- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.
Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.
Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)
Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.
Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.
Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)
Conservative
You believe wrong. From the U.S. Treasury Dept.
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
I believe ti was during the Clinton years, which had a Republican majority in Congress that did something besides obstruct that did it.
Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.
Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.
Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)
Did he actually say 95% of the population? or 95% of taxpayers?
What I keep hearing is that 95% of our citizens will get this tax relief. If he is using word games to trick people into thinking that he meant taxpayers he and the people saying it should be ashamed of themselves.
Either way it is cheap wedge politics. Change you can believe in? We don't have blue or red states but purple states. Sounds pretty cheap from a hack politician,
The people have no power to force the government to curtail spending.wishful thinking on your part. there is no benefits to raising taxes on a small percentage of voters because the majority of people will have no incentive to force the government to curtail spending.
The tax breaks sunset at the end of the year as part of the law, he is not raising taxes.true enough
but Obama is hiking taxes on the sector that pays more than half the income taxes. not hiking taxes on those who do not pay FIT is worthless though it sounds good.
The people have no power to force the government to curtail spending.
The tax breaks sunset at the end of the year as part of the law, he is not raising taxes.
To this question I got the above response.
I guess we will have to get “Obvious child” in here to explain the difference to you …again, the difference in debt and deficit. :2wave:
Here, look at the National Debt as a percentage of GDP. Notice that the last Republican that managed to put a _ in the column was tricky Dick.
Check the gippers numbers, two terms of red +followed by one term(George the 1st ) of red + followed by two terms of green _(Clinton ) followed by two super numbers of red +(George the 2nd ).
Are you seeing the pattern here conservative? Republicans come in a wreck the economy, then comes the Dems in to fix the damage. Hope that the wingers didn’t do so much damage that it is not reparable.
National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I will not discuss personal finances including taxes on this forum, that information is between me and my wife. Got it?At the beginning of next year will you have more or less take home pay with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts?
I will not discuss personal finances including taxes on this forum, that information is between me and my wife. Got it?
The point I made was a valid one, the sunset date in the law has nothing to do with President Obama.
The sunset date doesn't but the unwillingness to extend them does. You are the one that said the expiration of the Bush tax cuts doesn't constitute a tax increase. Discuss it with your wife but don't tell us that having less take home pay after January 1 isn't a tax increase. Sounds like you have Clinton "depends on what the word is means" syndrome.
don't waste your time ......You have to make it personal, don't you?
You have to make it personal, don't you?
You divert from the question, how do you explain the reduction in your paycheck after January 1, 2011, a pay reduction by your employer?
Did you understand what I wrote eariler? I'M NOT DISCUSSING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's not what I wrote, I said "he" meaning Obama isn't raising taxes. Go read the Constitution, the President can do nothing until legislation reaches his desk.LOL, you said that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts was not a tax increase. This isn't about discussing how much you make and never was, this was about a reduction or an increase in your take home pay after January 1, 2011. That is the answer to the question, if your take home pay goes down then it is a tax increase. If it goes up it is a tax decrease. Sounds like an easy concept to understand. To flatly say that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts isn't a tax increase is simply false.
Conservative
Why don't you explain it to me because the chart shows both? As you can see there was a deficit each year and the debt went up each year. Clinton's claims were a lie and you and the media bought it.
Wikipedia? LOL, my numbers came from the checkbook of the U.S. Mine are the official numbers.
That's not what I wrote, I said "he" meaning Obama isn't raising taxes. Go read the Constitution, the President can do nothing until legislation reaches his desk.
Here, have a ball,the numbers on that wiki came from this link .If my memory serves me right this, was a link that you used in the past. :2wave:
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
Here, have a ball,the numbers on that wiki came from this link .If my memory serves me right this, was a link that you used in the past. :2wave:
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
Our granddaughter has an inoperable brain tumor, been on chemo 4 years, running out of options. Radiation is next, and that has terrible consequences for the rest of her brain. Luckily, her parents have good insurance that pays 100% after the annual deductible, but for a lot of little kids down at Phoenix Children's Hospital, their parents have to pay 20%, and that is enough to bankrupt them.Doesn't it bother you that many of the programs funded in that 3.8 trillion dollar budget are designed to "help" the 47% that don't pay any income taxes? think that was the intent of our Founders? Congressional social engineering and attempts to keep people from failing have led to the disaster we have right now.
Our granddaughter has an inoperable brain tumor, been on chemo 4 years, running out of options. Radiation is next, and that has terrible consequences for the rest of her brain. Luckily, her parents have good insurance that pays 100% after the annual deductible, but for a lot of little kids down at Phoenix Children's Hospital, their parents have to pay 20%, and that is enough to bankrupt them.
How we treat the unfortunate is a measure of our greatness as a country.
To this question I got the above response.
I guess we will have to get “Obvious child” in here to explain the difference to you …again, the difference in debt and deficit. :2wave:
Here, look at the National Debt as a percentage of GDP. Notice that the last Republican that managed to put a _ in the column was tricky Dick.
Check the gippers numbers, two terms of red +followed by one term(George the 1st ) of red + followed by two terms of green _(Clinton ) followed by two super numbers of red +(George the 2nd ).
Are you seeing the pattern here conservative? Republicans come in a wreck the economy, then comes the Dems in to fix the damage. Hope that the wingers didn’t do so much damage that it is not reparable.
National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?