How are we getting richer spending 400 billion a year on interest on the loan? An economic Superpower is not martin buying a house (which I bet he has never done). We have to pay the bill anyway, but we are letting China rake off a profit instead of just paying for it ourselves, as we go. Greenspan himself said it: Increased National Debt leads to uncontrolled inflation. Try this article, which demonstrates how Asians banks have become the bankers of the United States and a massive dumping of US-dollar debt would cause the dollar to fall precipitously. For them to slowly diversify into other currencies would probably benefit us, but a dumping of dollars would hurt very badly. We would have to pay far higher interest rates to continue to sell bonds and waste even more money. If China Shuns Dollar, Look Out U.S. Bonds
It's hard to sit here and analyze that becuase I've gotten raises which amount to almost 38% of my original salary since I was hired in 2003. However, objectively speaking, the exemption has been increased to 10,000 for married filing jointly and the child tax credit has been increased to $1K per child when under Clinton there was none. However, those raises have moved me into a new tax bracket which I can't complain about. I have more money in my pocket than I would making the same salary under Clinton though. Someone in your position who has no wife and no children might feel differently. :grin:
Let me make sure I understand. You believe Bush's 6 weeks in office caused the recession? You really think the economy can turn from good to recession in 6 weeks? When did the dotcom bust start? Before or after Bush took office? Why did the stock market lose 10% the 12 months prior to Bush taking office? No, you didn't mention it, but you responded with "nope" to cparso's post, which included "endured a terrorist attack." My real point of bringing 9/11 up was to point out the economic hit we took as a result of those attacks. It added to the existing economic woes of a recession. And yet the economy rebounded from a recession and continues to grow, despite all those things and the high energy costs the past year. I won't disagree that some of those things may negatively impact the economy in the future. But 2004 and 2005 were really good years. You can probably make the argument that the economy during Clinton's 2nd term was as good as any President in a long time. But here's the question. What exactly did that administration do to create the outrageous dotcom market that sent stocks and the economy soaring? I give him credit b/c he was in office, but we all know the government really didn't have a hand in that. Just like Bush was unfortunate to be in office on 9/11, Clinton was fortunate to be in office when the internet boom took off. I love to look at curves...
I'm not looking it up at the moment as I should be studying, but the expansion ended under Clinton & began it's fall before Bush took office. It's called regression to the mean. The economy fluctuates and Presidents often get credit for it undeservedly. After the great expansion we experienced, we were due for a recession regardless of who was President. Considering the terrorist attacks, it could have been much worse. The outrageous spending of Bush actually stopped us from going lower. The difference is clear. The reason is not.
Ok. But my guess is that martin's not in that top 10%. So then it would be less of the rich people's money that are being used to pay for the 'stupid programs,' not his.
I feel like the Bush administration has done more for the people who need it (married people with families) than any other president.
I honestly don't know. It sounds like a topic that I'd like to research a little bit further. As for the idea of richer people paying a higher percentage of taxes, I don't think that's completely outlandish when you consider the staggering percentage of national income they account for. I remember seeing some graph or something somewhere recently that mapped out how much the richest 2% of the population make relative to total income and it was phenomenal. That said, you know what I found out? If I had essentially lied on my W2's and put '0' rather than '2', I would have either gotten money back, or not owed as much. Nice structure we have, huh? Honesty does not pay, and I'm going to put '0' down for this year.
The IRS has this kind of info if you are really intetrested. 2003 is the most recent year they have data on. Numerous different reports that will break it down various different ways. It'll take awhile to sort through all of them to see what you really want. IRS Are you talking about your W-4 where you claim your allowances? If so, you can claim less, but not more.
We can sit here and debate this all we want to, but I find that the loudest voices in this thread who complain about rich people being taxed too much/not enough are neither married nor have any kids. Interesting perspectives there, eh?
? was it my 20 page arguments against farm subsidies or my 10 page boredom-fest where i argue that with you social security should be abolished? or my claims that the government should totally ignore the environment? i have constantly argued that government should not be doing much of anything. i have advocated total abolition of huge parts of the government. the only bush "program" i defend is the war. why bother misrepresenting me like that?
