paladin77


"Without the tax cuts we would be taking in less money "

NOT TRUE. The Comptroller General has documented we are only getting 1/2 the lost tax revenue from growth. For every dollar of the tax cuts we get back .50 cents. I agree we should have the tax cuts for middle income taxpayers who spend all the added money and help the economy. It is the 70% going to the top 10% that needs to stop and help balance the budget. No one that does not have enough money to pay their bills CUTS their income to help solve their fiscal problem except GWB! He is an idiot! I can assure you what Bush is doing to the fiscal affairs of this country was not what he was taught when he got his MBA.

Paladin77

What is your answer to the fact that the REASON Bush gave for the tax cuts, the $5.6 Trillion dollar surplus that NEVER EXISTED?

If you learn how to read try #43 The answer to your question was there. You must have missed it while jumping to conclusions.

Paladin 77

The issue that the tax cut was to correct overtaxing of the American taxpayer is not addressed in your post 63. Bush and I posted from his own statements said there would be a $5.6 Trillion projected surplus over a ten year period which was his rational why we had to give back that surplus. When it became clear there was NO surplus, the tax cuts should have ended just like Greenspan and O'Neil recommended. There is simply no justification for tax cuts to the wealthy that the Comptroller General has shown are only returning $.50 on the $1.00. You could make a case that the tax cuts that went to the middle income taxpayer helped the economy since they spend almost all the added disposable income they got from the lower taxes. However as the analysis of the 2005 data shows, 70% of the total tax cuts went to the top 10%. That is the money that should have been kept by returning tax rates and the rules on Capital Gains and Dividends as they were prior to 2001.

The surplus you are talking about never existed it was a figment of the Clinton Administration used to help Mr. Gore elected. The projections are real and if we were not in a war they would have shown up years ago. Instead we had the war eat up a lot and Katrina ate up a lot as well as the attacks on 9/11. You on the other hand enjoy sinking deeply into your ignorance by ignoring those minor facts that impact the economy. You remind me of my wife in this respect. I would tell her that we save money and hold back spending for three months and we would be able to buy what she wanted without going into debt. She continued to spend and at the end of three months she had noting saved and expected me to buy the item anyway. You see a projection of trillions of dollars and say that because you don't see the surplus we shold stop the one thing that has funded our expansion and growth. The surplus is there but it is being spent as fast as it comes in. I explained this partly in #43 but I foolishly thought you could connect the dots. My mistake.

Paladin77

The Surplus I am talking about is NOT what Clinton or Gore claimed but what BUSH told us existed. This is what BUSH said. Read you idiot:

Bush: Surplus Justifies Tax Cut

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP)


Quote

"Along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place"
President Bush, in his weekly radio address
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(AP) President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold. And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means.

and clinton i believe in 1991 only paid 18% and that was after his big tax hike

i remember this becouse it was what they were taking out of my check ever month

And in these quotes he was correct. Show me where he was wrong. The projected money was half of what Mr. Clinton projected over 10 years which means that Mr. Clinton lied to us again. Had we not been attacked I think the projections would hold true. But even with a war we are still benefiting as a nation from the tax cuts since they pulled us out of the Clinton rescission in record time. Infused the economy with needed cash and brought the unemployment down to its lowest levels in history. You see the more people that are working the less you need to tax because there are more people paying taxes.

Yes, they knew the 10 trillion dollar projection from Mr. Clinton was a lie by half and they knew that the economy was going into the tank. But neither fact stopped them from proposing massive spending to use up the surplus until Mr. Bush proposed a tax cut then they came out with doom and gloom.

: And in these quotes he was correct. Show me where he was wrong.”

In 2001 we ran a deficit of over $150 Billion and had a deficit every year thereafter. There was NO SURPLUS as I said and there was NO justification for a tax cut predicated on something that turned out not to exist!


I am not talking about a Clinton Projection. He did not cut taxes to give that back as Bush did with the surplus he projected that never existed. When it was clear there was no SURPLUS, THE TAX CUTS SHOULD HAVE ENDED AS GREENSPAN AND O'NEIL SAID!

there was a surpluse until the idiots in congress started spending their pork and the biggest spender was hillary clinton

you will not i did not say the democrats in congress i said the idiots

by the way the only reason congress doesn't want to give the pres. line item veto is that he would be able to veto all of that pork

by the way those tax cuts are still in effect and we do now have a surplus

danielost

By the way those tax cuts are still in effect and we do now have a surplus YES and we are borrowing the money and paying interest on that money to continue the tax cuts that were not justified in the fist place. Greenspan and O'Neil were correct. However the Idiot we have in the White House with the MBA from Harvard will not act responsibly!!!!

If I were the President of Harvard I would resend the diploma they issued to GWB!

excuse me if you are borrowing money then you don't have a surplus

I know you are not the brightest bulb in the room at only 1 watt, but try to understand simple little things. Like the word projection. Once you understand the word then you might be able to understand big issues and words. I remember when the Clinton tax increas made it through Congress and every one of the liberals was happy. Then the economy went into the toilet and no one knew what to do about it. Even your hero Mr. Clinton had to admit that he raised taxes too much. When asked if he would give a tax cut his reply was a tax cut would be a good idea but the people would not spend it correctly. Why is it that we tax payers don't know what to do with our own money and that we need the government to tell us what is best for us? That is socialism not a represntitive government. It is our money and if the government wants any part of it the government needs to justify why.



Try to grasp that the tax cut is the only thing that got us out of the recession. The money from the surplus is not supposed to be in hand for 10 years well, 6 years now. Tiny little things have gotten in the way of the surplus like the war on terror that we are fighting around the world. The peace keeping in Iraq, and other countries are on the expensive side. You conveniently forget that the war is being fought around the world but you focus only on Iraq. To stop AQ we need to fight them wherever they are. Right now they are massing in Iraq and doing there best to attack us in America. The last attempt was stopped in Saudi Arabia. What this tells me is that they are losing in Iraq and have no way of attacking us at home until they win in Iraq to distract us they were going to attack the Saudi oil fields. To you this sound like we are losing. Hope this does not hurt your 1 watt mind.