Taxes? A question from a middle of the road Conservative.?

Question

Given the current state of the economy, is it fair for conservatives to say that if the congress and white house are Democratically controlled in the next ellection. That they would raise taxes and forceing the US into a resssion?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did we not have a fairly good economy under the Clinton Administration? I still wonder how we are gonna pay for this conflict in Iraq n without rasing taxes, don't you?

Can anyone help me out on this paradox?

The point I'm making is based on a statement made by Pat Robertson on the 700 club. He basically states that in a democratically controlled White house and Congress that we will be in a ressession due to their raising taxes.

I agree that the top of the heap money makers in America will again have to start paying their fair share of the tax burden, as Dem's are not afraid to tax the rich as well as the middle class, and lower class as well.

The Repub's are always looking for a way to give more to the rich via tax breaks so they can "stimulate the economy" while the middle class pays more taxes, and looses money on tainted pet food and toys for their kids from China.

Still the Owners of these companies in America are makin money and payin less tax.

My question is how long will it be before some of our food for human consumption from China is tainted?

Ressession wake up America we are already in it. Regardless of who becomes president.

I don;t know if i got my point accross in this question or not. I don't believe that the administration of Clinton or Bush is to blame for the economy, I do however blame congress. regardless of party affiliation they do not do what they should to support the administration. I believe even as a conservative we nee to tax the population fairly fro rich to poor in a fair and impartial way with no loopholes for the rich.

I will be puitting this question to a vote, and I thank you all for reaponding. God bless
b

Answer 1

It is probably true that a Democrat-controlled government would raise taxes, raise social spending, and cut military spending. That's generally consistent with thier positions, and not entirely inconsistent with history.

Taxes do impact the economy, but they are not the /only/ thing that impacts the economy. The business cycle rolls on regardless of government policy. Clinton happened to have the good fortune to take office just as a recession was coming to it's natural end, then preside over the booming dot-com bubble. Durring the bubble, investors - desperate not to be left out of the 'next big thing' - poured insane sums of money into internet startups, that then scoured the country for anyone who could so much as find the on swith on a computer and over-paid them from the copious coffers of thier IPOs. Those young workers went out and spent like there was no tomorrow. End result: a 'great' economy.

As it turned out, there wasn't a tomorrow as far as thier careers were concerned. The bubble burst, and left thirty-somethings unexpectedly looking back at thier peak earning years.

Today, we're rapidly aproaching the end of the current expansion, so there's a decent chance the next president will come into a collapsing economy instead of a recovering one, in which case, the policies enacted early in his term will be blamed for a 'disaster.' OTOH, it could be that the economy will go in the tank at any moment, and actually be recovering early in the next presidency, in which case what ever was done on his watch - no matter how much it may, in fact, be retarding that recovery - will likely be credited for it.

The perversity of American presidential politics. The 'most powerful man in the world' actually has virtually no power over the economy, yet it's the economy on which he is most held accountable.

Answer 2

Probably not much help here from a newly-minted crossed-over-from-republican unaffiliated voter. I think anytime that one party controls both the executive and legislative branches I get the heebie-jeebies.

The main problem right now is that other forces are driving us into a possible recession -- the mortgage meltdown, trade deficits, oil prices and the like. Anyone else notice that grocery prices are expected to rise by at least 7% this year and in California milk and cheese prices have risen steeply. Of course, if I were going into an election and saw all this coming up, I'd be tempted to set it up to frame the other guy. In addition, a lot of the Bush tax cuts for families and middle-class earners were set to expire in 2010 or 2011 setting up a de-facto tax increase after his term is over. I'm not sure if congress has made the cuts permanent or not.

In theory, when you lower the tax burden people will engage in more money making activities and tax revenues actually increase. For example, if my marginal tax rate was 90% on the last dollar I earned, why earn the dollar and pay the tax? If the marginal tax rate is 30%, then I'm more likely to put the effort into earning the money since I get to keep a good chunk of it and the gov't gets their portion as well.

As for the economy, my family was much better off during the Clinton years

Answer 3

"Given the state of the economy," you say. Are you basing that upon your own personal economy, the economy of the area in which you live, or your perception of the national economy? Throw "perception" out the window because we are fed a diet of agenda. Go on what you see in your part of the country and in your own personal finances. Those two things tell me the economy is doing every bit as good as it did when Clinton was president with a republican controlled Congress. This is true in my area and I suspect the same to be true for other parts as well because of the historically low national unemployment rate and the Dow being at near an all time high. I have difficulty understanding why people can't grasp the fact that tax cuts enhances revenue to the national treasury by encouraging business growth which generates a greater GNP which in turn generates more taxes to be collected. Tax increases have the opposite effect by taking money away from business and citizens thus slowing the economy. Just as high gasoline prices have had a detrimental effect on most people, so will tax democrat sponsored tax increases. And no, I don't wonder how we're going to pay for the war in Iraq because all the billions it's costing is such a very small part of the already taxable GNP of this nation. I worry more about what would democrats do if we were attacked again. Surrender? (Yes, I know, Iraq didn't attack us, but the terrorist our troops are killing who are there now would love to). The only paradox I see is the one in which democrats appear as unwilling to defend this nation. This from a middle of the road conservative.

Answer 4

I'm not sure how much this will help, but few economists (if any) would ever suggest that broad economic policies have an immediate and noticeable effect on our economy especially when those policies are filtered through our system of government.

For at least the first year of Clinton's administration, the economy was operating on the policies established by Regan and Bush senior. For the next several years, the economy still enjoyed the benefits of policies established by earlier lawmakers while being frantically replaced by the new administration (as much as possible given the partisan split between congress and the white house). Clinton's policies began to take effect and for a time, they appeared to be successful primarily through "spin" (selection of a limited number of statistics that looked better than previous years).

However, after four years of Clinton's policies, the economy began to show signs of declining. Bush junior took office and wasn't able to instantly reverse the direction and when 9/11 hit, the economy fell apart. Through hard work and the application of sounds economic policies, the Bush economy recovered much more quickly than it should have been able to do.

I too wonder how we will pay for this war without raising taxes and for this I do blame George junior...not because he made poor economic decisions but because he made poor foreign policy decisions that were inconsistent with the principles of good economic decisions. Bush junior made the decision that freedom should be given freely and has refused to consider any option that would allow (or require) the people of Iraq to pay the costs of this war despite the fact that they are the one's that stand to benefit most. Freedom is NOT free nor should it be...anything that has value needs to have a price associated with it that represents that value. How can we expect the people of Iraq to value freedom if they didn't have to sacrifice to earn it?

Answer 5

"a fairly good economy under the Clinton Administration?"

Do you really think that the president has anything to do with the economy? We'll always have ups and downs. With consumer debt at an all time high, and we know what's going on in the morgtage field, I think we are facing a slow down.

Yes, it was pretty good under Clinton, but it began to slide near the end of his term. Not many will admit that.

Bear in mind that he cut our military with a big axe.
I hear about the "Surplus".
What surplus? The National Debt still increased by $900,000,000.00. Borrowed money! The debt stood at more than 5 trillion when he left office. Not all his, but no one said much about that. I guess 5T is considered a paltry sum.

Since the tax reductions, the IRS has taken in more revenue than anytime. They receive 3 trillion dollars per year from all sources.

I remember a time when business taxes were 50% of net profits. Do that again and you will see some reduction in employees, and/or slower sales.
If you personally had money left over after paying all your bills, would you still go out and borrow money? For what?

The next Democratic Congress and/or president will increase taxes. Any tax reductions will be repealed. You can bet the ranch on it.
You will see tax increases. Hell, they're already "considering" a federal tax increase on gasoline. About 18 cents per gallon.

They do not like the reduction in inheritance taxes, capitol gains to mention two.

Sorry! You pulled my string.

Answer 6

No the economy was not good under Clinton. You may remember the tech bubble bursting or the recession that ended Clinton's Administration. There was also peace (but a whole lot of terror attacks where Americans were killed). He pretty much glossed over Iraq, and he disseminated our military. There were no major catastrophic hurricanes likes we suffered recently. So you cannot compare them. Actually if you would have put these challenges in during his administration, how do you think he would have stood up?

Answer 7

sorry to say that many conservatives (as well as liberals) are liars. The Clinton economy was good, the Iraq war is just a different type of tax and spend (okay only the spend part) policy that democrats were always accused of, led by a republican administration.

Answer 8

I never though I would say this, but, my wallet certainly misses the Clinton days. Personally I think conservatives make-up things as they go along, but, I guess I'm a realist that looks at things as they are, instead of how I'd like them to be

at some point we will have to pay, it only stand to reason ... my father always told me "money doesn't grow on trees" ... the most honest thing I can say is, the damage GW Bush has done -- diplomatic, social, financial, military -- will take generations to correct. He richly deserves to be impeached

Answer 9

I am self employed, and have been much better off financially since Clinton has been out than when he was in
hope this helps.

Answer 10

Why are you still in the middle of the road? Just finish your jorney all the way down the road and there you will get your answer.