Printable View
obama has mentioned raising capital gains back to clinton era levels in the past but has not aggressively pushed for it--and over the last few months has certainly not seriously mentioned do this--i no tea partiers will predict the end of the world if any tax for anything is raised but clinton raised taxes including capital gains to 28% for a while and then back to 20% if i remember correctly and the economy boomed and i doubt no tea partiers starved during this time
[QUOTE=vetbass;463206]obama has mentioned raising capital gains back to clinton era levels in the past but has not aggressively pushed for it--and over the last few months has certainly not seriously mentioned do this--i no tea partiers will predict the end of the world if any tax for anything is raised but clinton raised taxes including capital gains to 28% for a while and then back to 20% if i remember correctly and the economy boomed and i doubt no tea partiers starved during this time[/QUOTE]
Whose military is this.....at the time it was the 3rd largest military in the world. Egypt, China, Iran, Russia, Iraq??
NO............it WAS the military cuts under the Clinton Administration......This 40% cut in military is a VERY DIRECT reason why a lot of stuff happened they way it did under the Bush Admin........
709,000 regular (active duty) personnel.
293,000 reserve troops.
eight standing army divisions!
20 air force and navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft
232 strategic bombers.
9 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles.
500 icbms with 1,950 warheads.
four aircraft carriers and 121 surface combat ships and submarines plus all the support bases, shipyards, and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;463209]Whose military is this.....at the time it was the 3rd largest military in the world. Egypt, China, Iran, Russia, Iraq??
NO............it WAS the military cuts under the Clinton Administration......This 40% cut in military is a VERY DIRECT reason why a lot of stuff happened they way it did under the Bush Admin........
709,000 regular (active duty) personnel.
293,000 reserve troops.
eight standing army divisions!
20 air force and navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft
232 strategic bombers.
9 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles.
500 icbms with 1,950 warheads.
four aircraft carriers and 121 surface combat ships and submarines plus all the support bases, shipyards, and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.[/QUOTE]
Geo I think you are streching it a little. All the stuff occurring under Bush watch was Clinton's fault?? I think they were planning these terrorist attacks regardless of who was president.
The cold war was over, in the end we only used three aircraft carriers and we had plenty of troups to attack both Afganistan and Iraq. We did not run out of ballistic missles or troups to deliver them.
I think that the terroist attack would have happened if Clinton or Bush were president...for that matter even Regan. It is not very feasable to send 3114 nuclear warheads to attack 200 terrorists.
We have done what we can...increased security at airports and borders...learned to share information in the security areas and regions. Ya we are still learning but I do not think 3114 nuclear warheads would have changed much.
All I'm saying is that you certainly can balance the budget if YOU ARE willing to do it by cashing in AMERICAN SECURITY.
Yea, the attacks might have happened.........if not when they did, then some other time.
Did Clinton make it harder to deploy the type of military force necessary to successfully DESTROY our enemy..........Maybe, maybe not, we will never know.
I kind of like the fact that when Bush 1 said lets ROLL, we put 1/2 million troops a few Naval battle groups and about 1000 aircraft in the battle...........When Bush 2 said lets ROLL.......we did it with less than 1/2 of that.
I'm just saying Clinton CUT to the bone.
Later,
Geo
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;463242]know.
I kind of like the fact that when Bush 1 said lets ROLL, we put 1/2 million troops a few Naval battle groups and about 1000 aircraft in the battleI'm just saying Clinton CUT to the bone.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
George Sr. was a great president! He had his battles as well. During that time it was the great Savings and Loan bailout (result of deregulation of savings and loan companies during Regan years). It was the banking failure of today (result of less regulation on banks during the Clinton years). Most savings and loans folded or converted to banks. He handled that mess along with decisive action in Iraq 1.
You know I think Clinton was a good president. But George Sr. would have had a great second term if we would have given him a chance.
We can keep our country secure without spending trillions. The danger has changed, we need to adapt. It is the small terroist groups that pose the biggest threat (we do have to keep up with China though).
Time to get out of Afganistan...Laden is dead...mission accomplished....they will either come around to join the rest of the world or they will kill each other. This was the war I supported but its over now. Pakistan is no freind, they are just bleeding us over Afganistan...we do not need them either. If they think China is going to be more sypathetic to muslims they are in for a rude awakening. We could give India some of this support as they have been a good ally.
Get out of Iraq as well.
[QUOTE=kydonky;463178]I think this national debt is a big problem.
About ten years ago I found myself extended way beyond my means. Credit cards, house payment, utilities, insurance. car payment, every month I was streached to the limit. So I got a part time job 3 nights a week and withing 18 months the credit cards, car, and home equity loans were all paid off.
I could not have done this without the income. I could have missed the house payment and moved into a tent in the park, but my wife would have took the children and moved on, so that was not realistic.
So we are in the same situation. The debt is high and we are not going to cut the debt by taking in less money. Simple math shows that less money coming in means less money paid on the debt.
.[/QUOTE]
Here's the problem with your logic...
You state a situation in which you acquired debt, to the point that you could no longer pay on those debts. If you continued on your current spending levels, and in fact, increased your spending levels every year by a large amount (government)...then that little extra you made in your income would not even cover your new debt obligations.
Simple math actually shows that if you don't cut spending and continue increasing spending the way Dems want....then no matter what tax increase you impose, you will never get out of debt.
If you ever listen to Debt councelors, they don't tell you that in order to get out of debt, you need to increase, or even maintain your spending levels...and then try and find a job that makes more...especially when you are already making more than enough money to live, if you lived within your means (federal tax revenue). They tell you to cut your spending to the bare minimums, and sell whatever you can....live off of beans and rice.
In your situation, you obviously were not living within your means for your average annual income. Sure, a part-time job helped increase your income levels...but you were probably weren't buying new cars and going on expensive vacations (or passing a massive health care bill) while you were attempting to pay your debt off. I guarantee you cut back when you couldn't afford your bills...its common sense. If you had cut back to a level that was within your means on your current salary, then you could have gotten out of debt even without the extra part time job.
The U.S. does not have a revenue problem...it has a SPENDING problem. Cut the pork out, and we will cut the debt.
-Rich
[QUOTE=RICHYD4U;463282]Here's the problem with your logic...
You state a situation in which you acquired debt, to the point that you could no longer pay on those debts. If you continued on your current spending levels, and in fact, increased your spending levels every year by a large amount (government)...then that little extra you made in your income would not even cover your new debt obligations.
Simple math actually shows that if you don't cut spending and continue increasing spending the way Dems want....then no matter what tax increase you impose, you will never get out of debt.
If you ever listen to Debt councelors, they don't tell you that in order to get out of debt, you need to increase, or even maintain your spending levels...and then try and find a job that makes more...especially when you are already making more than enough money to live, if you lived within your means (federal tax revenue). They tell you to cut your spending to the bare minimums, and sell whatever you can....live off of beans and rice.
In your situation, you obviously were not living within your means for your average annual income. Sure, a part-time job helped increase your income levels...but you were probably weren't buying new cars and going on expensive vacations (or passing a massive health care bill) while you were attempting to pay your debt off. I guarantee you cut back when you couldn't afford your bills...its common sense. If you had cut back to a level that was within your means on your current salary, then you could have gotten out of debt even without the extra part time job.
The U.S. does not have a revenue problem...it has a SPENDING problem. Cut the pork out, and we will cut the debt.
-Rich[/QUOTE]
Rich, it is a two pronged fork. The spending has to be checked as well as the income revenue. I'm saying the solution is both not one or the other. There are some programs and projects that people demand. Roads, bridges, police, military and so on. So this no tax idea will also not help the debt or deficit.
So we use a combination of frugal spending and taxes to finnaly pay off theis debt.
I was a big supporter of the Afgan war, but now we have acheived the objective (Bin Landen) lets get out and use that money on the debt. Same for Iraq. If we could get rid of this debt it would be the most significant thing we could do to strengthen this country and improve our economy.
Yes you are right about my personal debt problem. The cause was several minor emergencies that came together like the perfect storm. First it was a new roof, then then the AC went out and when they all hit within a 9 month period it became a real problem. Funny how sh*& always happens at once.
I'm not necessarily opposed to Buffet paying more taxes, but I am opposed to our government having more money. They need to to downsize and drastically cut spending, in my opinion. Giving them more money doesn't accomplish that.
[QUOTE=know1;463298]I'm not necessarily opposed to Buffet paying more taxes, but I am opposed to our government having more money. They need to to downsize and drastically cut spending, in my opinion. Giving them more money doesn't accomplish that.[/QUOTE]
Exactly! The spin by politicians is we can't achieve a balanced budget because we don't have enough money when in reality they spend too much. It's that simple....
They can go through and gut a lot of wasteful spending but they won't. Sure they appear to do it but my money is on the fact that they don't. The "party" might not like it if they re-nig on spending or their parties stance on taxes.
It's a political mess and it will take some strong folks to stand up and make tough decisions.