0
curropt coprs like ENron which did hteir dirty deeds under PRes clinton? and were busted under BPres. Buss'h watch?
Yeah, a stronger welfare system is needed, but not one that compenstates people more, as in uses up more money. It in fact should use less money if all the people who aren't supposed to be on it are taken off.Originally Posted by Dredd
I also believe that by spending more money on work training and say cheaper education in community colleges, many of these programs can be eliminated or reduced significantly. Many people are way too dependant on these programs. A good example of this are the "ghettos" in urban citys. Many of the families in these places have been on welfare and other assistance programs since there creation (or at least a very long time). I think that helping them get education/training would be a better option than these near-socialist programs. Sure they are necessary at times, times aren't always good for everyone. But that doesn't necessarily mean people should be dependant on these programs.That is twice as much as the government will spend on job training, $6.2 billion; college Pell grants, $12 billion; public housing, $6.3 billion; low-income rental subsidies, $19 billion; child care, $4.8 billion; insurance for low-income children, $5.2 billion; low-income energy assistance, $1.8 billion; meals for shut-ins, $180 million; and welfare, $16.9 billion.
And can anyone answer my previous questions?
Also I would like to know Kerry's economic plans cause im kinda fuzzy on them.
Also another point, as bush entered office, the economy began going down. So if you look at it, it was also Clinton's fault. Also as Clinton took office the economy went up. Did he really do anything to make the economy prosper just as he gets into office? I doubt it.Originally Posted by Freemason
Also you have to consider that many of the reasons of the economic recession are out of the hands of the president. For example, 9-11 triggered the cripple of travel in the US. This leads to a drop in profits from not only airlines, but also buisness in cities such as D.C./NY that rely on tourists and buisness travel.
Originally Posted by luis19
I'll take a shot at it. Cutting taxes means less money in the government's coffers. Less money means congress has to figure out where to prune their spending in order to balance the budget. Deciding which programs are least essential and therefore subject to said pruning can be a highly subjective matter - and it can hurt alot of people if done indiscriminantly.
cutting taxes is no differenet tehan havding a sale at a supermarket. THey sell more stuff and make monre money.
Lower taxes mean people can invest more which bbrings in additional revenue. Simple. UNless you're a liberal and believe in a zero-sum eneconomy fantasy
I applaud you for being so bold. Could you elaborate on how you know that the economy was going down when Bush took office? And how you know that the economy was going up when Cliton took office? It's very interesting that Cliton's conduct during his 8 years failed to affect the economy until Bush took over. I was unaware of such economic program.Originally Posted by luis19
the bubble burst in 2000 under clinton. PRes bush warned us of it during the e3lelction. It was happening ,. but liars such as cBS and Dan Blather said it was different.
Medcia bias anybody?
Income tax is the largest source of income for the government. Could you please explain where the government is going to get the money to pay for the war on terrorism, Afghanistan & Iraq?Originally Posted by Freemason
Could you elaborate on which specific failures by Cliton caused the bubble to burst?Originally Posted by Freemason
(BTW, are you drinking? I don't remember your typing as erratic as this.)
capital gains taxes. The "Suprlus" under pres,. slinton was based uopon projected nubmers from the stock amrket. whenthe bubble burst, it ewent to hell an dthe funds started to be depleteed.
With the lower taxes, I'm now inclined to invest in it where I wasn't before. Even thought he tax rate is less, you get more people investing.
What makes more money? 100 peopel paying 30% tac or 200 people paying 20% tax?
Bookmarks