Where's the Press Release called Obama Apologizes to Nancy Reagan? :-)

Now now, Spud, no need to call me names. I'm trying to have an honest dialog here, and I don't think that I'm a Rtard and I'm certainly not an idiot.

The poor pay nothing. The middle class and up pay everything. Sorry, but you're wrong.

>>I'm talking about the state of the
>>economy during his terms, not whether
>>or not he was responsible for it.

That's fine. You're right. However, my point was simply that there were many reasons why the economy was good then, and businesses thrived despite the higher tax rates.

Your original question:
>>All that is being proposed is to
>>return to the same tax level from
>>that period. Now all of a sudden
>>in will destroy America and our
>>economy. Why?

That is not nearly "all that is being proposed." There are many more proposals on the table including this tax increase, but I also believe that during this time it wasn't levied on $250k and up. Capital gains taxes, investment taxes, Bush Tax Cut expiration, and I'm sure other unnamed penalties are on the way. This is NOT going to be good for the economy, though like the 90s we MAY as individual Americans survive and perhaps even thrive by keeping ourselves afloat.

>>Do you recall that small businesses
>>thrived, unemployment was low, and
>>millions of jobs were created in the
>>1990's under Clinton?

Yes, but one might argue that it wasn't because of President Clinton but rather in spite of him. He wasn't a bad president, but it takes more than one man to make/break an economy. During those years, there were many factors that contributed to the great economy, and I think it's a bit, well, naive to believe that it was because of who was president at the time.

The internet, for example, was one of the contributing factors, welfare reform (which was signed by B.C.), and many other things went really well during the 90s. Unfortunately the next decade had a few problems and were, of course, blamed on President Bush. Don't get me wrong... I am a republican, but I'm well aware of Pres. Bush's shortcomings and mistakes. Hope that we all learned something from them.

I don't think a Tax increase by itself is going to destroy the country, but I think a combination of things and one or two disasters could.

And regarding taxes in general, I believe in principle that anyone at all that is paying taxes should be fairly taxed and not taxed based on "from each, according to his ability" which is what spreading the wealth is.

Just my opinion.

>>OK, so to clarify, a possible 4% increase
>>is "huge" by your definition. And at least
>>some of that would be offset by health
>>care credits.

Huge is 40%. As it is, the "rich" already take care of about 90% of the tax burden. That is an undisputed number. You're right, 4% is not necessarily huge, but I would argue that compared to 0%, 4% is pretty significant.

Regarding health care credits, I don't believe that anywhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or anywhere else is Health Care mentioned. I'm not being snide, but instead of adding to the already huge tax burden, why don't we reduce it, and reduce spending? In the video, the CNN "reporter" mentions fire, police, roads, etc., but fails to mention many many other programs, mostly entitlement and earmarks that our Govermnent wastes our money on. If it were just the Fire Department, the Police, the Military and Roads, this might be a different debate.

Well, I believe that the high end of the tax code is around 35%, and I believe I've read the figure of 39.5% if President Obama has his way.

I think that 40% is pretty huge. I, like the hated Joe the Plumber, do not make this kind of money. But I do own a business which caters to these businesses.

I simply believe that if you're an achiever, employ people, make money and spend money, that does not give the US Government the right to punish you for it.

I think the reporter was so effing condescending it was unbelievable. No, this "journalist" wasn't biased at all, was he.

The fact is that Joe is right, whether he articulated it clearly or not. Why would you penalize someone by levying huge taxes on them, when the people that are making money create jobs, buy things, hire people for goods and services, etc?

And why is it that someone who doesn't pay taxes should get money for free in the form of a "refund?"

Think about it this way: If you own an ice cream shop and you're cones sell for $1.00 apiece. On that dollar you're taxed 10 cents. Let's say that all of a sudden your tax is increased to 15 cents. Are you a) going to be satisfied with making 85 cents, or are you going to sell your cones for $1.20 and pass the increase along to the consumer?

Now, instead of cones, substitute oil, electricity, cars, flat screen tvs.

Now, without flying off the handle and flaming me, can someone explain to me how exactly I'm wrong? Just asking an honest question and stating an honest opinion.

Not sure if you would consider it racist or not. Guess it doesn't matter because anything you might utter in a negative fashion about the Chosen One is by definition racist.

Actually, I think we can chalk this up to ignorance, stupidity, and the willingless to follow someone without having a clue what you, or HE stands for.

that WAS only three people though. I'd be interested in seeing about 20 interviews of random sampling by white AND black people and see what the results are.

There are a lot of smart people voting for Obama too. They can't use stupidity as an excuse. They're just sheep and they're towing the party line.

Look at these racist muthas. Here's your typical educated voter supporting obama and his vice president, sarah palin.

Ann Wilson needs to just keep following the career of Mama Cass. Fucking irrelevant fatass.

Obviously everyone is forgetting this is George Bush and Dick Cheney being in bed with Big Soy. We need to tax the windfall profits of Big Soy and this will make everyone feel better!

>Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton
>have only 2 things in common: their gender
>and their good looks. :)

Now why the fuck would anyone even SAY this and expect anyone to read any further?

Although Hillary is POSSIBLY a woman, does ANYONE really consider her good looking? EW.