More Palin Lies

[ajmccarrell]

[quote] Originally Posted by strandinthewind
Not only that, but W essentially gave a phantom tax cut. While he most certainly cut everyones' taxes at the Federal level, he simultaneously cut funding for many state programs, which caused the states to raise the lost revenue via higher taxes. So, while the average person may have had a few hundred more dollars a year off of their Federal income tax, they likely had a similar amount added to their state taxes or will have it added in the future because the sate (and the Feds) borrowed the money to close the gap.

Moreover, Obama's plan will work because it has in the past and history demonstrates it can correct a huge Federal deficit like the deficit left by another 12 years of insane R rule. In 1993, the Federal deficit exceeded about $300 billion a year. Bill Clinton and Congress raised taxes and slashed spending. The effect was the deficits that had ballooned under Reagan and Bush 41 were tamed. Moreover, we had economic expansion, job creation, a stock boom, and a budget surplus of trillions of dollars when Clinton left office -- compare that to what we have now, which is insane debt, a crashing stock and housing market (due to non-existent regulation) , a ballooned national debt that W promised to pay off while in office with the rev. he expected to generate through the economic growth he promised to obtain through he tax cuts (which McSame was against) I get that the Clinton economy was not perfect due to the dot.com bust, but clearly it was much better than the crapola W has let fester. McSame wants to extend that plan though he may (a big if) control the spending slightly better, though his current platform suggests he will not no matter what he says.

In the end, I am for the fair tax because the numbers show the poor will pay no tax and everone else pulls their own weight via a tax on their spending. I would even be for a flat tax where no one making under $75,000 a year is taxed at all. But, that fantasy will never happen. So, in the real world, I am for the plan that has been demonstrated to work very well despite any abstract economic theories that obviously have not worked in their application over the last 30 or so years.[quote]




I hesitate to think that you honestly believe that the economic situation when Bill Clinton raised taxes is THE SAME as the economic climate today?! Do you really want to be making that claim? Again, take an econ course and we can discuss it. Until then, you are talking out of your ass and expressing meaningless opinions. To sum up your argument, Obama should #1. raise taxes, #2, increase spending to unprecedented levels as he has promised to do, #3 cut benefits as a bi-product of tax increases and the banks will suddenly stop failing and the birds will be singing and everything will be okay. This is truly the stuff of parody. I really thought you had a better grasp of the issues than this. Yes, the fair tax would work. You are correct there.

Also, my theories are not vague, they are taught in EVERY economics classroom all around the world, from Harvard to the crappy falling apart trade school down the road. You claimed the be some night school president, which you are obviously not, otherwise you would have consulted your econ instructor, which you didn't. Go to the library, pick up a book and (gasp) read it. Talking out of your rear is a poor substitute for actual knowledge on a subject. You might actually learn something by reading.

Also, we did have a surplus DURING Clinton's term, but we'd hit a mild recession at the end of it that started eating up the surplus. We then had a stock crash, because of the dot.com bust, or did you skip that year or two? We had much the same thing going on with banks now, where businesses did IPO's for businesses that had no line of business. People lost their shirts, but you conveniently forgot that. Our surplus was also nowhere near "the trillions" as you said. We have NEVER at any point in history had a surplus that high. Look it up, facts are readily available. Or am I being "too tedious" by directing you to facts because it contradicts your "thoughts"?