As we embark on war in the Middle East and the states grapple with their worst fiscal crises in a generation, Dubya moves once again to protect the wealthy by eliminating taxes on dividends, despite the minimal effect it’ll have on economic growth. Typical. I’ve wondered aloud (10/12) about the double taxation on business profits before, but that was in better times, before Dubya blew out the economy with his deficit-exploding tax plan of 2001. (Speaking of which, thanks for the 300 bucks. It changed my life.) Given our dire economic situation and wartime footing now, it’s almost criminal to eliminate dividend taxes to aid stockholders, particularly when high payroll taxes continue to consume the balance of working Americans’ paychecks. (Of course, Dubya plans to pay for all this by freezing all domestic spending except homeland security.) Absolutely ridiculous…How out of it can you be? What will this plan do for the millions of Americans who don’t play the stock market? Are they suppose to pay for the war in Iraq while the wealthiest Americans watch their bank accounts grow? I swear the Monopoly guy must be taking meetings with Karl Rove somewhere in the West Wing.
5 thoughts on “True Colors Shining Through.”
Comments are closed.
Not to mention the fact that Israel is asking (and will get, of course) 14 billion dollars this year. Money well spent, on the world’s 14th richest country in per-capita-GDP
Yep, typical, another liberal with their head in the sand! Let me ask you something Mr. Genius, how in the heck did your Hero, Bill Clinton reside over the “greatest economic boom” in the nation’s history, and increase the deficit by the MOST of ANY president in history?? Huh?? Tell me that mr. Wizard?? Please enlighten us on the reason Mr. Clinton increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion and President Reagan increased it by only $1.67 trillion. Those are ACTUAL figures from the US Treasury website! So please, enlighten us on how that is possible…
Like i said…typical!
Well, Dustin, for starters it would help if you knew the difference between budget deficits and the trade deficit. We’re talking about the former here. Also from the US Treasury website: “In FY1992 – the year before the Clinton Administration took office – the unified deficit of the Federal government ran a record $290 billion, or 4.7 percent of GDP. By contrast, in FY2000…the Federal government set a different and more enviable record, with a surplus of $237 billion, or 2.4 percent of GDP.. (So far, the budget deficit for this year is $304 billion, and it’s getting bigger thanks to the recent passage of the tax cuts.) Now, the rising trade deficit is a problem confronting the nation that both Republicans and Democrats have for too long ignored. But we can’t even begin to tackle that problem until we restore a measure of fiscal responsibility to the federal government, and tax cuts for the wealthy at a time of exploding BUDGET deficits is simply not the way to go about it.
Hmmm…a conservative who starts bashing Clinton and lauding Reagan before he has any idea what he’s talking about…typical. The strange thing about today’s political landscape is that so-called conservatives are endorsing radical economic policies. It’s not “conservative” to play fast and loose with the budget and run the economy like a teenager with her first credit card. The conservative thing to do would be to live within your means and stop giving kickbacks to the wealthy at a time of war and national sacrifice.
Well, KEVIN…once again a typical liberal response of attack someones character. Yes i know the difference between budget deficits and trade deficits. WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT IS THE NATIONAL DEBT! Of course, you took us on a rambunctious tour of the ‘percent of this or the percent of that.’ My question still stands…WHY DID THE NATIONAL DEBT INCREASE THE MOST UNDER YOUR HERO??? Why did those budget “surpluses” your hero had under his watch not decrease the NATIONAL DEBT by one PENNY?? Why did it go up by $1.7 trillion?? That was the question before, and that is the question now!
Do I bash Clinton…i will admit, i do a little, but mainly for his scandal for lieing under oath. Do i blame Clinton for the recession he handed Bush?? NO! He was not responsible for the economic boom, nor was he responsible for the economic downturn. The Justice Department and the accounting firms need to look long and hard at why only AFTER firms went bankrupt did they investigate them, why not BEFORE when they were reporting their figures in monopoly money.
With that said, once again, why did the NATIONAL DEBT increase the MOST of ANY president under Bill Clinton since he raised taxes to pay off the national debt…at least that is what he claimed!
Oh, and by the way, where did i “laude” Reagan?? I just showed FACTS. Did Reagan increase the Nation Debt?? Yep. But so did Clinton, and by more! So my point was why?? I didn’t Bash Clinton or Praise Reagan…just wanted to get a better understanding from the liberal side of why that is??