The Clinton Surplus Myth...

Sure I have a point.

My point is that in constrast to an honest person, when someone challenges you on a fact you assert, rathter than backing up your own claim, you demand that they prove you are wrong.

That is what dishonest debater do who make up (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Sure I have a point.

My point is that in constrast to an honest person, when someone challenges you on a fact you assert, rathter than backing up your own claim, you demand that they prove you are wrong.

That is what dishonest debater do who make up (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

And when he can't when on the merits of his argument......................dodged noted on the rebuttal of your points

More of your specious misrepresentation of the data. They weren't charged against revenues, people paid the same amount of taxes. The socalled rebates were an expense that as I recall were offbudget as they were really an advance against the lower tax rates that were coming.

 

In constrast to an honest person, when someone challenges you on a fact you assert, rathter than backing up your own claim, you demand that they prove you are wrong.

Prove it. Given your record of fabricating facts I doubt it. Those rebates were refunds of tax receipts that were revenues.

[Predicted response based on this thread -- he'll demand I prove he is wrong as dishonest members do]

 

I was against the Bush tax cuts from the start before 9/11, wanted more of that Clinton/Newt surplus, whether it existed or not, and was more against the tax cuts after. As in a topic started by "solar" I said, "a deficit in a long war is stupid." So whether the taxes needed raising or other, something had to be done to keep the debt from growing. We just wound up with the perfect storm of a housing bubble and banking and investors gone wild, none of which is in the president's job description. If you cannot regulate the speculation, the bankers, set a reasonable DTI for capital requirements, you tax the frack out of them so they are not so fracking over exuberant. Better slow and steady than what goes up must come crashing down.

And as to the peace, we got two declarations of war against us during his administration due to "protracted blockade" of Iraq and no finish to that war or all out WAR on Iraq's proxy. Seriously, it probably would have been called "wagging the dog" if he had taken it to them (see baby milk factory), but the fact remains there was no real peace.

And much of the properity evaporated with the dot com bust, so people cannot ignore that "irrational exuberance" played a part just as the housing bubble played a part in bringing down the Bush economy.

Would it be better to have had the Bush taxes gone and balanced the budget, you got me there, but you lose me in the fact that when Obama had both houses he got a "F" on the economy.

We can either go up or down on the taxes to increase revenue, the latter does not seem as intuitive, but not raising taxes in a recession argues that tricle down is working. So Obama loses the argument that lower taxes cannot work when he kept them low. Our corporate taxes being higher than other nations is seriously an issue.

Simple fact is, Bush did not have Congress when the economy collapsed, we got massive debt and no serious attempt at a surplus from Obama and his two houses.

If Romney fails with or without Congress, like Obama failed with them for Obamacare, we will get the return of the Obamanation on steroids. So no worries.

If Romney gives us another giant bubble and bust--he can say hello to our little friend "from each according to their ability to each according to their need," "we all must sacrifice for the common good," "more of us must give so we all may benefit," "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required" Democrats--he can go down in history as the principle author of the decline and fall of lazy fair capitalism.

 

And when his arugments can't stand on their merits calls the otherside dishonest.............do you work for the Obama campaign.

 

I've been hearing for years that the Clinton economic policies gave us a great economy, but I can never find out what exactly Clinton did that gave us a booming economy in the 90's. Since you seem to know, please share!

 

That surplus was delayed by Clintons tax increase, on an economy that was two years into a very strong growth period and revenues were also growing strongly, and was likely not to be reached because of it but was because of the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts which Clinton opposed that sent revenues into double digit growth and then the Gingrich/Kaisch cuts in the growth of spending which Clinton opposed and welfare reform which Clinton also opposed.

Why do you attribute it to Clinton.

 

So OK with his sexual assaults on government workers and denying workers their rightful promotions in order to give a job to his mistress or his committing felonies when being sued for sexual assault and sexual harassment?

So you critize Romney as in

"Poor record when in business on hiring women and no women in his cabinet as governor. Is that really something to celebrate?"

So if he hired women and then sexually assaulted them that would be OK with you? If he told women he'd get them a job if they have sex with him that would be OK? If he gave promotions to women who had sex with him denying the job to another woman who did not, that would be OK with you.

 

I did not attribute anything to Clinton, only both “Clinton/Newt.” And I stand my Republican opposition to the Bush tax cuts.

“House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., today told the Cato Institute that he believes ‘significant’ tax relief can be passed this year, given the newly estimated $1.5 trillion budget surplus over the next decade. Budget Chairman John Kasich, R-Ohio, echoed that call, telling reporters, ‘With all that money sitting here in Washington, we need to get it out of here.’

Earlier this year, Gingrich and Kasich had said part of the surplus should be used for tax cuts. However, in recent weeks Gingrich indicated that Congressional Budget Office surplus estimates were so low that it would be difficult to use them to justify tax cuts, and Kasich had said part of the surplus should be used to transform Social Security by establishing individual retirement accounts.

However, the CBO reported Wednesday that the surplus will reach $251 billion by 2008 and that in 2002 the budget will be in surplus, not counting the Social Security trust fund. Based on those new figures, Gingrich called on the Clinton administration to work with congressional Republicans to phase out the so-called marriage penalty, cut the capital gains tax and eliminate estate taxes.” http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/07/house-leaders-use-surplus-for-tax-cuts/3745/

1) “which Clinton opposed”

2) “which Clinton opposed”

3) “which Clinton also opposed”

I count three vetoes, and for Clinton to have not been a part of an “estimated $1.5 trillion budget surplus” into the Bush administration, or anything else that was done with his opposition there must be overrides of those vetoes, feel free to point them out at any time:

www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-157.pdf

Otherwise, Clinton gets credit too for where we were headed.

 

Had smart group of economic advisors. He raised the top rate on taxes and cut spending (mainly the defense budget) which made us much more in balance and the markets responded very positively.

 

Funny, I'm not the one making claims and when challenged demanding others prove I wrong. The MO of the dishonest person.

 

Utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

So raise taxes and cut spending. That's usually called austerity when practiced by Europeans. Liberals have been saying that would cause a depression.

 

No it is only a bad idea when you are in recession. We no longer are so rates could go back to Clinton levels. And cutting defense spending has very little affect on the economy. Very few jobs created by that spending. Believe it or not this progressive does believe in fiscal discipline. That reminds me Clinton also had a policy of for any new program we wanted to spend on you needed an equal cut somewhere else. Pay go it was called I think.

 

Paygo was a result of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. Just a little bit before Clinton's time.

I suspect we will get to run that tax increase experiment again very soon.

 

I don't know , Obama has wanted that but can't get it passed. My guess would be no increase as long as pubs control house.

 

I'm talking about Taxmageddon. There are a lot of tax cuts that expire at the end of the year. So if there is no bipartisan tax deal, taxes go up a lot for next year. Obama doesn't have to do a thing.

 

Ok thats different then the rate increase. Oh yeah the whole sequester cuts and all the tax cuts expiring will probably happen. A deal might get made but I would not put money on it. House members especially have to be careful. Many were elected on the promise of zero compromise and would face primary challenges if they wavered.

 

Personally, for the sake of the country, I'm hoping that there isn't a tax deal. The "Clinton" era tax rates weren't oppressive and we need to remember that we'll still have about 40% of Americans paying no "income taxes" (they will be paying FICA taxes) at all. It was ironic when Romney "Dis'd" the 47% because it was the Bush era tax cuts that increased the number of low income individuals not paying taxes. Of course the wealthy made out far better than the poor under the Bush tax cuts but the poor also benefited to a limited degree.

In reality we need at least double the increase over what it will be when if the current temporary rate cuts expire and that's something neither the Republicans or Democrats are willing to face.

 

Income taxes go to 39.6%. The lowest bracket INCREASES 50%. The child tax credit is cut in half. EITC goes away. "Payroll Tax holiday" is gone. 3.96% is added on the the rich for obamaSCAM. Capital Gains goes to 39.6% Estate taxes go insane again. The economy is hit a devastating blow and the middle class gets hit the hardest. It is not called the fiscal cliff because the Bush tax cuts end. The pain will be much worse and primarily right in the gut of the middle class. Without tax reform, the rich simply move money out of tax harm's way. The middle class is eviscerated.

 

Because the 90s sucked so bad. 23 million new jobs and a surplus budget and the debt decreasing and rising incomes of not just the 1% and sub 4% unemployment and all that.

Lord we don't want to have to go through that again.

 

Think through this some Irie...how can People/Business paying additional taxes...add 23 million new jobs, create a budget surplus, a decreasing debt, and rising incomes?

You drink the Koolaid but just think about what you are saying!

 

Because there is no easily provable relationship between tax rates and growth. You'll find it impossible to define a causal relationship between taxes and any of those going in either direction, it without a doubt has an impact, but the severity of that impact and the direction depends on more variables than it's possible to account for.

 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm

Jobs 1992, 128,105,000. Unemployed 9,613,000 7.5%
Jobs 2000, 142,583,000. Unemployed 5.692,000 4.0%
Jobs 2007, 153,124,000. Unemployed 7,078,000 4.6%

Job increase under Clinton with a Republican Congress 14,478,000. Not 23 million

Job increase under Bush with a Republican Congress 10,541,000. Difference in unemployed 1,386,000. Population gain 231,867,000-212,577,000= 19,290,000.

There were wars under Clinton, there were wars under Bush. There was higher taxes under Clinton, there were lower taxes under Bush. Yet the RESULTS are very similar.

The only MAJOR change from then until now was the Democrats taking control of both houses iof congress from FY 2008 through FY 2011.

Once again, AS ALWAYS, your manipulated number claims are pure hokum.