- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,023
- 47,212
- 2,180
You need to read a book, Gramps.
What does a book have to do with a total combined tax burden?
He means the works of fiction he reads that says Americans aren't paying enough taxes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You need to read a book, Gramps.
What does a book have to do with a total combined tax burden?
You are factually wrong by a mile.
We raised taxes to pay for the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (and maybe a few wars back then I'm leaving out).
Where did you show he was wrong?
You know damn well what I ment. And you can't argue anything but semantics and technical mumbo jumbo. This country goes deeper in debt every year despite tax increases. All the increases do is give congress more money to waste.
Where did you show he was wrong?
Learn to read and you'll know.
We've only had one significant tax increase in the last 30 years, 1993,
followed by 8 years of declining deficits leading to a budget surplus.
THAT by definition means that a tax increase led to less borrowing,
thus proving your claim dead wrong.
You know damn well what I ment. And you can't argue anything but semantics and technical mumbo jumbo. This country goes deeper in debt every year despite tax increases. All the increases do is give congress more money to waste.
We've only had one significant tax increase in the last 30 years, 1993,
followed by 8 years of declining deficits leading to a budget surplus.
THAT by definition means that a tax increase led to less borrowing,
thus proving your claim dead wrong.
You know damn well what I ment. And you can't argue anything but semantics and technical mumbo jumbo. This country goes deeper in debt every year despite tax increases. All the increases do is give congress more money to waste.
We've only had one significant tax increase in the last 30 years, 1993,
followed by 8 years of declining deficits leading to a budget surplus.
THAT by definition means that a tax increase led to less borrowing,
thus proving your claim dead wrong.
First, the FOP controlled Congress lowered taxes back down in 1997. Second, it was that same GOP controlled Congress that held the line onsending and wouldn't let Clinton spend more. Third, it was a different time and place, demand was soaring and people were super high on buying stuff.
I will say this, it is at least possible that had the GOP controlled Congress NOT lowered taxes in 1997 the economy would kept humming along anyway. Sometimes changes in tax rates make a difference and sometimes maybe they don't. Forinstance, at a time like now, I don't think a tax cut would do much at all to stimulate the economy like repubs might claim. But I do think a tax hike, even one limited only to the rich, COULD be detrimental to foreign and domestic investment in our economy. At a time when we want to encourage investment here, that is not a good move. Don't understand why the left can't see that.