Higher Taxes Will Get the Economy On Track

[Oldstyle]

You're right. We need to end the horrific Bush tax cuts to the rich and go back to the wildly successful Clinton plan, which did just that.

The "Clinton plan" did not create tax revenue in an economic environment anything LIKE what we now find ourselves in. The so called Dot Com Boom is what created all that tax revenue during the Clinton years. Raising taxes NOW...during an economic slowdown is counter productive...something that even Clinton himself admitted before the Obama White House put the screws to him to change his tune. This progressive "notion" that the rules of economics no longer apply because they choose to ignore them guarantees us years more of economic stagnation or worse.

The whole "it was only good because of the dot com boom!" has going to be the biggest propaganda piece spread by the right in history.

After over a decade of failed "trickle down" right wing economics along with their insane spending led to down economies and massive deficits. Clinton's tax plan was the main reason for how wildly success his presidency was.

He also helped small business to thrive, yes including the dot com companies as well as countless others from his strong progressive stances that helping the real job creators, small business and the middle class, is the way to a great america, and he was 100% correct.

Also keep in mind the rich have been doing VERY well under Obama, the only ones that are hurting are the poor and middle class. Obama has not presented at any time to restore the tax rates on anyone but the top 2%.

Actually the "biggest propaganda piece" is the notion that it was Clinton's tax increases that spurred the economy when he was in office. In point of fact the Dot Com Boom started well before those tax increases took place and it was already starting to go away before Clinton left office.

My point is that there IS no Dot Com Boom now...nor is there one on the horizon. It's an accepted basis of Keynesian economics that you don't raise taxes in an economic downturn because doing so causes the economy to become even slower. You raise taxes in an economic boom period...which is what Bill Clinton did and was why he was successful. So without the Dot Com Boom...how does your tax increase scenario work? Not one of you progressive "geniuses" can ever seem to explain that! You simply repeat some statistics that don't apply to the situation that we find ourselves in and think THAT proves your point. I'm sorry but it doesn't and any rational person who takes an unbiased look at the facts knows it.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The community organizer in chief should meet w every American and decide what their "fair share" should be...............in an arbitrary, bleeding heart fashion.........

And then re-distribute the stolen wealth in the same manner

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

The "Clinton plan" did not create tax revenue in an economic environment anything LIKE what we now find ourselves in. The so called Dot Com Boom is what created all that tax revenue during the Clinton years. Raising taxes NOW...during an economic slowdown is counter productive...something that even Clinton himself admitted before the Obama White House put the screws to him to change his tune. This progressive "notion" that the rules of economics no longer apply because they choose to ignore them guarantees us years more of economic stagnation or worse.

The whole "it was only good because of the dot com boom!" has going to be the biggest propaganda piece spread by the right in history.

After over a decade of failed "trickle down" right wing economics along with their insane spending led to down economies and massive deficits. Clinton's tax plan was the main reason for how wildly success his presidency was.

He also helped small business to thrive, yes including the dot com companies as well as countless others from his strong progressive stances that helping the real job creators, small business and the middle class, is the way to a great america, and he was 100% correct.

Also keep in mind the rich have been doing VERY well under Obama, the only ones that are hurting are the poor and middle class. Obama has not presented at any time to restore the tax rates on anyone but the top 2%.

Actually the "biggest propaganda piece" is the notion that it was Clinton's tax increases that spurred the economy when he was in office. In point of fact the Dot Com Boom started well before those tax increases took place and it was already starting to go away before Clinton left office.

My point is that there IS no Dot Com Boom now...nor is there one on the horizon. It's an accepted basis of Keynesian economics that you don't raise taxes in an economic downturn because doing so causes the economy to become even slower. You raise taxes in an economic boom period...which is what Bill Clinton did and was why he was successful. So without the Dot Com Boom...how does your tax increase scenario work? Not one of you progressive "geniuses" can ever seem to explain that! You simply repeat some statistics that don't apply to the situation that we find ourselves in and think THAT proves your point. I'm sorry but it doesn't and any rational person who takes an unbiased look at the facts knows it.

I agree with most of what you just said, but I think we really should have ended the Bush-era tax cuts. Regardless of the Dot Com boom, its awfully risky to have tax cuts and war at the same time.
____
I'm out of my element on this part but, also, shouldn't bush have raised taxes on the increasing housing bubble? (more of a question than statement)

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I propose we lower all taxes and let the govt crash and burn with their reckless spending. Whenever the can learn to be responsible and accountable then we can all come back to the table.

 

[Oldstyle]

The whole "it was only good because of the dot com boom!" has going to be the biggest propaganda piece spread by the right in history.

After over a decade of failed "trickle down" right wing economics along with their insane spending led to down economies and massive deficits. Clinton's tax plan was the main reason for how wildly success his presidency was.

He also helped small business to thrive, yes including the dot com companies as well as countless others from his strong progressive stances that helping the real job creators, small business and the middle class, is the way to a great america, and he was 100% correct.

Also keep in mind the rich have been doing VERY well under Obama, the only ones that are hurting are the poor and middle class. Obama has not presented at any time to restore the tax rates on anyone but the top 2%.

Actually the "biggest propaganda piece" is the notion that it was Clinton's tax increases that spurred the economy when he was in office. In point of fact the Dot Com Boom started well before those tax increases took place and it was already starting to go away before Clinton left office.

My point is that there IS no Dot Com Boom now...nor is there one on the horizon. It's an accepted basis of Keynesian economics that you don't raise taxes in an economic downturn because doing so causes the economy to become even slower. You raise taxes in an economic boom period...which is what Bill Clinton did and was why he was successful. So without the Dot Com Boom...how does your tax increase scenario work? Not one of you progressive "geniuses" can ever seem to explain that! You simply repeat some statistics that don't apply to the situation that we find ourselves in and think THAT proves your point. I'm sorry but it doesn't and any rational person who takes an unbiased look at the facts knows it.

I agree with most of what you just said, but I think we really should have ended the Bush-era tax cuts. Regardless of the Dot Com boom, its awfully risky to have tax cuts and war at the same time.
____
I'm out of my element on this part but, also, shouldn't bush have raised taxes on the increasing housing bubble? (more of a question than statement)

First of all, before we end ANY tax cuts...how about we actually make the Federal Government stop wasting billions of the dollars we're already giving them? I mean I'm sorry but are we EVER going to cut spending? Are we EVER going to get rid of duplicate programs and agencies? Are we EVER going to really do something about waste and fraud?

I keep going back to this same analogy because it still applies. The US Government is like a bucket of water that is riddled with huge gashes...the more water (revenues) we pour in ...the more water rushes out. Only an idiot would keep trying to figure out ways to get more water instead of patching the pail...yet we do just that!

As for the housing bubble? It's a classic example of the unintended consequences that usually happen when government interferes with free markets. You had banks being pressured by the government to make loans to people who never would have qualified under normal banking criteria. You've got more people buying houses...the price of houses keeps going up...the price goes up...more people refinance and take that money out of their house to live the "dream". Then when you have an economic downturn and people are hit hard in the pocket book they are underwater on house loans that they have almost none of their own money invested in. So what do they do? They walk away from the mortgage and you've got a glut of sub prime loans that the banks had to eat adding fuel to the recession "fire". Contrast the US with Canada. They require a substantial downpayment to buy a house up there and good credit. They didn't have as big of a bubble as we did and no where NEAR as big of a collapse of their real estate market as we did with ours.

 

[Claudette]

Actually the "biggest propaganda piece" is the notion that it was Clinton's tax increases that spurred the economy when he was in office. In point of fact the Dot Com Boom started well before those tax increases took place and it was already starting to go away before Clinton left office.

My point is that there IS no Dot Com Boom now...nor is there one on the horizon. It's an accepted basis of Keynesian economics that you don't raise taxes in an economic downturn because doing so causes the economy to become even slower. You raise taxes in an economic boom period...which is what Bill Clinton did and was why he was successful. So without the Dot Com Boom...how does your tax increase scenario work? Not one of you progressive "geniuses" can ever seem to explain that! You simply repeat some statistics that don't apply to the situation that we find ourselves in and think THAT proves your point. I'm sorry but it doesn't and any rational person who takes an unbiased look at the facts knows it.

I agree with most of what you just said, but I think we really should have ended the Bush-era tax cuts. Regardless of the Dot Com boom, its awfully risky to have tax cuts and war at the same time.
____
I'm out of my element on this part but, also, shouldn't bush have raised taxes on the increasing housing bubble? (more of a question than statement)

First of all, before we end ANY tax cuts...how about we actually make the Federal Government stop wasting billions of the dollars we're already giving them? I mean I'm sorry but are we EVER going to cut spending? Are we EVER going to get rid of duplicate programs and agencies? Are we EVER going to really do something about waste and fraud?

I keep going back to this same analogy because it still applies. The US Government is like a bucket of water that is riddled with huge gashes...the more water (revenues) we pour in ...the more water rushes out. Only an idiot would keep trying to figure out ways to get more water instead of patching the pail...yet we do just that!

As for the housing bubble? It's a classic example of the unintended consequences that usually happen when government interferes with free markets. You had banks being pressured by the government to make loans to people who never would have qualified under normal banking criteria. You've got more people buying houses...the price of houses keeps going up...the price goes up...more people refinance and take that money out of their house to live the "dream". Then when you have an economic downturn and people are hit hard in the pocket book they are underwater on house loans that they have almost none of their own money invested in. So what do they do? They walk away from the mortgage and you've got a glut of sub prime loans that the banks had to eat adding fuel to the recession "fire". Contrast the US with Canada. They require a substantial downpayment to buy a house up there and good credit. They didn't have as big of a bubble as we did and no where NEAR as big of a collapse of their real estate market as we did with ours.

Yup. Every time the Govt sticks its big fat nose in we get a bigger mess than we should have had.

The housing market should have been allowed to hit rock bottom. No Govt intervention pressuring banks to redo mortgages.

Hitting rock bottom is the only way its gonna come back up.

Another Govt lets help you and screw everybody else on the way.