Politics Forum

Midterms Matter!

18 Total Messages • Page 1 of 2 • 1 2 Next » 
A Warning About Raising Taxes
kirkbrew
kirkbrew
10/30/2008 01:53 PM

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg998.cfm

Yup folks. Right here is why raising taxes will destroy the economy.

I love the bit "(Archived document, may contain errors)". Dude - LOTS of errors. Amazing that this is still up.

barry2
barry2
10/30/2008 02:44 PM

the errors are typo's and spaces in words....not errors in numbers and the such....the article seemd to show that his tax hikes slowed down the economy.....why are you posting this?...it doesn't seem to help your argument....maybe i missed something, because like you said there are LOTS of errors which make it uneasy to read....but i could obtain that in 1992 the economy grew at 3.9%...and 1993 grew at 3.1%...and was projected for 1994 at 3.0%....the retroactive tax increases that clinton enacted slowed down the economy...what is your point?

adaniels
adaniels
10/30/2008 02:56 PM

I noticed the same thing. The article seemed to support Mica's point, not Kirkbrew. The only thing I could think of is that the article was wrong. Economically the US did very well under Clinton, and the article said he was a failure and couldn't pay off the deficit. But, Clinton did start paying it off and balanced our budget, another thing the article said he could never do. So, I was thinking the point may be that even though the neo-conservative right likes to paint things in this negative light the democratic techniques on balancing the budget and increasing middle class wages have worked, as we all saw during the Clinton years.

barry2
barry2
10/30/2008 03:24 PM

the balanced budget thing came in 1994 when the republicans took the house......

smellmymule
smellmymule
10/30/2008 05:00 PM

raising taxes like Obama wants to do will drive up unemployment, inflation, and ruin the already bad economy.

Lightenupyourload
Lightenupyourload
10/30/2008 06:21 PM

obama has stated AGAIN AND AGAIN that the only people whose taxes will be raised are those making more than $250K/yr. please don't' believe all mccain's stupid fucking commercials.

kirkbrew
kirkbrew
11/3/2008 06:06 AM

I came across this article by mistake and thought that the gloom-and-doom of it was hillarious. Especially consideringh the years that followed - unprescedented wealth (too much in fact), a Dow that went up 250% by the end of Clinton, SIGNIFICANTLY reduced debt...but if you look out there somewhere, theere will be an article that would say "Reagen Could Have Done Better."

My point was that the extreme right (Heritage, AEI, Dobson...) say anything and do anything to try to undermine their opponents - facts don't matter. And history has shown that they were ALWAYS wrong.

Regarding the stats that Mica picked up on - what is THEIR point? Actuals don't meet projections? SHOCKER!!! Never seen that happen!

And the argument about when the recession started/ended...I think that we have been in the middle of that argument for the last 2 or 3 years. All stats that are easy to spin. The fact was, things were not too good throughout the Bush 1 years and Clinton started off with a mess.

Personal income tax lagging other sources? WOW!!! THAT IS AMAZING!!! Clinton is killing AMERICA! Maybe the problem was that (A) it takes time for income to "trickle down" from businesses and (B) businesses started to pay off through non taxable stock options...

Histroy has shown that these people (from fiscal policy, to environment, to domestic policy to foreign policy) are consistently WRONG.

Yea Mica - Thank God for Newt and his brainless band of thugs. THEY are the real heros, right? See, to balance a budget - you need the income. So, take a stab at where the income came from??? And take a stab at who took the biggest hit during the Clinton era budget? It wasn't welfare mothers (unless you count Lockheed Martin and Boeing welfare mothers).

barry2
barry2
11/3/2008 09:05 AM

yeah kirkbrew....and welfare reform was clinton's idea.......yeah, right....

kirkbrew
kirkbrew
11/4/2008 06:29 AM

Mica - Nice bait, but I'm gonna' stay on message.

The FACT still remains that the most prosperous time in the recent history of this country was during a time when the "rich" paid "high" taxes. The rich got richer, wealth was "distribuited" and the government started on the right foot to being solvent.

Jenkem_Garcia
Jenkem_Garcia
11/4/2008 07:13 AM

We had a strong economy in the 1980's > short recession> strong economy in the 1990's > short recession > strong economy in the 2000's > very likely a recession

the balance budgets came in 1998, 1999, and 2000. A revenue boom from internet development, NAFTA, and deregulation of multiple industries including telecommunications and finance were the biggest factors in this. The Baby Boom generation was at or near their peak earning years. Still, if Social Security liabilities were factored in, there was no surplus. Bill Clinton deserves some credit for these surpluses, and the Republican congress does too, since spending was relatively restrained during this period.

dweniger
dweniger
11/4/2008 02:26 PM

smokey your right on point! how can obama increase spending by almost $1 trillion per year, on top of our $10 trillion debt, and on top of the $50 trillion social security shortfall. he is going to have to raise taxes for everybody, it might not be income tax but we are going to be taxed somehow. Plus you tax the rich they will pass those taxes onto the consumer.

all the dems on this board feel taxing the rich will solve every problem. well that hasnt worked anywhere before why do these people think its going to work here. why is it the most liberal states in the country are the worst off?? bc of high tax rates and huge spending programs, rich people take their business elsewhere along with their jobs and money!!

FunkThompson
FunkThompson
11/4/2008 03:17 PM

Yeah, and McCain had such a better plan to reduce debt and get Americans the things we are seeking.

We need a way to bolster the middle class, bring jobs back to the US, fix our broken education system - So that ALL AMERICANS have a fair chance at GOOD EDUCATION, not just those shipped off to private schools by wealthy parents. We need to fix our health care system, hell we need to make PROFITTING off someone's misery and illness is ILLEGAL if you ask me. It's one thing to be a doctor trying for a good living, it's something else entirely when insurance companies make coverage decisions almost solely in the name of profit.

We live in a world where, once again, the rich seem able to get away with anything they want, while the poor look on, powerless, merely a resource or nuissance to the wealthy bosses. At any moment our jobs could be taken from us, while the executives who lay us off vote themselves multi-million dollar raises for their brilliant plan to increase profit.

I don't care if taxes get raised, I just hope we can get America back on track. Bush has squandered almost everything we once held dear, and half the conservatives are still blind to it, still defending his policies if not the man himself. Sad, really.

PooDolla
PooDolla
11/4/2008 03:21 PM

"insurance companies make coverage decisions almost solely in the name of profit."

Can you expand on this. I'm just curious of your opinion.

FunkThompson
FunkThompson
11/4/2008 03:27 PM

When I wrecked my car, my passenger was injured. $12,000 medical bills.

Because I had not hit another vehicle, I did not get any money from the other driver's insurance, leaving me with only my $1,000 "MedPay" coverage per person.

They refused to pay her medical bills, beyond this $1,000. My best friends ended up having to sue me to get the insurance company to pay. They kept saying it was "an act of god" and their policies forbode it. After all was said and done, they still only paid $9,000 of the $12,000 bill. In addition, they only covered a certain number of visits to the Physical Therapist for me, resulting in an arm that is still all kinds of fucked up, and me with no recourse but to deal with it or sue.

And if you look, these stories are everywhere, people unable to afford health care, insurance companies refusing coverage (whether medical insurance, or in cases with property insurance and flooding and such.) Insurance companies refusing treatments for one reason or another. That reason, is profit, and profit is not evil in and of itself, I just think it is sad how much evil we are willing to overlook in the name of profit.

PooDolla
PooDolla
11/4/2008 03:43 PM

Okay, I see what you are saying. I can tell you that the real person to blame for this is the agent that set up a policy for you that was obviously insuffecient. I'm an agent myself and work in an agency that prides itself in making sure people are properly covered. In fact we don't even work with people that are only concerned with price. Ultimately those are the people that will sue me if something happens and ,like you, were not properly covered. It is the agent's duty to make sure people have good coverage. They have professional liability to do so. It is unfortunate that the price is what it is for insurance. There are many factors that account for that and hopefully in time the companies will become more efficient and there is less fraud happening so the prices will fall. My advise for everyone is to read your policy and really know what you are an are not covered for so at least there aren't any suprises that come up when you need to use your insurance.

By using the forums you agree to comply with our Terms of Use