Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

One simple fact, Clinton raised taxes, Bush cut them, 20% more tax revenue under Bush than Clinton.

Raising taxes on the rich is nothing but politics. It has nothing to do with economics.

[Rickm505]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

I'll bite:

SCK, put some numbers on that last post and show me where it makes sense..

Allow me to help out

GRAPH I. DISCRETIONARY BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 2008 (in billions)

Spending Category	Billions of US dollars
Defense		481.4
Education		58.6
Health		52.3
Justice		43.6
Veternan Benefits		39.6
International Affairs		39.5
Housing Assitance		32.9
Natural Resources & Environment		28.7
Science & Space		27.3
Transportation		23.4
Training, Employment & Social Services		17.6
General Government		17.6
Other Income Security		16.4
Economic Development		10.7
Social Security & Medicare		10.1
Agriculture		5.8
Energy		4.2 $910 Billion Total
Notes: The “Social Security & Medicare” funding in this graph refers to administrative costs associated with these programs, and does not reflect actual benefits paid out nor payments paid into the system. Nor supplemental Military Iraqi spending increases.

[PBzeer]

Higher economic growth increases tax revenues. You balance budgets by living within what you have, not promising more based on uncertain revenue generation.

Before increased revenue can have any long term positive effect, spending must be prioritized and controlled. You don't acomplish this, by promoting new programs, before getting the one's already in place under control.

Or, to put it more bluntly, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

[chucklesR]

Rck,
Re -read the post - Your numbers are simply a budget look, and as far off the point as possible.
The point: put some numbers out showing how raising taxes on the richest individuals will raise revenue's, IN THE LONG TERM.

Every graph I've posted in these 400 plus pages shows the spike in revenue immediately after a tax hike then is followed by a overall decline as we the frigging people move our wealth away from the takers and fakers.

John's post above was right on, Clinton raised taxes and overall lost revenue (in a booming economy mind you) while Bush has cut taxes and shown a revenue increase that exceeds the GDP growth rate -

Do Dem's really need a lesson or an example better than that? Why do they persist in this false idea? Politics, that's why.

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

"AL Gore ran one of the worst campaigns ever, although he did win the popular vote of course. so it actually was Diana ross and the Supremes who sent gore packing."

See, thats what I mean...
Its not that Bush won (twice mind you), its that Gore lost. And, it was someone elses fault to boot.

Consider, just for a second, that....
BUSH WON, deal with it, get over it, take a pill, see a therapist, talk to your mom, kick the dog, trim the whiskers on the cat, I dunno, somehow, someway, ya gotta come to grips that BUSH WON. TWICE.
Sucks, don't it.

perhaps you missed the part where i said i voted for Bush the first time because I couldn't stand Gore?????? I was just setting the record straight for who sent whom packing, ok?

[US27inKS]

Barry's intrade chart. Notice how it's trading well below the bollinger band. Not good for Barry.

Hope this link works.

Closing Prices chart - Barack Obama to win 2008 US Presidential Election

[sck5]

Clinton raised taxes in 93 and there then followed the largest economic growth spurt IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

What a horrible horrible thing he did to balance that budget. Used to be Repubs had sense in that department. They parted company with reality a while ago when they started denying that revenue had anything to do with the difference between spending and revenue.

Try that theory on your own personal budget and see where it gets you.

We need adults in charge. Not teenagers running wild with their parents credit card (only in this case it is our kids who will pay, not our parents)

[erps]

Clinton raised taxes in 93 and there then followed the largest economic growth spurt IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

Deja Vu. Has this been discussed before?

[PBzeer]

True to form sck5, you miss the entire point.

However much the economy grew under Clinton, tax revenue did not, and the economy grew not on the back of tax increase, but on gutting the military and reforming welfare.

But, for arguements sake, let's say it only grew because of raising taxes. Given that Obama has promised a massive growth in federal spending, TO BE PAID FOR BY RAISING TAXES, how are we to assume this will not lead to bigger deficits when it has been shown that raising taxes decreases revenue?

Under the Bush tax cuts, we had growth, in spite of the aftermath of both 9/11 and Katrina (things Clinton didn't have to deal with) and increased tax revenue, coming out of the reccesion at the end of Clinton's term.

JFK, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, all increased tax revenue, so please, tell me again ...... why should we raise taxes?

[knothead]

Originally Posted by erps

Deja Vu. Has this been discussed before?

Absolutely.
That's why I like to talk Baseball. Something new every night and the "players" are more likable.