Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
jsn112 said:Clinton didn't reduce the deficit. He reduced debt, which is yearly. And that is why the liberals kept saying there is a surplus. The deficit was always there. There's a difference.
your right. there is a difference. the deficit is how far short our budget comes from meeting our expenses. this is what he eliminated by bringing in a balanced budget for the first time in decades, which created a budget surplus that we COULD have used to pay down our debt, but this administration had "better" ideas for that money. the debt is the accumulation of what we have spent on credit and the accumulation of the the deficit over the years. this was also reduced.
I thought majority of businesses if they want to borrow, they borrow it from loaning instition, not the government except for the big businesses like Ford?
You talk like the government handles all loans.
in a way they do. lending is a retail business. you buy money at wholesale and sell it at retail. where do you think the lending institutions borrow their money? hint: they aren't paying the vig to a loanshark.
Did you know top 10% of the richest people pay over 60% of annual income tax? And did you know that bottom 50% less than 5%? So, what's my point? Stop punishing the rich people! When did the U.S. ever became a communist State trying to take the rich people money away? If I work hard and lucky enough to earn lot of money, why am I being punished?
I swear you liberals(democrats) want this country to be more and more like the communists.
first of all, they are making 80%of the money that is being earned, so that makes good sense. second, as a christian having that kind of money is a gift that you are privileged to be able to share. if you can't live well on millions, you need to tighten your belt, like the lower 50% do. the effect of the 5% of taxes on the bottom 50% probably effects their lifestyle more than the 60% of taxes effects the top 5.
Clinton ran a budget surplus for 6 years. He did this by cutting expenses, not short term loans.GW_in_04 said:On the contrary his policies will reduce the debt properly unlike Clinton who was like most Americans, take short term loans out to pay off things, then when they come due again, you still have huge principal balances and even higher interest rates.
The facts say otherwise. The Dems have raised less than half the money the Republicans have. If your statement were true, this would not be the case.Kerry has just as much if not more wealth and "rich" people supporting him.
That "tax relief" check was an early refund check. It came out of your proposed refund. How much, in actualy dollars, was your tax refund this year? I don't make much more than you, and my 'tax relief' came to $40 a month. Big whooping deal! If you made more than $500,000, you got over $125,000 back, not $480!And don't play the lib/media quote about tax cut for the rich bc. I make less than 50k a year and in this area I live, that is difficult to make it having a family to support. My tax return was the highest ever, and not to mention during this presidency I got something I have never seen out of any other president, a tax relief check in the middle of the year.
The conservatives crucified Bush for breaking his promise so spectacularly. It wasn't the taxes; it was going back so prominently on a pledge made while he was in the White House.You libs and the media alike crucified Bush Sr when he raised taxes,
My total tax bill is increased. I bet yours has too. Why? Because Bush simply shifted the tax burden to local government. State, county, and city taxes are up because Bush is no longer supporting the funding mandated by federal laws. So the local governments have to make up what the Federal government isn't paying them. For instance, the No Child Left Behind Law mandated lots of expensive tests for public schools. But the Feds aren't paying for that testing -- due to your tax cuts -- so the local school boards have to raise property taxes.now his son lowers taxes and makes it easier for middle america to have families with good child tax deductions and so on and you harp on that.
My mind is made up. And your opinion is supposed to change with new information. At the time Kerry voted for the war with Iraq, he believed Bush about the WMD. I never did. I could tell from the start that Bush was lying about that. Bush wanted a war and WMD was simply a good rationalization. But Kerry trusted his President. You have a problem with that? Would you think a President would stoop to lying to promote a war for his private ends? Kerry didn't either. I, OTOH, was much more cynical.You sound like Kerry, voting for the war before he voted against it? Can't make up your mind.
It's not where they start, but who they benefit the most. Your percentage cut is less than 10%. However, for someone over $250,000 a year, their precentage cut is over 30%. So, let's say at $30,000 you pay about 25% in taxes (which is close), you pay $7,500 and have $22,500 for you. Your tax cut is $750 so now you have $23,250 to keep. If you make $250,000 a year you pay 40% or $100,000 and still have $150,000 to keep. But you get a 30% tax cut which means you get to keep $30,000 more, or $180,000 total. Hmm, $750 more or $30,000 more. Who got the better deal?The tax cuts start at 30k a year and that is hardly rich.
If you look, the economy started up when it was realized that Clinton was going to win. The stock market and economy started its decline when people realized Bush was going to win. The big money boys in the stock market knew what Bush's economic policies would do.Allye said:The economy was on an upward track before Clinton was elected and began its decline before he left office. I don't have the data, am not going to look for it, because the reports I heard regarding these facts were from National Public Radio .....'nuf said .....no Republican bias there.
The deficit is yearly. It's the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends. If it spends more than it makes, then there is a deficit.jsn112 said:Clinton didn't reduce the deficit. He reduced debt, which is yearly. And that is why the liberals kept saying there is a surplus. The deficit was always there. There's a difference.
They do. But the Federal government also borrows from loaning institutions. Where did you think the government borrowed money from? They are just like you: they go to a bank.I thought majority of businesses if they want to borrow, they borrow it from loaning instition, not the government except for the big businesses like Ford?
And the top 10% have over 70% of all the income. So shouldn't they pay that much?Did you know top 10% of the richest people pay over 60% of annual income tax?
And they have less than 3% of the income. So they are paying more than their share, aren't they?And did you know that bottom 50% less than 5%?
You are not. You are being asked to pay your fair share.If I work hard and lucky enough to earn lot of money, why am I being punished?
I think we want it to be more and more like Christians.I swear you liberals(democrats) want this country to be more and more like the communists.
lucaspa said:If you look, the economy started up when it was realized that Clinton was going to win. The stock market and economy started its decline when people realized Bush was going to win. The big money boys in the stock market knew what Bush's economic policies would do.
And yes, I got my data from NPR also. I just paid more attention to the details when it was happening.
The current poll on the right of the site index. Currently, this poll reads:reverend B said:are you just hoping that noone will go to the link? i went.
kerry 45% bush 43%
what are u referring to?
So a poll by a very Liberal publication like the LA Times is reliable information?**LMAO**Mistyfogg said:Are you talking about the internet poll that is in progress? Do you understand that internet polls don't mean diddly squat? I will tell you why:
They are a self-selected sample, which means that potential respondents, themselves, decide whether or not they are included in the sample. FoxNews is a biased website because more conservatives and republicans prefer FoxNEws opposed to other news stations.
While a randomly selected sample has better results, like the LA Times had.
I really have to chuckle. You have bought conservative rhetoric hook-line-and-sinker. Clinton's plan to reduce the and eventually eliminate the deficit was sound. It was curtailed by stock market downturns.GW_in_04 said:On the contrary his policies will reduce the debt properly unlike Clinton who was like most Americans, take short term loans out to pay off things, then when they come due again, you still have huge principal balances and even higher interest rates.
you simply don't understand how polls work. i am not trying to be a smarty pants, but you don't. fox, on that same sight, has an actual poll at the top that is done by the scientific method and has an accuracy of plus or minus 3%. the way that poll is taken is by people calling a CROSS SECTION of registered voters. this includes both democrats and republicans and gives an overview of what the country is thinking. as misty told you, the poll you are referring to is voluntary, so the only people that will ever even SEE that poll are fox.com readers. what it is giving you as data is what the fox.com reader thinks about the election, not the country, so of course the results look like that. does this explanation make sense to you? they are very different things.BFWard said:So a poll by a very Liberal publication like the LA Times is reliable information?**LMAO**
Touting an LA Times Poll would be paramount to touting a National Review Poll. I think people can understand this.propane said:"So a poll by a very Liberal publication like the LA Times is reliable information?**LMAO**"
Think before you speak and people will see the thought in your what you say...
READ MY POST MAN! i was giving the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't understand the difference, but now you are embarrassing yourself. pick your pollster. the results are extremely close among all of them. the fox poll of its readers is a completely different animal. do you honestly not understand the difference?BFWard said:Touting an LA Times Poll would be paramount to touting a National Review Poll. I think people can understand this.
totally don't get your point. how did he steal? by legally public speaking for fees? i am dying for that opportunity and would take it tomorrow.jameseb said:"Between 1985 And 1990, Kerry Accepted Over $120,000 In Special Interest Honoraria. 'Back when federal lawmakers legally could be paid for speaking to outside groups, John Kerry collected more than $120,000 in fees from interests as diverse as big oil, tobacco, the liquor lobby and unions, records show In 1985, Kerrys freshman year in the Senate, he supplemented his $75,000 salary with $19,480 in speaking fees. The next year the fees grew to $22,725.'
John Solomon, Kerry Pocketed Speaking Fees, The Associated Press, 2/9/04
As a forced member of a union, and forced to contribute my hard earned money to his political party, I can think of no other appropriate word to describe him other than a thief. If anyone wants to vote for a thief, be my guest.
P.S.
Buy Hunts ketchup. Its the patriotic thing to do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?