Budget Plan Likely to Show Huge Deficit

[PLC1]

Yeah.....we wouldn't want to return to the prior tax-policies....and, risk having to deal with all o' that Prosperity, again!!

http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html​

So, are you arguing that we need higher taxes? That might be a hard sell.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So, are you arguing that we need higher taxes? That might be a hard sell.

hard sell does not mean the wrong sell...the easy sell is spend more tax less or as I like to call it California voting .

 

[PLC1]

hard sell does not mean the wrong sell...the easy sell is spend more tax less or as I like to call it California voting .

If we're going to continue to increase the budget, then go over the inflated and bloated budget that has been created, then we should increase taxes. The better solution would be to cut back unnecessary spending and let individuals decide how to spend their own money.

That, and quit promoting voodoo economics.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If we're going to continue to increase the budget, then go over the inflated and bloated budget that has been created, then we should increase taxes. The better solution would be to cut back unnecessary spending and let individuals decide how to spend their own money.

Then, what's the plan to pay for the present-tab, initiated by the Bush-Admin???.....'cause, someone's gotta pay it!!

That was the unique thing about Clinton's move (that Hillary's already planning to reinitiate); increased taxes (that barely impacted the Middle Class) gave us the opportunity to pay-down (on) Daddy Bush's debt, which lowered interest-rates and encouraged American-businesses to invest in the future!

http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_32/b3641059.htm


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/index.html​

*

"The tax changes enacted in 1993 account for some of the increased revenue in recent years. The 1993 tax increase, however, applied overwhelmingly to high-income taxpayers. The vast majority of American taxpayers saw no increase at all in their income taxes and were touched only by a 4.3 cent increase in the gas tax, which costs a typical household $38 per year."

http://www.cbpp.org/HITX85.HTM​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So, are you arguing that we need higher taxes? That might be a hard sell.

It'd only be a hard-sell to people who didn't (actually) live in this country, at the time.

It's no longer theory. Bill Clinton DID it.

 

[PLC1]

Then, what's the plan to pay for the present-tab, initiated by the Bush-Admin???.....'cause, someone's gotta pay it!!

That was the unique thing about Clinton's move (that Hillary's already planning to reinitiate); increased taxes (that barely impacted the Middle Class) gave us the opportunity to pay-down (on) Daddy Bush's debt, which lowered interest-rates and encouraged American-businesses to invest in the future!

http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_32/b3641059.htm


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/index.html​

*

"The tax changes enacted in 1993 account for some of the increased revenue in recent years. The 1993 tax increase, however, applied overwhelmingly to high-income taxpayers. The vast majority of American taxpayers saw no increase at all in their income taxes and were touched only by a 4.3 cent increase in the gas tax, which costs a typical household $38 per year."

http://www.cbpp.org/HITX85.HTM​

You have a point there. Let's pay down the debt, repay SS, then cut taxes.

But to do that, we have to cut spending first. As it is now, more taxes = more government waste.

 

[Phoenix68]

Who was in charge of congress Sham? What is your party doing to stop any of this? Give me a reason to vote for your side.

.​

"Since World War II, the United States economy has performed better, significantly, on average under the administration of Democratic presidents, than Republican presidents."

.
.
Where Would We Be, Without Democratic Economies?????
.​