the bush admin. proposed $380 billion defense budget, not including the $50-100 billion slated for his war on Iraq. but neither the budget nor any tax bill could be passed without votes from BOTH parties in Congress. overtaxation, mismanagement, and waste of resources has nothing to do with party lines.
I hate Bush even more NOW
- Thread starter bungrider
- Start date
the bush admin. proposed $380 billion defense budget, not including the $50-100 billion slated for his war on Iraq. but neither the budget nor any tax bill could be passed without votes from BOTH parties in Congress. overtaxation, mismanagement, and waste of resources has nothing to do with party lines.
It always cracks me up when people think a President can actually effect economics.
The Fed (which is non partisan) has major power.
Clinton took credit for growth and a balanced budget. The truth is that the end of the Cold War combined with major corporate restructuring made a boom inevitable. The investment in tech was mind boggling. Almost every firm from IBM on down dropped employees at an incredible rate (as a percent of net income).
Giving Clinton credit for that is a joke. Blaming Bush for the contraction now is equally ludicrous. We are in a contraction phase, and the person in charge has little control over it.
Jay
The Fed (which is non partisan) has major power.
Clinton took credit for growth and a balanced budget. The truth is that the end of the Cold War combined with major corporate restructuring made a boom inevitable. The investment in tech was mind boggling. Almost every firm from IBM on down dropped employees at an incredible rate (as a percent of net income).
Giving Clinton credit for that is a joke. Blaming Bush for the contraction now is equally ludicrous. We are in a contraction phase, and the person in charge has little control over it.
Jay
VAT is evil. I hope you guys won't be saddled with a tax that applies not only to goods purchased but also to services ! like labour (add another 17-20% please for VAT!) .Worst thing is often there is no "added value at all" when for ex. the product is just sold through another middleman who marks it up.
Quote from rs7:
I really did not want to get involved in this thread. But I am stuck not trading, (home sick), and am bored enough to say just this:
REGRESSIVE TAXES are a tax on the POOR!
VAT fits in perfectly with the reduction in income taxes for the top 1%.
This is NOT a Dem/Rep. issue. It is a rich screwing the poor issue. It MAY be a Lib/Cons. issue to a degree. But truly it benefits rich liberals and hurts poor conservatives. So I am not sure there are not a tremendous amount of crossovers on this issue.
One thing for certain. Doesn't take a genius to know that a guy that makes $50k a year and Bill Gates have close to the same budget on socks and underwear (I guarantee that Gates doesn't buy Versace underwear). Why will they pay the same tax?
This is just an exaggerated sales tax that hurts those that can least afford it. And helps those that are not impacted by their spending at all.
Peace,
rs7
RS7 (Rally Sport?), you said it for me.
Regressive taxes (VAT) hurt the vast majority. Bush's tax cut plan helps the wealthy, the vast minority. What does this tell you about Pres. Shrub?
Ask Europeans, Canadians, Aussies, et al, what they think of VAT.
