I ask the progressives among you aside from JFK who cut taxes how did the progressive taxation policies help the economy in the last half century. let me help you and list the progressive presidents of the last half century Truman, JFK, LBJ, Gerald Ford ( a republican liberal) and Jimmy Carter. now compare those presidents economic results with the conservative presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan and Clinton and Bush 1 & 2. No One can factually argue that the economies under progressives guidance outperformed the conservative ones
Rant Over!
2006-11-12 07:14:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by sooj 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
As 'dakota' said, "Clinton carried on with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts." However, he did so while SLASHING the deficit, which neither Reagan nor Bush was able with their "tax cuts" ... both of their Administrations cut taxes while balooning the deficit. But the average American hears "tax cut" and thinks "new deck", and hears "deficit" and thinks "blahblah defi-what? who cares, I'm waiting for my big 'ol tax cuts."
As a Democrat I will say that I believe that raising taxes is wrong. But I also believe that lowering taxes is also wrong if you don't also know how you're going to reduce spending.
In other words, whether taxes goes up or down doesn't matter nearly as much as the resulting DEFICIT.
Why? Because when you borrow money and take the country into debt, it is not *this* generation who has to deal with it, but the *next* generation ... our kids'. It is passing on the bill to them.
Cutting taxes today, is passing on a tax *increase* to the next generation. It is irresponsible and unfair.
2006-11-11 23:57:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by c_sense_101 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you didn't look at the big picture. The economy was doing great until the Stock market plunge do to overvalued stocks. You seem to forget we are fighting in two countries. If not for that the economy would be doing even better than it is. By the way didn;t the market just break a record recently. Tax increases aren't what we need. Controlled spending is.
2006-11-11 23:31:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Lrscghost 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
People dont understand that tax increases or tax cuts can be good or bad- it all depends on the implementation
The Bush tax cuts are what pushed the big move of factories overseas
If it costs a company the same to produce a product whether paying good union wages, or paying shipping costs from China- why would a company move? (ANSWER) because they dont have to pay taxes on the product they produced in China!
2006-11-12 00:12:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anarchy99 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wow. Crack a Economics book ever? Why would more money in the government pocket help the economy? You really need to look back at the 90's and actually see what happened. And what is this crap about willingly sacrifice? Paying taxes is now voluntary? Better tell that to the IRS. Although, the Clintons did refer to taxpayers as customers. Unfortunately, we can't get our money back when we are dissatisfied. I personally think you are full of it and need to extracate your head from an orifice that I will not mention at this time.
2006-11-11 23:22:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
This greedy bastard works 60 plus hours a week to enjoy a better life style. What give you or any one else the right to take from me and give it to the lazy bastards not willing to do the same.
I'm not talking about the handicapped or those who cannot work. Those we should assist. I'm talking to those like you that feel my money should pay for your health care, child care, food stamps, rent and utilities.
This greedy bastard does want to keep every last hard worked cent he makes. If, I, want to help others, it will be my decision, not the governments or yours.
Signed: Greedy hard working bastard.
2006-11-11 23:21:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by rikv77 3
·
4⤊
2⤋
1st Clinton carried on with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts.
2nd why is keeping more of the money that we worked so hard for greedy? It sounds greedy to want to take money you don't deserve, and is not owed to you. Capital gains taxes can make it so parents can't leave homesteads to their children, because the children can't pay the taxes.
Get a job and maybe you will understand.
2006-11-11 23:19:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by dakota29575 4
·
4⤊
2⤋
The problem with the Bush tax cuts was that they went primarily to the rich.
Take capital gains for example. Very few middle/lower class people own stocks that pay capital gains so eliminating this does not help these people at all. If they do own stocks, they are in 401ks that are sheltered from taxation.
So, yes, we should increase taxation by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
2006-11-11 23:18:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
Lowering spending leads to a balanced budget. Raising taxes hurts the economy. The word Clinton is all we need to know that someone is either lying, screwing around on a mate, snorting cocaine or screwing the pooch on his responsibilities. The economy was going straight down the tubes at the end of Billybob's tenure at the White House and that Horny Hillbilly balanced the budget by not spending the money that Congress allocated for the military. That's what got us in the pickle we're in today. Your arguements are all wet.
2006-11-11 23:19:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 5
·
3⤊
5⤋