Clinton took over a Republican disaster which had quadrupled the national debt from less than $1 trillion to more than $4 trillion and had a fine recession going on and raised taxes and created 23 million new jobs, not only balanced the annual debt but during fy 1998, 99 and 2000 generated $400 billion of surplus.
Along came George, cut taxes on the wealthy, started two wars, one a war of choice, and (get this sport's fans) doubled the national debt to more than $11 trillion dollars.
The same four Republicans who are screaming for spending cuts in exchange for approving an increase in the debt limit themselves have voted 19 times to do the same thing under a Republican administration.
What a load of horse schit!!
Since 1971 the congress of the United States has voted to increase the debt limit 70 times. Not once have they voted to stop an increase when one was due.
No president can do much good or harm on his own, if you want to blame anyone for anything look at the house and senate that either approved the various president's policies, or failed to override his veto.
Oh, and who voted in all those politicians? Blame yourself and the rest of the voters.
I can't remember when I last voted for an incumbent.
Clinton took over a Republican disaster which had quadrupled the national debt from less than $1 trillion to more than $4 trillion and had a fine recession going on and raised taxes and created 23 million new jobs, not only balanced the annual debt but during fy 1998, 99 and 2000 generated $400 billion of surplus.
Along came George, cut taxes on the wealthy, started two wars, one a war of choice, and (get this sport's fans) doubled the national debt to more than $11 trillion dollars.
The same four Republicans who are screaming for spending cuts in exchange for approving an increase in the debt limit themselves have voted 19 times to do the same thing under a Republican administration.
What a load of horse schit!!
Since 1971 the congress of the United States has voted to increase the debt limit 70 times. Not once have they voted to stop an increase when one was due.
That what the people voted in all those congress people they lie and cheat to put money in there pocket and don't care for the national debt.Now there thinking to privatize health care what next we all bow down to the goverment and walk in a stright line and not to think
Portugal and Ireland were just rated "junk". When you lose that degree of credibility you can't borrow cheaply if at all. If we default because Republicans decided to leverage Obama for concessions over & over as the republicans passed funding in as many stages as they could force. They're being obstructionist even voting no on Republican originated ideas Obama agrees with.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Portugal and Ireland were just rated "junk". When you lose that degree of credibility you can't borrow cheaply if at all. If we default because Republicans decided to leverage Obama for concessions over & over as the republicans passed funding in as many stages as they could force. They're being obstructionist even voting no on Republican originated ideas Obama agrees with.
Also compare to sweden - high taxes on the rich but because they tax enough to run a surplus they are at 7.9% unemployment now AND have had 7.3% GDP growth the last year
people need to quit believing the fairy tale that having reasonable tax rates on the rich kills/slows an economy, history shows us that is not the case and in many cases it appears to have the opposite effect and higher taxes = more growth especially if govt debt is being paid down.
Having a higher tax rate creates an incentive to spend money that would otherwise be considered taxable profits. It's a fun little game that a lot of people play. It's called "convincing the government you earn less than you do". But the joke's on us - when we spend that money and claim it as a business expense, we spur the economy forward. It's when we sit on our money, rather than spending it, that the economy suffers.
Increasing taxes does NOT hurt business; it tells them to increase their expenses so their profits don't look so high. The way businesses spend money is by paying workers; anything that creates an incentive for businesses to hire and/or buy is good for the economy, even if that incentive is a stick rather than a carrot.
Incidentally, I love when people claim GE and other major businesses pay no taxes. Their employees certainly do!
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
An analog can be developed between pricing of a product and taxation. The price of a product determines the sales but a happy medium must be sought that yields sufficient sales to maintain profit. Reaganomics was based upon the Laffer curve. If you lower taxes past a certain point you will lose tax revenue so you have to determine exactly where you are on the curve and consider periods of low economic activity as well as periods of high economic activity. There is also a lag between any government intervention and its impact. Building infrastructure sounds sweet but someone has to actually use that infrastructure to go to work or ship goods to market or it’s all in vain. Unfortunately we elect people who are more concerned with buying votes than any lasting economic benefit so they cater to a largely ignorant or uninformed body of constituents.
Linear Mode
