If raising taxes on the "wealthy" is so good, why not put the top tax rate at 90%? Incidentally, Rubin was and is - a democrat. He's done a hell of a job for the Citigroup shareholders too (he's still a director). Liberals hate facts. One of the facts that has always confounded them is the fact that the IRS and Treasury have both reported that Federal tax receipts actually INCREASE when you lower rates - happens consistently whenever it is done - look it up for yourself. People in the top tax brackets pay between 85-90% of all Federal taxes. Sorry, it's true. (Of course, it was probably just Bush's "evil oil buddies" who put those numbers together - so they're obviously false). The key is SPENDING - that needs to come down as well. Let's use some logic and common sense: you can't generalize and say that everyone who makes $300,000+ year has all this money left over every month and can afford to have more money taken from them. There are people and businesses that on the surface make a ton of money, but their expenditures are such that there is not a lot left every month. (I've been there). By the way, most lower income people aren't sitting around worrying about taking money from the "rich" anyway - how will that make their lives better? Are some of you guys expecting Hillary or Obama to send you a $40,000 check every year to help out? Whatever you're expecting them to give you - trust me, it won't happen. Go out in the real world and create your own destiny and quit worrying about the "rich."
President Hillary Clinton - Best for the Economy !!
- Thread starter Joab
- Start date
In 92' dems controlled all three branches.
Remember the "contract with american" in 94'
The very first item:
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.
This is the basis for the balence budget. Only the congress can balence the budget. It was only in the 94 election did we have that congress. By year 2000 it was gone.
Democrats.....Tax and Spend
Republicans...Borrow and Spend
It is my opinion that Hillary, if elected President, will NOT pull the troops out of Iraq or resolve the military solution there during her first term...Quote from Joab:
Your saying that the average American needs to go bankrupt through dollar devaluation before this situation can be fixed
I think the common sense answer is a lot easier then that.
<font color="red">STOP spending so much money on a war that is accomplishing NOTHING would be a great start.</font>
Getting your house back in order financially is not that hard right now but in another 3 years of government waste it will be impossible.
Unless we have a major financial disaster (the unfolding one?) that forces her administration and a bipartisan congress to AGREE that it is OKAY<br> to reduce our military and financial and political exposure in Iraq / Middle East...
The first women president is NEVER going to be SEEN as retreating... No Way... No How... Never gonna happen...
Although, i do NOT think she will engage Iran militarily as a first option unlike McCain...
Baring being forced to pull out of Iraq... as stated above... We will probably even have a troop escalation, a fighting excalation and a increase in military spending in Iraq under her administration...
You think the Dem base is angry at the spineless do nothing Pelosi / Reid elected contingent in congress...
WAIT until the she is Air Force One...
<img src="http://www.enflow.com/p.gif" >
Your right BUT she would also be able to pull in A LOT more International support and that will be HUGE.
Bush and now the Republicans (thanks to him) are viewed internationally as hostile and arrogant.
Clintons will be viewed internationally as friendly and humble.
The rest of the free world will RUSH to help you !!!
It was Bush's cowboy mentality and attitude of arrogance that pushed away all your alias after 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq .
Yes, that is a good point and maybe that might help us intelligently reposition our exposure in Iraq to a pre existing invasion non occupying posture...
one can only intensely hope...
<img src="http://www.enflow.com/p.gif">
Joab, if planes were hijacked and crashed into the CN Tower by radical jihadists, what would have been Canada's response? To put together a committe to "study" the problem or perhaps take some action to prevent it from happening again? It's easy to sit back and judge when you're not directly involved in the situation.
Quote from Joab:
Hahaha !
Know that's funny
The last 3 war ships Canada bought for 300 million, wouldn't even float straight. no joke !
The Canadian Army God Bless their souls, couldn't even control 200 pissed off Indians last summer and lost a fight against sticks and stones.
Ahh, you forget the 45 million uninsured in this country who would pave the way for Canadian forces by blowing up bridges and disrupting communications. Add to that millons of injured vets who got screwed by the VA on benefits to save Rumsfield a few bucks. Hell, Canada wouldn't have to actually invade...just announce that they were. The poeple of the US would rise up, throw open the border corssings and demand they come south for a fun "occupation".
Oh, Canada...save us soon!
Well firstly there are hardly any people in the CN tower (It's basically a huge antenea)
I agree with you it's easy to be an armchair quarterback.
That being said, I can tell you personally I would have strapped on a rifle and gone to War for you after 9/11 but after I saw Bush basically threatening me and my country that we better do everything he says or I will be considered an enemy, my response was Fuck you !
People are inspired into wars, not frightened and controlled and if you think that's wrong study Hitler.
<img src="http://www.qando.net/blog/images/laffer.gif">