- #1
Zero
Back when Clinton lowered taxes on the middle class? Ah, the glory days...
Are the 90s a better decade than the 80s and now?
- News
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the definition of middle class and the impact of Clinton and Bush's tax policies on the middle class. It also suggests a fixed sales tax as an alternative to income tax. There are concerns raised about the fairness of sales tax and the idea of a flat tax. The conversation ends with a discussion on the taxes paid by the working poor and the wealthy.
- #2
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 844
- 15
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...
- #3
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.
- #4
kat
- 42
- 0
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.
- #5
Zero
Balanced budget, baby! Surpluses galore! Funded social programs!There's your difference.
- #6
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 844
- 15
actually zero has a point...in the county i live in (the most populated one in oregon), once bush's tax cut came into effect, my county passed a mandatory 1% tax that is not paid through payroll, but will have to be paid at the end of the year...funny thing is that this county tax is equivalent to the tax cut bush created...
- #7
Lyuokdea
- 154
- 0
If I remember correctly, Middle class taxes went up significantly during the clinton administration, at least ours, and overall they will probably go up during the bush administration too.
That is the thing about government, I believe it was two years ago, congress stalled for about a month on a bill in a heated argument about weather to raise some tax bracket by 3% or 5%, both sides are so close, currently, that regardless of the party in control, taxes will increase.
The biggest problem is government use of your money, Pork Barrel spending continues to increase and government knows it can always raise taxes for the populus with very little backlash if they find they need more money.
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%, on all items, that should be it, no sales tax, no sin tax, no estate tax, etc.. And make it fixed, and very hard to change so that government has a set percentage of american money to work with. The government should not be able to decide that they suddenly need more money so they then take more from you except in extreme circumstances, (extreme as in the only two in the twentieth century were world war I and II.)
Think about how well this system would work, people still pay based on how much money they have, people with large amounts of money spend more than the poor and thus will pay more taxes. Also, think of the money we save by simplifying government right off the bat, we could cut the IRS by almost 95% or so, as the only thing it would need to do is check sellers, and not individual citizens. Also, the paperwork being saved, tax evasion being non-existant etc. would be a great incentive to the system.
That is the thing about government, I believe it was two years ago, congress stalled for about a month on a bill in a heated argument about weather to raise some tax bracket by 3% or 5%, both sides are so close, currently, that regardless of the party in control, taxes will increase.
The biggest problem is government use of your money, Pork Barrel spending continues to increase and government knows it can always raise taxes for the populus with very little backlash if they find they need more money.
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%, on all items, that should be it, no sales tax, no sin tax, no estate tax, etc.. And make it fixed, and very hard to change so that government has a set percentage of american money to work with. The government should not be able to decide that they suddenly need more money so they then take more from you except in extreme circumstances, (extreme as in the only two in the twentieth century were world war I and II.)
Think about how well this system would work, people still pay based on how much money they have, people with large amounts of money spend more than the poor and thus will pay more taxes. Also, think of the money we save by simplifying government right off the bat, we could cut the IRS by almost 95% or so, as the only thing it would need to do is check sellers, and not individual citizens. Also, the paperwork being saved, tax evasion being non-existant etc. would be a great incentive to the system.
- #8
schwarzchildradius
I pay 16% in income taxes. Recently all state public service fees (car registration, etc) were raised by more than 20%. The tax cut has not had any effect on my financial situation that I can measure.
You could get around over-taxing the poor with a sales tax on more expensive items than groceries and other commodities, s/a items costing over $30,000, a year's salary for someone making $15/hr.
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.
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.
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?
You could get around over-taxing the poor with a sales tax on more expensive items than groceries and other commodities, s/a items costing over $30,000, a year's salary for someone making $15/hr.
- #9
ray b
- 181
- 0
donot forget that the working poor pay SS tax from dollar 1 at a 15% rate you only see 1/2 of that rate on your pay stub but the boss must match your rate yealding twice the stub deductions rate in the true total tax.
so most working poor pay a higher rate of total tax then the rich, as there is no SS tax at all on capital gains and that rate is falling for the rich now under rerun bush's evil plans.
BTW I figured BILL GATES's tax rate on his total increase in net worth for his MS stock gains [BILLIONS] vs his tax able income as boss [2 million] and it was .0025%or 25 cents per thousand dollars of his real worth was taxed ONLY BEFORE BUSH'S CUTS
and rerun bush claims the rich are over taxed,! BS and if bush gets his death tax repeal bill passed then it never will be taxed at all
so most working poor pay a higher rate of total tax then the rich, as there is no SS tax at all on capital gains and that rate is falling for the rich now under rerun bush's evil plans.
BTW I figured BILL GATES's tax rate on his total increase in net worth for his MS stock gains [BILLIONS] vs his tax able income as boss [2 million] and it was .0025%or 25 cents per thousand dollars of his real worth was taxed ONLY BEFORE BUSH'S CUTS
and rerun bush claims the rich are over taxed,! BS and if bush gets his death tax repeal bill passed then it never will be taxed at all
- #10
Zero
Remember, the majority of Americans make less than $100,000 a year Those are the people who Clinton cut taxes to. Bush lies about his tax cut, by saying things like '90 million Americans will get an average tax cut of $1000', when what he means is 'If you average the $40,000 tax cut I'm getting with the $50 tax cut most of you get, it averages out to be $1000'
And, remember the good old days when the media screamed bloody murder about things the president wasn't guilty of, instead of now, where they ignore the things the president IS guilty of?
And, remember the good old days when the media screamed bloody murder about things the president wasn't guilty of, instead of now, where they ignore the things the president IS guilty of?
- #11
Shadow
- 19
- 0
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?
- #12
Zero
Nope, I don't lock things that disagree, if they are presented in a reasonable fashion. Posting against me personally is against PF guidelines(you should actually read them before agreeing to them, everybody). If you want to point out reasonable problems with Clinton, feel free. Just remember that it is easy to pick on Bush, because he actually lies about taxes, national security, energy policy, Iraq, etc. Clinton lied about his personal life, which is none of our business.
- #13
Shadow
- 19
- 0
All Map, No Road was locked. The third to last post was you telling Russ to leave and me to stay on topic while I was really explaining what was going on. The second to last post was made by Scwartz who said something you can't even deny agreeing with, you have similar words in some of your own posts. And then after that you said "And on that note, we're through" and locked the topic. And there is also "If Bush Knowingly lied about WMD's should he go to Jail?" You asked a question in that topic:
and I responded saying
- #14
Zero
See, again, I need to tell you to stay on topic...talk about Clinton, bub.
Or Bush, for that matter...I love your defense of him: 'well, if it came from Democrats, I don't want to hear it, because tehy want him out'. Guess what? That doesn't make the charges against him false. On the other hand, Clinton was confronted by lie after lie from Republicans for 10 years, for the SOLE reason of destroying a successful president. Him being a Democrat wasn't enough to generate that kind of hate, what really irked is that his policies worked.
Or Bush, for that matter...I love your defense of him: 'well, if it came from Democrats, I don't want to hear it, because tehy want him out'. Guess what? That doesn't make the charges against him false. On the other hand, Clinton was confronted by lie after lie from Republicans for 10 years, for the SOLE reason of destroying a successful president. Him being a Democrat wasn't enough to generate that kind of hate, what really irked is that his policies worked.
- #15
Shadow
- 19
- 0
Which is different from you not trusting anything a republican says?
Oy vay, once again you ignore what I said. You obviously did mis use your mentor powers by locking those topics with no sufficient reason, a blind person could see that. And Bill Clinton wasnt that great. His wife that he cheated on was the one that really ran the administration, they used his face for the media because they were afraid of what would happen if they used hers
- #16
Zero
See, you are about to have your posts edited...pay attention, I have given you two warnings. I also mentioned the guidelines, which allows me to edit or delete, and to lock. Now, for the last time, stay on topic.
And your criticism of Clinton, widely recognised as a brilliant politician, is that Hillary ran things? Oh, and an insult to her looks...what is the right-wing need to replace reasoned debate with personal insult? Whatever personal complaints, Clinton's policies worked, as I said, and I don't care if the family cat whispered them in his ear at night.
And your criticism of Clinton, widely recognised as a brilliant politician, is that Hillary ran things? Oh, and an insult to her looks...what is the right-wing need to replace reasoned debate with personal insult? Whatever personal complaints, Clinton's policies worked, as I said, and I don't care if the family cat whispered them in his ear at night.
- #17
Shadow
- 19
- 0
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.
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.
- #18
Zero
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.
- #19
Shadow
- 19
- 0
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.
- #20
Zero
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?
- #21
Shadow
- 19
- 0
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.
Last edited:
- #22
Zero
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.
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.
- #23
Shadow
- 19
- 0
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.
- #24
Zero
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.
- #25
Shadow
- 19
- 0
No you can't fight terrorists with tanks, I was thinking the psychological effect. You would hvae had ot be blind to not see the clinton administration breaking down the military, they had failed to destroy the WTC buildings in 1993 so they decided to plan again obviously. When you see the worlds leading nation and superpower breaking down its military that's a big thing, and terrorists would take advantage of it. Do you think they would have wanted to do that in either Bush administration? (88-92 for father and 2000-2004 for current president) both had/have a more powerful military making it less apealing for terrorists to attack, for they would not want to lose a war and die out would they? So they attacked before the military really got built up again, when bush had only been in office about 8 months. Obviously they underestimated the military because they "lost" the war (it isn't over yet) but the taliban and al queada are basically deminished. However, I believe that if we had a larger, more powerful, active military then the terrorists wouldn't have risked their extinction.
- #26
Zero
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'.
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'.
- #27
kat
- 42
- 0
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"?
- #28
Shadow
- 19
- 0
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.
- #29
schwarzchildradius
Shad- you seem really ticked, but maybe its a fight with Zero & not a real argument against Clinton?
You say he 'broke down' the military, but it's really not exactly true. In 1989, the Cold War ended, with the fall of the Soviet Empire (Poland, remember? The labor union brought it down, how ironic). Clinton didn't have to worry about fighting the Russians in world-war III, and it was indeed one of his campaign promises to balance the budget and erase the deficit (see 1991 presidential debates, I'll send you a copy if you wish).
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.
You say he 'broke down' the military, but it's really not exactly true. In 1989, the Cold War ended, with the fall of the Soviet Empire (Poland, remember? The labor union brought it down, how ironic). Clinton didn't have to worry about fighting the Russians in world-war III, and it was indeed one of his campaign promises to balance the budget and erase the deficit (see 1991 presidential debates, I'll send you a copy if you wish).
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.
- #30
Zero
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.
I am not advocating eliminating the military altogether, or even massive cuts...I am just saying that more tanks aren't going to scare a terrorist.
- #31
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.
Good to see you here, Kat! I know you may not like Clinton, but at least you bring legitimate complaints to the table.
- #32
Shadow
- 19
- 0
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?
- #33
Zero
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.
"Operation 42% of the first 7 months of my term, I am going to be on vacation"
- #34
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,161
- 10,367
?? 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.
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)).
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.
Last edited:
- #35
Zero
Let's take this one...I don't defend Clinton on your first point, and your last one is right-wing spin, not worth bothering with. If a president spends 7 years fighting terrorism sucessfully, as Clinton did, and comes to the conclusion that radical measures need to be taken, what should he do? Obviously he should act on those radical plans...except in this instance. The planning for the next phase in the war on terror, the creation of a 'Homeland Security Agency' and other actions, was done in the last months of teh Clinton administration. Rather than hand Bush a war in progress, he turned the plan over to Bush, with the hopes that HE would act on it, with his own ideas and staff involved. Instead, Bush went on vacation.
Similar threads
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
Electrical Engineering