Back when Clinton lowered taxes on the middle class? Ah, the glory days...
Originally posted by Kerrie
what is defined as the middle class as far as income bracket? i received a few extra dollars on my paycheck recently when Bush lowered the taxes recently...certainly i am not promoting him, but i wonder what is regarded as the middle class? i thought it was for 30K-80K annually...
Originally posted by Zero
The problem with Bush's tax cut is that you will pay back anything you get extra in your check, by way of increased state taxes over the next few years. In addition, your few extra dollars is nothing comared to teh tens of thousands that the top 1% will be getting.
Originally posted by kat
You're going to have to explain the difference here between increased state taxes you foresee due to Bush and the rise in my state and property taxes that were due to Clinton's unfunded mandates.
If you're very wealthy and make over 90k per year, then your taxes would have gone up. Clinton's tax policy was "progressive," it favored education and the 10-90k /yr households over richer Americans, whom it used to eliminate the deficit that was theirs to begin with.If I remember correctly, Middle class taxes went up significantly during the clinton administration
The difference is, one party will be honest with you and tell you that they're going to do it while the other will lie about it.regardless of the party in control, taxes will increase.
Europe has done that, but not at the ludicrously high 20%. Sales taxes hurt those with the smallest amount of money the most, and such a huge tax burden would cripple the economy. Are you really going to get that $75 worth of groceries when it costs you $90?I propose a fixed sales tax on everything, abolish the income tax, I'm not exactly sure what % the tax would be, let's say for the sake of argument 20%,
Originally posted by Shadow
Zero there is no point in arguing with you, for to you, anything Bush says is a lie therefore putting his supporters at a disadvantage in your eyes, and you have ignored logical arguments against Bill Clinton several times and whenever someone posts something against you or something that you dislike, if you are against it enough you have locked the topic or edited the post so really, what is the point in arguing with you?
Nope, I don't lock things that disagree
Would you care to explain how this relates to Bush on any level, even if it were true?
He was responding to Schwartz. Look back a few posts, schwartz said
Nobody died because of Clinton's fillandering and subversion. Lots of guys died from Bush's lies. You think Bush is morally superior? I don't.So we've been responding. hope i helped.
your next post wasThanks alot...you just got this thread locked.
Have a nice dayhuh. what do you call that?
Posting against me personally is against PF guidelines(you should actually read them before agreeing to them, everybody).
Well first off in the topic All Map No Road, (i believe it was if not it was Did bush knowingly lie...) There was a personal attack against someone else and I and you simply told me to ignore the personal attack. and second look more carefully at what I typed:
whenever someone posts something against you or something that you dislike, if you are against it enough
I typed OR something you dislike and/or against.
Just remember that it is easy to pick on Bush, because he actually lies about taxes, national security, energy policy, Iraq, etc.
Yeah, in your opinion. You don't know these things for sure and basically the little proof you have posted besides your own word is surely democratic, and they all want Bush out anyways.
'well, if it came from Democrats, I don't want to hear it, because tehy want him out'
Hmmm...and somehow her looks matter? Why do you keep bringing that up? Maybe because that is the only sort of complaint that can be made against the Clintons: shallow personal attacks.Originally posted by Shadow
Zero, I live in New York, have you really seen her? *shudder*
Hilary did do a lot of things Bill wasnt that great. And "for the last time" they were more his policies than his wife's.
Go ahead edit my posts see if I care. Everyone will know you edited them in your own way twisting them into your weird fashion.
Hmmm...and somehow her looks matter? Why do you keep bringing that up?
Oh, and an insult to her looks
Well, you made a comment on topic...care to support that claim? "They are morons" isn't much more convincing than "She is ugly", you know?Originally posted by Shadow
Keep bring it up? Maybe because you brought it up here:
so I brought it up again. Do you have a problem with everything I post?
Fine if you want a real attack how about they are politically blind morons that only do what the public want and won't take a step up to do something that is actually good for the nation or the world.
Originally posted by Shadow
*editff-topic..see how that works?*
anyways if you are a president you are supposed to help the country correct? How does beraking down the military, and cutting pay to those in the military help? How does revealing military secrets to known enemies (or certainly not allies) help? In a perfect world with world peace going strong, sure go ahead and break down the military but the 90's were certainly not a time of peace in the world and that was the wrong thing to do.
You can't fight terrorists with tanks, no matter what the Bush administration claims. You certainly don't fight terrorism with overpriced, unwieldy artillery pieces, or a unworkable missle defense 'sheild'. And, of course, Clinton's administration twarted a few terrorist attacks, and actively targeted Osama bin Laden, a mission that was hindered by the wasteful and unconstitutional impeachment efforts by the anti-America branch of the Republican Party, which now controls the whole thing, apparently.Originally posted by Shadow
I think he should have left the military alone. If you breakdown the military then you have less of a defense against terrorist attacks which are not just a threat to the united states, but to every country in the world; well, except those that support terrorism. The point is that he got as many threats of terrorism as bush did in his first months of office before 9/11 and he took them less seriously than bush. He broke down the military while receiving the same threats as bush did except clinton wasnt the one blamed.
Spending on people? Did you forget Mogadishu? When Les Aspin and his staff refused armor for the forces operating there? Is that how clinton "cared a bit more"?Originally posted by Zero
Well, Clinton needed to scale down the military, hell, someone had to! Trimming pork from the military was necessary in order to pay for more useful programs, and Bush's current spoending certainly doesn't support the military.(I speak from some small experience, I was enlisted in the Marines from 1994-98...and when did you serve?) Of course, Clinton cared a bit more about spending on people, and less about funneling taxpayer dollars to his business partners, like Bush and Cheney do.
You should probably find a more accurate term than 'breaking down the millitary'[ since that wasn't what happened. The military was downsides, and rightly so. It could probably use about half the money being alloted to it, even now. Clinton was right in knowing that just spending more money on any military wasn't a good idea. During the 90s, the budget was tight, but we got some major advancements in low-budget items that made a difference.
Plus, you continue to act as though a stronger military force does anything about terrorism., It doesn't, except probably encourage more terrorism. Thinking we can win a 'war on terrorism' by military means is a huge mistake. Then again, there is a saying that applies so well to the neocons: 'when the only tool you have is a hammer, ever problem begins to look like a nail.' Clinton was obviously smarter about foreign policy than the neocons are, because he actually lives in teh real world, where not every problem is a 'nail'.
That's true, and the Clinton admin. left Bush a lot of intelligence on al quada terrorists that Bush & co. simply ignored for the first 8 months, including plans to use passenger airliners for attacks on cities.they had failed to destroy the WTC buildings in 1993
Yeah, let's talk about a psychological effect. Weak Third World nations see America stomping around like a schoolyard bully, with the world's most powerful army. The psychologic effect is to feel powerless to negotiate, because America can take whatever it wants from you, occupy your country, give your natural resources to American companies, etc. All those tanks and bombs mean you cannot strike directly. Therefore, you will become a terrorist.Originally posted by Shadow
Interesting. In your first sentence you ignored what my last post said completely, instead saying I should rephrase something I said several posts back. And he would not have been spending more money if he had left it alone, Bush only had to build it up because of clinton.
In your second paragraph you continue to ignore my last post. I mentioned the psychological effects it would have. I'm not going to repeat my last post again so take a better look at it if you want.
The Republicans wouldn't have been there at all, if it were up to them. Yes, he could have done more, but it is not something that a Republican can use against Clinton.Originally posted by kat
Spending on people? Did you forget Mogadishu? When Les Aspin and his staff refused armor for the forces operating there? Is that how clinton "cared a bit more"?
That's true, and the Clinton admin. left Bush a lot of intelligence on al quada terrorists that Bush & co. simply ignored for the first 8 months, including plans to use passenger airliners for attacks on cities.
And to say that it is somehow Clinton's fault for the terrorist attacks is illogical- the terrorists hate america regardless of the President in charge. Training videos show them shooting at images of Clinton as well as Bush. The terrorists in Iraq are obviously not afraid of our massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, f-117's, b-52's, any of our hardware, or they wouldn't be whacking our guys.
That's funny...Clinton DID stop a scheme to fly a plane into the CIA headquarters. Bush had a year to prepare, Clinton had laid the groundwork for a "Homeland Security Agency"...Bush had another idea.Originally posted by Shadow
I did not say it was clinton's fault, I basically said it wasnt bush's and that although he got the blame, clinton had received the same warnings and did nothing. He could have at least tried to something instead of handing everything to Bush. And we don't know what our CIA/FBI people were doing about it at the time, maybe they couldn't stop it. how do you stop a plane from crashing into a building. Blow it up of course. But then there's the good ol human instincts. You would hesitate to fire for at least a second, if you knew that this plane was full of your own people, adn that second could have meant anything. Then there is the fact that when it became clear that it was no accident, it was too late to dispatch fighters to shoot the planes down...how would clinton have done better?
?? Check again. The troops were sent there by Bush. Their mission was changed (mission requirements went up and their support slashed) by Clinton. Les Aspen took the fall for it (he resigned) but it was Clinton who really made the decisions.Originally posted by Zero
The Republicans wouldn't have been there at all, if it were up to them. Yes, he could have done more, but it is not something that a Republican can use against Clinton.
Clinton gave a lot of advice, studies, etc to Bush. But think about it objectively: If someone gives you a plan to do something that he didn't do himself, what's the first thing to come to your mind? (A: Well if this is so important, why didn't HE do it? (A2: LEADERSHIP - or rather lack thereof)).Clinton had laid the groundwork for...
Missed this one before. Thats a crime called THEFT. You are accusing the US gov't of stealing Iraq's oil. Maybe you are wondering why the UN isn't raising hell over it, but then maybe not - you're smart enough to know that's not what is happening. So that leaves another possibility.America can take whatever it wants from you, occupy your country, give your natural resources to American companies, etc.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Clinton gave a lot of advice, studies, etc to Bush. But think about it objectively: If someone gives you a plan to do something that he didn't do himself, what's the first thing to come to your mind? (A: Well if this is so important, why didn't HE do it? (A2: LEADERSHIP - or rather lack thereof)).