Interesting Days Ahead

[Censored by Laurie]

well it is obvious you don't know MY history.

Fixed Revised.

[UNT90]

Funny you mention Grant, since despite the scandals, he was apparently very popular (there was even talk of drafting him to serve a 3rd term). I doubt people in his time would consider him one of the worst ever.

That is my point.

Problem for Carter is that there is really only one redeaming thing in his presidency (Treaty between Egypt and Isreal...how topical). The fact that he continues to denigrate other presidencies while trying to re-write his own presidential history IN THE MEDIA is only going to cause history to judge him more harshly.

I used to be of the "he is a good person, but was just a bad president" opinion, but what he did through the Bush years completely changed the whole "good person" perception, at least for me.

Any time a former president critizes a sitting president in the media at a time of war, that former president is more concerned with his own agenda than his country's agenda.

[forevereagle]

Damn you Carter, it's your fault we lost Egypt. That is what we are talking about, no?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

UNT90 is correct....Carter was one of the worst. Gave away the Panama Canal (China has control of it now), Iranian Hostage Crisis, High interst (bought a jeep during that time & I had excellent credit....my rate was 18.5%). Mortgages, with excellent credit ran up to 21%, gas/oil through the roof...

cmj...there is a big difference in living it and reading about it.

I saw Carter kinda like Grant....both ment well, surrounded themselves with absolutely terrible advisors, really knew nothing of the magnitude of the office or foriegn affairs/domestic affairs and both indecisive (Grant was only considered a great general because he had superior #'s and material and his tactic was attrition...line 'em up, advance and die).

worst president: fdr

After the first 42 Presidents the national debt was $5 trillion, after the 43rd one the debt was $11 trillion... ... increased more than the first 42 did combined ..

Not my idea of a financial conservative.... which I thought meant spending no more than was coming in. Lets us not forget the 5000 drop in the DOW either in 2008 and the bank bail-outs...both before the election... or the unprovoked invasion of another country which did not even have the WMD that he was certain was there. [ Saddam, who was a thug but wasn't an Islamic crazy, had nothing to do with 9-11.. none were even from Iraq ]

You have a strange idea of worst Presidents. We actually won the war when FDR was President too.

Edited February 10, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Mean Green 93-98]

We actually won the war when FDR was President too.

Technically Truman was President when we won.

[UNT90]

After the first 42 Presidents the national debt was $5 trillion, after the 43rd one the debt was $11 trillion... ... increased more than the first 42 did combined ..

Not my idea of a financial conservative.... which I thought meant spending no more than was coming in. Lets us not forget the 5000 drop in the DOW either in 2008 and the bank bail-outs...both before the election... or the unprovoked invasion of another country which did not even have the WMD that he was certain was there. [ Saddam, who was a thug but wasn't an Islamic crazy, had nothing to do with 9-11.. none were even from Iraq ]

You have a strange idea of worst Presidents. We actually won the war when FDR was President too.

Man, you got everything in there except the illegal prison in Guantanamo Bay..........Oh wait, that's right, it's still open for business, despite Pres. Obama's promise that he would close this "illegal prison" when elected.

Yes, Pres. Bush spent way too much, which will be a big scar on his presidential legacy, but you make no mention of the current president doubling that spending rate. Why? Could it be you are agenda driven and will never admit a negative about a beloved Democrat?

Well, that's been my experience with you, anyway.

And now that Iraq is a democracy, Egypt and others are demanding the same rights. Coincidence?

[UNTFan23]

After the first 42 Presidents the national debt was $5 trillion, after the 43rd one the debt was $11 trillion... ...

Our National Debt has climbed 3 trillion to 14 trillion in 2 years.

[UNT90]

Our National Debt has climbed 3 trillion to 14 trillion in 2 years.

I'm sure, in one way or another, even though it will defy logic, it is all Bush's fault.

I'm beginning to think this is the only argument liberals know how to make.

[Coffee and TV]

Our National Debt has climbed 3 trillion to 14 trillion in 2 years.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

You are absolutely right... but don't forget it doubled between 2001-09.. the Bush years.. That was a gain of $5-6 trillion -- or more than all 42 previous Presidents COMBINED.

The Bush/GOP tax cuts for the wealthy are still in place.... Doing the same and expecting different results is insanity. Besides after the ecomomic problems in 2008 there is more unemployment (less taxes coming in) and a less capitol gains although the DOW market has gone up 4000+ points since then...

Clinton's years: It gained less than 2% per year (average) ...which is less than the interest on the debt.

Bush senior: ... he tried... and they voted him out because he tried to get the budget under control.

The people who wanted wanted Candy (tax cuts) voted for Perot.

Edited February 10, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

You are absolutely right... but don't forget it doubled between 2001-09.. the Bush years.. That was a gain of $5-6 trillion -- or more than all 42 previous Presidents COMBINED.

The Bush/GOP tax cuts for the wealthy are still in place.... Doing the same and expecting different results is insanity. Besides after the ecomomic problems in 2008 there is more unemployment (less taxes coming in) and a less capitol gains although the DOW market has gone up 4000+ points since then...

Clinton's years: It gained less than 2% per year (average) ...which is less than the interest on the debt.

Bush senior: ... he tried... and they voted him out because he tried to get the budget under control.

The people who wanted wanted Candy (tax cuts) voted for Perot.

So the answer to a deficit is to tax businesses as much as possible, thus eliminating any chance for expansion?

To go back to the oriiginal discussion (I think), The tax the hell out of the rich and businesses.was the mantra of the Carter administration. It led to the worst economy since The great depression. This President's economic policies previous to the November elections were a carbon copy of the Carter administration. Some people just don't learn from history.

[UNTFan23]

And there is no end to the red ink in the federal budgets:

Based on the 10 year projection provided by the current administration, we'll never dip below 500 million on the budget deficit.

[forevereagle]

To go back to the oriiginal discussion (I think),

There was an original discussion?

[Coffee and TV]

The tax the hell out of the rich and businesses.was the mantra of the Carter administration. It led to the worst economy since The great depression

Um, no, that's just plain wrong. The tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was no higher under Carter than any President before him in modern history. It was the same as it was under Ford & Nixon. It was higher under Kennedy and Eisenhower. And Obama is not "repeating Carter's history", the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans are lower under Obama than they were under Reagan.

[UNTFan23]

Um, no, that's just plain wrong. The tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was no higher under Carter than any President before him in modern history. It was the same as it was under Ford & Nixon. It was higher under Kennedy and Eisenhower. And Obama is not "repeating Carter's history", the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans are lower under Obama than they were under Reagan.

Aren't the tax rates basically what Bush passed that Obama extended?

[UNT90]

Aren't the tax rates basically what Bush passed that Obama extended?

After being forced to extend them by the November election.

[Censored by Laurie]

Or...we could say that the economy functions pretty much independently of political policy.

Eh, but nah...someone tie this off with a Nazi reference...just for old time's sake.

[UNTLifer]

And stop bringing Carter into this discussion. He can't be properly analyzed until at least 2026.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

So the answer to a deficit is to tax businesses as much as possible, thus eliminating any chance for expansion?

To go back to the original discussion (I think), The tax the hell out of the rich and businesses.was the mantra of the Carter administration. It led to the worst economy since The great depression. This President's economic policies previous to the November elections were a carbon copy of the Carter administration. Some people just don't learn from history.

--I don't pretend to know the answers.... but what is happening isn't it. I have a son that when he (or his wife) gets a raise.. they pays 33% in income tax...Ovbviously theya re getting a veryslary and show up at work every day... meanwhile those playing on Wall Street and the Ross Perot types only pay 15% on their capitol gains..... is that right?? ... nope... I pay about more 25% as well on any increased earnings I have. . The super wealthy do pay more than us but they also earn a lot more... but usually pay a smaller percent. The tax deal that was voted down in December and would have helped a lot... would have only raised taxes on those earning $250,000 or more and even then only the part over $250,000.

---I think many have suckered into thinking they are getting a great deal.... they aren't.

---Meanwhile in Texas those of us in education (both college and public schools) are going the poor devils that are going to have to pay and suffer for the state's shortfall and the stupidity that has been going on in Austin the past 10 years.... not the superwealthy... They have been passing out candy (tax-cuts) to contributors to stay in office . Don't be so party loyal and read what various ones are doing... We also have the highest home and auto insurance in the nation... (big contributors also)

---To me conservative means earning (or collecting) enough money to pay your bills.. politicians are not elected to just pass out candy (tax cuts) to stay in office forever... but to make make good decisions and do what is best for the people they represent...even if it gets them un-elected by those who don't get it .... Bush Sr.and the congress then was doing what needed to be done.... trying to get the budget under control. He was voted out for doing what was right.. the candy lovers voted Perot.

.

[DoubleEagle]

--I don't pretend to know the answers.... but what is happening isn't it. I have a son that when he (or his wife) gets a raise.. they pays 33% in income tax...Ovbviously theya re getting a veryslary and show up at work every day... meanwhile those playing on Wall Street and the Ross Perot types only pay 15% on their capitol gains..... is that right?? ... nope... I pay about more 25% as well on any increased earnings I have. . The super wealthy do pay more than us but they also earn a lot more... but usually pay a smaller percent. The tax deal that was voted down in December and would have helped a lot... would have only raised taxes on those earning $250,000 or more and even then only the part over $250,000.

According to the IRS the top 5% of taxpayers paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes (2008 results), earned 34.73% of all income and had an average tax rate of 20.70%. The bottom 50% paid 2.70% of all federal income taxes, earned 12.75% of all income and had an average tax rate of 2.59%.

If you think taxes should be raised on the wealthy then their percent of total taxes paid will rise. How much should they be expected to pay...60%? 70%? 100%?

[forevereagle]

--I don't pretend to know the answers....

This statement confuses me, especially when I read anything else you said. Are you saying that you know the answers, or that you don't care if what you say is true?

[Mean Green 93-98]

politicians are not elected to just pass out candy (tax cuts)

Tax cuts are not "candy"--they are efforts to restore sanity.

I assume you are familiar with the Laffer curve--lower taxes might mean the government takes a smaller piece of the pie percentage-wise, but a bigger pie overall helps everybody.

Our country was prosperous and well-governed before we had an established income tax. Our government needs to learn to govern in a way that does not demand perpetually robbing its wealthier citizens.

[KRAM1]

--I don't pretend to know the answers.... but what is happening isn't it. I have a son that when he (or his wife) gets a raise.. they pays 33% in income tax...Ovbviously theya re getting a veryslary and show up at work every day... meanwhile those playing on Wall Street and the Ross Perot types only pay 15% on their capitol gains..... is that right?? ... nope... I pay about more 25% as well on any increased earnings I have. . The super wealthy do pay more than us but they also earn a lot more... but usually pay a smaller percent. The tax deal that was voted down in December and would have helped a lot... would have only raised taxes on those earning $250,000 or more and even then only the part over $250,000.

---I think many have suckered into thinking they are getting a great deal.... they aren't.

---Meanwhile in Texas those of us in education (both college and public schools) are going the poor devils that are going to have to pay and suffer for the state's shortfall and the stupidity that has been going on in Austin the past 10 years.... not the super wealthy... They have been passing out candy (tax-cuts) to contributors to stay in office . Don't be so party loyal and read what various ones are doing... We also have the highest home and auto insurance in the nation... (big contributors also)

---To me conservative means earning (or collecting) enough money to pay your bills.. politicians are not elected to just pass out candy (tax cuts) to stay in office forever... but to make make good decisions and do what is best for the people they represent...even if it gets them un-elected by those who don't get it .... Bush Sr.and the congress then was doing what needed to be done.... trying to get the budget under control. He was voted out for doing what was right.. the candy lovers voted Perot.

.

WOW...so much incorrect in the above statements that one doesn't even know where to start. The capital gains tax rate of 15% helps middle class American as much as it does those on "Wall Street" you have so much disdain for it seems. If you own a mutual fund or a stock outside of a 401K then you benefit from the 15% capital gains rate when the fund issues capital gains or you sell a stock for a profit. It is no where near just the "fat cats" you dislike so much that benefit from this, plus it helps cut down on the double taxation of savings in this country...one of the ONLY industrialized nations that continues to penalize capital formation and savings with it's double-taxation in this area. Capital gains are not "earned income" in the IRS definition of "earned income". The rich pay more taxes than any other in this nation and over 40% of the people pay no income taxes at all! Public schools will not be the only area that feels the pain of the budget axe in Texas. many other programs will also feel that pain. Butr, many of the areas seeing the cuts have long been spared the cuts and have simply continued to add staff, facilities and support personnel at faster and faster paces...fast outpacing the taxpayer's ability to keep up.

I understand your concerns as I have a family full of educators, at all levels of public education, but when I talk with them, they seem to understand that some areas could use some trimming and feel that too many administrators and admins are around doing little to help the real education that goes on in the classroom. It may be time to consider such things as year round schooling...why keep your facilities empty several months each year...consolidation of some districts to save admin costs, increasing the number of kids in classrooms, adding some fees for extracurricular activities, cutting down on board retreats and board admins, making 100% certain that everyone on free and reduced lunch/breakfast programs actually qualify, shutting down daycare programs that do not pay for themselves, etc., etc. Tough times, I get it, and, yes, it calls for tough decisions. Blaming others who may earn more or have figured out how to legally reduce their tax bills is not the answer. Sitting down and finding ways to get creative is...if we have the best educators (teachers and administrators) then they should be able to figure this out without all the "class warfare" and "poor me, it's all the rich guys fault" crap and excuses.

How about remembering that every time you buy something outside your home district you are reducing sales tax revenue for your own community. Every time a new program that "feels good" is introduced, how about figuring out how to pay for it...and I don't mean with "stimulus" money that will soon disappear. How many teachers were hired across the state with temporary funds knowing all the while that the revenue to sustain their salaries long-term was not there? Now, many of those teachers face being laid off or fired. Gee, who could have seen that coming????

We all know it will not be easy, and we will all...all of us...share in the pain (yes, some more than others), but what good does it do to whine about it all? It is time those great educators we have (and I truly believe our educators do a great job) to get together and come up with ways to help alleviate the pain. And, they will have to realize that just because a program or benefit "feels good" is not the sole reason it should exist.

I truly believe that we have the best and the brightest that can work locally to solve these problems and reduce the pain. No one wants anyone to lose a job, but it looks like that may be coming. Why, well, not just because the state is reducing funding or some new tax has not been placed on "someone else". It has a lot to do with poor long term planning and sticking heads in the sand and not thinking it could happen here! What a lot of this whine seems to be all about is that new taxes are great...on anyone other than me that is! Once again, the "not in my backyard" syndrome rears its head. Tax those other guys, they are rich, just don't tax me and let's keep all the benefits and perks. Looks like that type of thinking just won't cut it in these tough budget times. Time to take a new approach and get down to figuring it out...for the long term.

[cwb]

WOW...so much incorrect in the above statements that one doesn't even know where to start. The capital gains tax rate of 15% helps middle class American as much as it does those on "Wall Street" you have so much disdain for it seems. If you own a mutual fund or a stock outside of a 401K then you benefit from the 15% capital gains rate when the fund issues capital gains or you sell a stock for a profit. It is no where near just the "fat cats" you dislike so much that benefit from this, plus it helps cut down on the double taxation of savings in this country...one of the ONLY industrialized nations that continues to penalize capital formation and savings with it's double-taxation in this area. Capital gains are not "earned income" in the IRS definition of "earned income". The rich pay more taxes than any other in this nation and over 40% of the people pay no income taxes at all! Public schools will not be the only area that feels the pain of the budget axe in Texas. many other programs will also feel that pain. Butr, many of the areas seeing the cuts have long been spared the cuts and have simply continued to add staff, facilities and support personnel at faster and faster paces...fast outpacing the taxpayer's ability to keep up.

I understand your concerns as I have a family full of educators, at all levels of public education, but when I talk with them, they seem to understand that some areas could use some trimming and feel that too many administrators and admins are around doing little to help the real education that goes on in the classroom. It may be time to consider such things as year round schooling...why keep your facilities empty several months each year...consolidation of some districts to save admin costs, increasing the number of kids in classrooms, adding some fees for extracurricular activities, cutting down on board retreats and board admins, making 100% certain that everyone on free and reduced lunch/breakfast programs actually qualify, shutting down daycare programs that do not pay for themselves, etc., etc. Tough times, I get it, and, yes, it calls for tough decisions. Blaming others who may earn more or have figured out how to legally reduce their tax bills is not the answer. Sitting down and finding ways to get creative is...if we have the best educators (teachers and administrators) then they should be able to figure this out without all the "class warfare" and "poor me, it's all the rich guys fault" crap and excuses.

How about remembering that every time you buy something outside your home district you are reducing sales tax revenue for your own community. Every time a new program that "feels good" is introduced, how about figuring out how to pay for it...and I don't mean with "stimulus" money that will soon disappear. How many teachers were hired across the state with temporary funds knowing all the while that the revenue to sustain their salaries long-term was not there? Now, many of those teachers face being laid off or fired. Gee, who could have seen that coming????

We all know it will not be easy, and we will all...all of us...share in the pain (yes, some more than others), but what good does it do to whine about it all? It is time those great educators we have (and I truly believe our educators do a great job) to get together and come up with ways to help alleviate the pain. And, they will have to realize that just because a program or benefit "feels good" is not the sole reason it should exist.

I truly believe that we have the best and the brightest that can work locally to solve these problems and reduce the pain. No one wants anyone to lose a job, but it looks like that may be coming. Why, well, not just because the state is reducing funding or some new tax has not been placed on "someone else". It has a lot to do with poor long term planning and sticking heads in the sand and not thinking it could happen here! What a lot of this whine seems to be all about is that new taxes are great...on anyone other than me that is! Once again, the "not in my backyard" syndrome rears its head. Tax those other guys, they are rich, just don't tax me and let's keep all the benefits and perks. Looks like that type of thinking just won't cut it in these tough budget times. Time to take a new approach and get down to figuring it out...for the long term.

I count eleven. Everybody drink up. Hangover, here we come! Does that Sheen guy have an extra bunk?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

According to the IRS the top 5% of taxpayers paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes (2008 results), earned 34.73% of all income and had an average tax rate of 20.70%. The bottom 50% paid 2.70% of all federal income taxes, earned 12.75% of all income and had an average tax rate of 2.59%.

If you think taxes should be raised on the wealthy then their percent of total taxes paid will rise. How much should they be expected to pay...60%? 70%? 100%?

I don't doubt your stats at all . ... but where is the cut line for the top 5%.... It is far below $250,000 and a lot of the high earning "middle class" are the ones getting beat-up with a 33% tax on their WAGES**... not the super wealthy they don't make money on wages and often pay 15%.... Go to the top 1% (the super wealthy) and see if what you state is still holds true...

--What answer do you have to stop this insane increase in the national debt... from 1992-2001 it gained 2% per year... .. since then it has gone from $5 trillion to $13 trillion and getting worse. How can you defend this increase in ten years.

--What is your answer to stop it??? I agree with cutting federal spending.. but they aren't doing that either. people once thought the $5 trillion was terrible..... it will soon be triple that...... The big problem is what do you do when the interest almost equal the yearly "income" from taxes. ... it could happen.

**read tax tables if you doubt me.

Edited February 11, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66