• US to hit debt ceiling by Monday
    180 replies, posted
[QUOTE=iwork3daysaweek;38988064]You fucking wish The thing is, a lot of this shit isn't the fault of congressmen, it's the fault of our governmental system in general. There are so many bills being proposed at any given time congressmen don't have time to read them over, and instead have entire staff teams devoted to summarizing bills and giving opinions to their respective congressmen. Congressmen are nothing but figureheads trying to make their best judgement based on soundbites of bills with information that may or may not be faulty, not to mention omnibuses and other fucked up legislative factors. Plus that you have party figures screaming down your ass with the power to demote you into lower committee positions if you don't do what they say. Plus that even if you believe something to be moral and in the interest of the common good you still have to worry about what your constituents want, no matter how stupid their opinions are. Even if you weren't corrupt or taking bribes you'd still have one hell of a time trying to do what's right. tl;dr you or I would be just as much of a fuckup congressmen as the rest of them.[/QUOTE] Sounds like any government's legislature body. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] I vote we go to a monarchy. With one, sole emperor to decide shit. No constituents to worry about, no party bigwigs yelling at you, can take your time to read the bills proposed (by yourself) :v:
[QUOTE=Waffle99;38982677]It is about time they start reforming the way they give free money to people. I really think unemployment should act more as a temp agency than a free money agency. The military can take a huge paycut. We buy so much extra shit yearly it is ridiculous. They also need to change the way that the end of year spending occurs. If you don't spend it you lose it is a terrible way to budget. Oh well, time to move to GB or Germany. Also, SatansSin , AVATAR SOURCE![/QUOTE] This right here folks, My ROTC unit we were given 40k in uniforms and uniform accessiors to outfit around 200 cadets. The cadets return there uniforms at the end of every year to be reissued if they are part of the program the next year or to new cadets. So basically every year we need less and less and generally most our ordering is just replacing uniforms that we werne't able to reissue or never got back. Anyway we split that budget of 30k in uniforms into 10k for the 2nd/3th/4th quarter and didn't buy anything first quarter cause we don't know what we need till then. Now ever year our budget went up and one time we had a couple of hundred left in our budget subjected for one quarter and we forgot to submit for it to rollover as we honestly didn't need anything that wouldn't be oversupplied. We got in serious shit for not spending it and forced to make an order for random items just to spend it. We were hinted at just taking gear that's been held for years and claim it as unusable and dispose of it then order replacements. The goal under my adminstrative budget was 1. Outfit the unit 2. Spend the rest. Now the funny part is we constantly asked if we could roll over part of that supply budget to our measly 3-4k a year office supply budget. That includes technology in general,computers,books,regular office supplies such as notebooks,paper,pens,rubberbands. We constantly had to outfit these cadets with books and pens and paper and with around 200 kids to outfit currently (Hopefully that's our maximum we will ever get) and our budget constantly going up still. We honestly told them at one point "We're good with our old budgets, We'd just like office increases" but nope more and more flows in. It feels really dirty spending that money too, Like I know if we have 10k left over that can supplement other raises and benefit communities but im forced to spend it just cause it's "Spend it or lose it" and the military doesn't want to lose it cause you never get it back even when you do need it.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38987122]Such as? [/QUOTE] The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 mandates that if someone walks into an emergency regardless of having insurance or not, they must be treated. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act[/URL] [QUOTE=GunFox;38987122]Currently we have a system where corporations can profit off of insuring human bodies.[/QUOTE] All corporations and companies are created to generate wealth. It is like auto insurance. You pay your bill every month, and in the event that something happens, your costs are covered up to a certain amount. [QUOTE=GunFox;38987122]Now given that everyone has a body and pretty much everyone needs to see a doctor at some point, how about we just integrate the care of said bodies into the government and offset the cost with taxes.[/QUOTE] It isn't that simple. Dumping the cost onto everyone else is not the solution. Who do you propse to tax? Raising taxes does not stimulate economic growth- it slows it. History tells us this. If you get sick or need medical attention, go to the emergency room. You're using a service. Services aren't free. [QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38987191]might possibly drive up the price of the insurance for the consumer.[/QUOTE] Not might, it will drive up the price. [QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38987191]Interstate commerce made the United States into one of the most powerful consumer-driven markets in history but health insurance is the only field where interstate commerce is specifically prohibited as far as I'm aware. If that's changed, I think it could do so much more for the American people than the Affordable Care Act ever could.[/QUOTE] You are exactly correct. Basic economics tells us this.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988189]The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 mandates that if someone walks into an emergency regardless of having insurance or not, they must be treated. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act[/url] [/QUOTE] thats a hot-topic for hospitals. They dont like treating people without insurance
[QUOTE=areolop;38988197]thats a hot-topic for hospitals. They dont like treating people without insurance[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter if they like it or not, it is the law.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;38983274]my mom actually believes this. She said Reagan fixed the economy by lowering business taxes. She thinks he had the best economy of any president :v:[/QUOTE] my dad explained reaganomics to my sister while i was there literally amazed at how many logical fallacies happened during the 20 minute explanation
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988204]Doesn't matter if they like it or not, it is the law.[/QUOTE] The quality of service you receive is considered barely legal compared to walking in with insurance. At the same time though the amount they milk insurance companies is outragous. It's just as bad as some auto shops when you get body damage from an accident. "You have insurance..?, this paint job just went from taking 1 day to a week and looks like this part didnt fit correctly we gotta custom fit it now". Imagine how differently hospitals would operate if spending power was like a typical consumer environment or if insurance companies stood up to hospitals milking insurance companies making them milk us.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988189] It isn't that simple. Dumping the cost onto everyone else is not the solution. Who do you propse to tax? Raising taxes does not stimulate economic growth- it slows it. History tells us this. If you get sick or need medical attention, go to the emergency room. You're using a service. Services aren't free. [/QUOTE] I think his issue is, this is a mandatory service that everyone will have to use and thus should be free given that it wasn't a choice to be used. The issue I have with this is, we pay water utilities and that's a mandatory thing for life as well. It's a service and not free; why are people not asking the government to cheapen/free water supplies?
[QUOTE=The Baconator;38983274]my mom actually believes this. She said Reagan fixed the economy by lowering business taxes. She thinks he had the best economy of any president :v:[/QUOTE] Time for a history lesson, hmm? Reaganomics v. Obamanomics 101: Most believe that when President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, he inherited the worst financial melt down since the great depression. This is false. When Reagan entered office in 1981 this is what he had to deal with: -Double digit unemployment (Peaking at 10.8%) -Double digit inflation (13% in 1980) -Double digit interest rates (Peaking 21.5% in 1980) The poverty rate started increasing in 1978 from 11.4% to 15.2% A fall in real median family income began in 1978, going up to almost a 10% decline in 1982. From 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 70% in its real value. If you listen to Obama, you would think the economy at the end of the Bush era was the worst- [U][B]it was not.[/B][/U] The Carter years were the worst. How did Reagan deal with this? He had a 4 point economic program: [B][U]1st: Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.[/U][/B] This started with the top income bracket going down from 70% to 50%. This was followed by a 25% reduction across all tax brackets. The 1986 tax reform lowered taxes even more, leaving just 2 rates: 15% and 28%. This is the largest reduction in tax rates in modern American history. There was no talk about "Tax the rich". Reagan simply said: "Lower them." [B][U]2nd: Spending reductions[/U][/B] This included a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% federal budget back then, or about $175 billion in today's $s. In constant dollars, non defence(Remember, we were in the cold war at the time) declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. In constant dollars, this non defence spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms. Even with the Reagan defense build up which won the cold war, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of the GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988. That's a real reduction in government sizeable to the economy by 10%. [U][B]3rd: Anti-inflationary monetary policy[/B][/U] Reagan pushed for policy that restrained money supply growth, compared to demand to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar. [U]What's happening today is exactly the opposite- massive printing.[/U] [U][B]4th: De-regulation[/B][/U] De-regulation saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan's first executive order was to eliminate price controls on oil and natural gas. Production went up, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%. The Reagan recovery started, on offical records, November 1982 and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990- the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal took effect. This was Bush 41 going back on "Read my lips no new taxes" pledge and democrat tax increases. During the 7 year recovery, the enonomy grew by 1/3: [B][U]-In 1984 alone, real economic growth was 6.8%- the highest in 50 years. -Nearly 20 million new jobs during the recovery. -U.S employment increased by nearly 20%. -Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989 from its high of 10.8%. (Take note that under Barack Obama, unemployment still has not gone under what it was when he took office) -Real per-capita income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years. -The poverty rate declined [U]every year[/U] from 1984 to 1989- dropping by nearly 1/6th from its peak. -The stock market nearly trippled in value from 1980 to 1990- a larger increase than any previous decade[/U][/B] [U][B]Obamanomics:[/B][/U] -Instead of lowering taxes, Obama is commited to raising taxes on the top two tax rates. Already enacted by law, by 2013 the top two tax rates will increase by nearly 20%, not to mention Obama's proposed deduction phase-outs. -Capital gains tax will go up nearly 60% -Total tax rate on corprate dividens will increase by nearly 3 times. -Medicare pay roll tax will increase by 62% for the nation's job creators and investors. -The death tax rate will go back up to 55%. Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, Obama's first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. In his 1st 2 years in office, he's already increased federal spending by 28% [U][B]The Reagan recovery averaged economic growth of 7.1% over the first 7 quarters. The Obama recovery has produced 2.8%, with the last quarter being 0%.[/B][/U] After 7 quarters of Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak- 7.5%. Not so with Obama. During the Reagan years: massive economic expansion as a result of across the board tax cuts. (Corprate, personal, captial gains, ect.) Massive reduction in regulation. 4 years into this presidency, and Obama is still talking about George Bush. 4 years in, and Obama takes credit for nothing. So in closing, capitalism creates wealth, prosperity, oppertunity and jobs. Big government statism destroys those things.
Fuck you, Congress. Just fuck you.
[QUOTE=Stopper;38982302]Can someone closely familiar with US' politics explain what this means in basic terms?[/QUOTE] It means we're fucked and Congress has no clue what to do.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988189]The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 mandates that if someone walks into an emergency regardless of having insurance or not, they must be treated. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act[/URL][/QUOTE] Most expensive way to do it. Period. [quote]All corporations and companies are created to generate wealth. It is like auto insurance. You pay your bill every month, and in the event that something happens, your costs are covered up to a certain amount.[/quote] Except that instead of a car it's a body. You know, something we all have. What happens if your car breaks down? Might ride a bike, take some transport. The real reason you'd need a car is to get a job (which means you're probably already making money). What happens if your body needs treatment and you're poor? Should you be allowed to die? It's not cheaper, either. Competition is hardly a factor when there's risk selection. Competiton = Benefits is only in certain situations and in a utopia. [quote]It isn't that simple. Dumping the cost onto everyone else is not the solution. Who do you propse to tax? Raising taxes does not stimulate economic growth- it slows it. History tells us this. If you get sick or need medical attention, go to the emergency room. You're using a service. Services aren't free.[/quote] Then pay for your rights. I think the Constitution calls for the government to provide welfare of its citizens. The right to live is a pretty big one if you ask me. Also, raising taxes does help economic growth over the long term. It provides stability and if invested in education and infrastructure allows growth. Bush's tax cuts and war spending really helped us recover from a recession, didn't it? [quote]Not might, it will drive up the price.[/quote] A problem that arises when dealing with the private sector. They seem awfully stubborn when not allowed to deny coverage to those whose only crime is to be born with a pre-existing condition or develop a disease that's considered "too expensive" to deal with. A public option would alleviate this. [quote]You are exactly correct. Basic economics tells us this.[/quote] You are, once again, in this magical kingdom where free markets are golden and infallible. You can already deal with other states, if you're following their mandates. Is it possible that the most profitable health insurance companies would be those who follow the least regulations and have to abide by the least amount of rules? [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=UziXxX;38988506]myths[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.classwarfareexists.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Obama-vs.-Reagan.jpg[/IMG] Reagan spent more money. [IMG]http://ww2.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/federal-employment-1981-1984.png[/IMG] Reagan increased Federal employment. You know how you fix an economy? Growth in public sector (which helps rid of debt), then easing those jobs back into the private sector.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38988567]What happens if your body needs treatment and you're poor? Should you be allowed to die?[/QUOTE] No, you go to the emergency room for treatment. [QUOTE=Zally13;38988567]It's not cheaper, either. Competition is hardly a factor when there's risk selection. Competiton = Benefits is only in certain situations and in a utopia.[/QUOTE] Basic economics tells us that competition raises prices if there is a shortage, and lowers prices when there is a surplus. It is a basic supply and demand graph. There is something called a market equilibrium. [QUOTE=Zally13;38988567]I think the Constitution calls for the government to provide welfare of its citizens. The right to live in a pretty big one if you ask me.[/QUOTE] Creating a law that does not allow hospitals to refuse treatment because of inability to pay is taking care of the citizens. [QUOTE=Zally13;38988567]Also, raising taxes does help economic growth over the long term. It provides stability and if invested in education and infrastructure allows growth.[/QUOTE] Recent history tells us that raising taxes, (June 1990 and 1993) creates recessions. And lowering taxes, (1997, 2001, and 2003) creates wealth. Yes, raising taxes expands [I]government[/I] growth, but shrinks per-capita disposable income, which at the end of the day, drives the economy [QUOTE=Zally13;38988567]Bush's tax cuts and war spending really helped us recover from a recession, didn't it?[/QUOTE] The tax cuts: yes War spending: no The Bush tax cuts in 2003 lowered taxes more on the lower class than on the upper class. This created a 4 year expansion until the housing bubble popped and the recession began in Decemeber of 2007. [QUOTE=Zally13;38988567]Reagan spent more money.[/quote] Yes, I said non-defense. America was involved in the cold war in the 1980s and there was a massive defense increase, obviously that costs money.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988691]No, you go to the emergency room for treatment.[/QUOTE] Still most expensive way to do it~ [quote]Basic economics tells us that competition raises prices if there is a shortage, and lowers prices when there is a surplus. It is a basic supply and demand graph. There is something called a market equilibrium.[/quote] this isnt quality this is cost [quote]Creating a law that does not allow hospitals to refuse treatment because of inability to pay is taking care of the citizens.[/quote] That only addresses emergency room. [quote]Recent history tells us that raising taxes, (June 1990 and 1993) creates recessions. And lowering taxes, (1997, 2001, and 2003) creates wealth. Yes, raising taxes expands [I]government[/I] growth, but shrinks per-capita disposable income, which at the end of the day, drives the economy[/quote] again, short term growth if you want to ignore investments, the future, wealth division [quote]The tax cuts: yes War spending: no The Bush tax cuts in 2003 lowered taxes more on the lower class than on the upper class. This created a 4 year expansion until the housing bubble popped and the recession began in Decemeber of 2007.[/quote] Bush didn't have expansion in the private sector. Only public sector. What are you fucking on [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=UziXxX;38988691]Yes, I said non-defense. America was involved in the cold war in the 1980s and there was a massive defense increase, obviously that costs money.[/QUOTE] I quote you: [quote]In constant dollars, this non defence spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms. Even with the Reagan defense build up which won the cold war, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of the GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988. That's a real reduction in government sizeable to the economy by 10%.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Zally13;38988722]again, short term growth[/QUOTE] The March 1991 to March 2001 expansion is the longest in history. [QUOTE=Zally13;38988722]Bush didn't have expansion in the private sector.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about expansion of the economy. When GDP grows each quarter, that is called [I]expansion.[/I] When GDP growth is negative for 2 consec. quarters, this is called [I]recession[/I]. If we see there is no recession from 2003 until 2007, than it is logical to conclude that GDP, every quarter, grew. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zally13;38988722]dumbs[/QUOTE] Yes. If you take away the money spend on defense, everything else was declining. If you include defense, obviously he spent more than Obama.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988506]Time for a history lesson, hmm? Reaganomics v. Obamanomics 101: Most believe that when President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, he inherited the worst financial melt down since the great depression. This is false. When Reagan entered office in 1981 this is what he had to deal with: -Double digit unemployment (Peaking at 10.8%) -Double digit inflation (13% in 1980) -Double digit interest rates (Peaking 21.5% in 1980) The poverty rate started increasing in 1978 from 11.4% to 15.2% A fall in real median family income began in 1978, going up to almost a 10% decline in 1982. From 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 70% in its real value. If you listen to Obama, you would think the economy at the end of the Bush era was the worst- [U][B]it was not.[/B][/U] The Carter years were the worst. How did Reagan deal with this? He had a 4 point economic program: [B][U]1st: Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth.[/U][/B] This started with the top income bracket going down from 70% to 50%. This was followed by a 25% reduction across all tax brackets. The 1986 tax reform lowered taxes even more, leaving just 2 rates: 15% and 28%. This is the largest reduction in tax rates in modern American history. There was no talk about "Tax the rich". Reagan simply said: "Lower them." [B][U]2nd: Spending reductions[/U][/B] This included a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% federal budget back then, or about $175 billion in today's $s. In constant dollars, non defence(Remember, we were in the cold war at the time) declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. In constant dollars, this non defence spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms. Even with the Reagan defense build up which won the cold war, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of the GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988. That's a real reduction in government sizeable to the economy by 10%. [U][B]3rd: Anti-inflationary monetary policy[/B][/U] Reagan pushed for policy that restrained money supply growth, compared to demand to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar. [U]What's happening today is exactly the opposite- massive printing.[/U] [U][B]4th: De-regulation[/B][/U] De-regulation saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan's first executive order was to eliminate price controls on oil and natural gas. Production went up, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%. The Reagan recovery started, on offical records, November 1982 and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990- the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal took effect. This was Bush 41 going back on "Read my lips no new taxes" pledge and democrat tax increases. During the 7 year recovery, the enonomy grew by 1/3: [B][U]-In 1984 alone, real economic growth was 6.8%- the highest in 50 years. -Nearly 20 million new jobs during the recovery. -U.S employment increased by nearly 20%. -Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989 from its high of 10.8%. (Take note that under Barack Obama, unemployment still has not gone under what it was when he took office) -Real per-capita income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years. -The poverty rate declined [U]every year[/U] from 1984 to 1989- dropping by nearly 1/6th from its peak. -The stock market nearly trippled in value from 1980 to 1990- a larger increase than any previous decade[/U][/B] [U][B]Obamanomics:[/B][/U] -Instead of lowering taxes, Obama is commited to raising taxes on the top two tax rates. Already enacted by law, by 2013 the top two tax rates will increase by nearly 20%, not to mention Obama's proposed deduction phase-outs. -Capital gains tax will go up nearly 60% -Total tax rate on corprate dividens will increase by nearly 3 times. -Medicare pay roll tax will increase by 62% for the nation's job creators and investors. -The death tax rate will go back up to 55%. Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, Obama's first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. In his 1st 2 years in office, he's already increased federal spending by 28% [U][B]The Reagan recovery averaged economic growth of 7.1% over the first 7 quarters. The Obama recovery has produced 2.8%, with the last quarter being 0%.[/B][/U] After 7 quarters of Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak- 7.5%. Not so with Obama. During the Reagan years: massive economic expansion as a result of across the board tax cuts. (Corprate, personal, captial gains, ect.) Massive reduction in regulation. 4 years into this presidency, and Obama is still talking about George Bush. 4 years in, and Obama takes credit for nothing. So in closing, capitalism creates wealth, prosperity, oppertunity and jobs. Big government statism destroys those things.[/QUOTE] Uhhh, didn't Reagan massively increase spending? [img]http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/8/88/ReaganDebt.png[/img] small government at work
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988749]The March 1991 to March 2001 expansion is the longest in history.[/QUOTE] Due to the Dot Com bubble. The internet was founded through government investments. [quote]I'm talking about expansion of the economy. When GDP grows each quarter, that is called [I]expansion[/I] When GDP growth is negative for 2 consec. quarters, this is called [I]recession[/I].[/quote] Okay, still addressed it. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] [quote]Yes. If you take away the money spend on defense, everything else was declining. If you include defense, obviously he spent more than Obama.[/quote] You said "Even with the Reagan defense build up which won the cold war" (which is a fairytale fyi). Stop backpedaling.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988749]The March 1991 to March 2001 expansion is the longest in history. [B]Yes. If you take away the money spend on defense, everything else was declining. If you include defense, obviously he spent more than Obama.[/B][/QUOTE] So you admit that Bush spent more money even while he was cutting taxes, and you don't think he's the one that fucked us up? By the way, 1991-2001 was mostly Clinton (1993-2001). Quit spewing Fox News-esque bullshit all over this thread.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;38988776]So you admit that Bush spent more money even while he was cutting taxes, and you don't think he's the one that fucked us up? By the way, 1991-2001 was mostly Clinton (1993-2001). Quit spewing Fox News-esque bullshit all over this thread.[/QUOTE] iirc he's talking about reagan at that point
[QUOTE=Forumaster;38988776]So you admit that Bush spent more money even while he was cutting taxes, and you don't think he's the one that fucked us up?[/QUOTE] Did I say Bush didn't fuck us up? [QUOTE=Forumaster;38988776]By the way, 1991-2001 was mostly Clinton (1993-2001).[/QUOTE] Where is it that I was discrediting Clinton?
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988807]Did I say Bush didn't fuck us up? Where is it that I was discrediting Clinton?[/QUOTE] so then what's your point if clinton is mostly to credit
[QUOTE=Zally13;38988818]so then what's your point if clinton is mostly to credit[/QUOTE] What do you mean what is my point? You claimed that these were short term expansions, and I simply stated that the 120 month expansion is the longest in history. I wasn't discrediting or putting Clinton down.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988823]What do you mean what is my point? You claimed that these were short term expansions, and I simply stated that the 120 month expansion is the longest in history. I wasn't discrediting or putting Clinton down.[/QUOTE] And I was saying that wasn't due to tax cuts.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38988829]And I was saying that wasn't due to tax cuts.[/QUOTE] Clinton signed a tax hike into law in September 1993, the same year he took office. This tax hike included: -An increase in the top marginal tax rate from 31% to 39.6% -Repeal on the cap of 2.9% on the medicare tax -4.6 cent increase in the gas tax -Increase in the taxable portion of social security benefits -Hike in the corporate income tax (34% to 35%) The economy did show strong growth during the 1990s, but [I]rapid[/I] growth did not occur after the 1993 tax hike. It came much later in the decade when congress cut taxes in 1997. From 1993 until 1997 the economy grew at 3.3% per year. That's about average. It was not until the 1997 tax cuts, which Clinton resisted but signed anyway, causing the economy to grow at 4.4%.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38988886]Clinton signed a tax hike into law in September 1993, the same year he took office. This tax hike included: -An increase in the top marginal tax rate from 31% to 39.6% -Repeal on the cap of 2.9% on the medicare tax -4.6 cent increase in the gas tax -Increase in the taxable portion of social security benefits -Hike in the corporate income tax (34% to 35%) The economy did show strong growth during the 1990s, but [I]rapid[/I] growth did not occur after the 1993 tax hike. It came much later in the decade when congress cut taxes in 1997. From 1993 until 1997 the economy grew at 3.3% per year. That's about average. It was not until the 1997 tax cuts, which Clinton resisted but signed anyway, causing the economy to grow at 4.4%.[/QUOTE] [Citation needed] [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] I have stuff that shows otherwise. [img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/clinton_gdp.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Atwal;38982649]Whats the point in a debt ceiling if it's just going to be raised everytime it's hit?[/QUOTE] The solution is obviously to raise it to infinity since nobody is really sure about how it works nobody will be able to complain.
I think Congress should bring a giant monitor into the room And have everyone sit down, and look at the monitor. On this monitor is people in a chat room that is set to give only several people at a time to talk. When its their turn they can ask a question that congress has too answer, maybe then they'll see what the American people will actually want. OR the internet hosts a vote where 2-3 people from the internet get a seat on congress to be on the monitor at every meeting congress has to put their input in. This can be done anonymously but must be a U.S. citizen
USA went bankrupt!
[QUOTE=IPK;38989565]USA went bankrupt![/QUOTE] u wot?
are people really calling it "Obamanomics" like really it sounds like a shitty 80's synthpop band
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.