Excuse me, but during Clinton administration, we had a balanced budget for the first time in ......s

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I was taught in school if the economy is doing bad now, it was due to the president 6-8 years ago. If the economy is doing well, it is also due to the president who was in office 6-8 years ago.

Since it's almost Income Tax time, here's some interesting facts about the Democrat and Republican tax policies. Just compare - and, while you're at it, use these facts the next time you hear that President Bush only "cut taxes for the rich". Looks to me like someone single and making $30K, or a couple making $60K, got a 46% tax break under the Republicans. That's what I would call taking care of the "middle class".

And remember, the truth only comes out when we refuse to be silent....
Source: www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

The budget funds Volunteer America, and includes a provision to set up a commission to STUDY whether or not "mandatory volunteerism" should be established. My prediction is that it won't happen.

1. Roll back a significant portion or all of the stimulus that has not yet been distributed as of 2010.

2. Indiiduals earning less than $50,000 or couples earning less than $100,000 could either file under the current tax provisions or pay a flat 10%. Others earning more would pay a flat 25%. All who choose the flat tax rate could literally file their taxes on a form the size of a single index card.

You have to think about some of the implications of these tax ideas to understand the less obvious benefits, among which would be the stanching of the flow of investment outside the country and attraction of foreign investment, and an enormous savings in the waste of time and money that presently go to nothing more productive than filing taxes. A simple scheme like this would also be much more difficult to defraud than the complex system currently in place.

On this last point, just consider all the back taxes that Obama has collected from his tax-scofflaw political appointees - over $100,000! Not one of the excuses that any of them offered for not paying their taxes - i.e., that the tax laws are too complicated even for that "brilliant" idiot, Geithner (who now heads up the IRS). Not one of them could have skated by "paying their back taxes" while apologizing that they just couldn't get a handle on what they're supposed to pay. Now, multiply just those people by all the other tax cheats in this country who couldn't use similar excuses (or schemes, whichever term you prefer).

It's simple: What do you make? Withhold 10% and you owe nothing at the end of the year. Fill out your card, send it in, and you're done. And you tax accountants who have helped your clients avoid taxes for years...we need accountants for other purposes, so you won't starve either.

Peter Peterson. (Photo: Reuters)

Peter Peterson is coming to get your Social Security and Medicare. Peterson was the commerce secretary in the Nixon administration. He then went on to make billions of dollars as one of the top executives at the Blackstone Group, a private equity fund. Mr. Peterson is known as one of the top beneficiaries of the fund managers' tax break, through which he personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Peterson has been using his Wall Street wealth to attack these social insurance programs for decades, but he recently stepped up his efforts. Last year, he spent $1 billion to endow the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to further his efforts.

In politics, it's not easy to counter the impact of $1 billion. In addition to its money, the Peterson crew enjoys the support of many important news outlets, most importantly The Washington Post, which pushes his line on both its editorial and news pages.

In fact, The Post even went so far as to identify Peterson's foundation by its boilerplate, an organization that "advocates for federal fiscal responsibility," instead of telling readers of its political leanings, the normal mode of identification for such organizations. (The Center for Economic and Policy Research was established "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives.")

While the Peterson crew may have the money and the support of the media, the rest of us can rely on logic and ridicule to counter the attack. In this spirit, we have the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. (Mr. Peterson is apparently fond of having things named after him. In addition to his new Peter G. Peterson Foundation, he also has a think tank named after him, the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.)

The Peterson tax credit would essentially take the Peterson crew at their word. They claim that they are worried that huge tax burdens will leave future generations worse off than the generations that preceded them.

This isn't true. There is no plausible scenario, short of war or environmental disaster, that would leave future generations worse off than their parents or grandparents. But we don't have to argue with the billionaire; let's just give future generations the option to trade places with their parents or grandparents who made out so well.

This is where the tax credit comes in. The tax credit would allow an individual to trade her after-tax income for the after-tax income that someone born 20 or 40 years sooner would have earned at the same age. For example, if someone born in 1990 believes in 2020 that their grandparents got a better deal, they would simply check off the year 1940, and they would have their taxes adjusted so that they would have the same after-tax income of a person born in 1940, when they were also age 30.

Of course, the young ones would end up big losers in this story. Real wages, on average, will be more than 50 percent higher in 2020 than they were in 1970. Even if tax rates were, on average, 5 percentage points higher, workers in 2020 will still have after-tax wages that are more than 40 percent higher than their counterparts in 1970.

This means that anyone who chose to take advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit would end up as a big loser. That is why it can help solve the deficit problem. If people check off the tax credit, they will pay more in taxes and, therefore, increase government revenue.

It might be hard to convince large numbers of people to voluntarily pay more in taxes. This is where the Peterson Foundation comes in. They are spending huge amounts of money trying to convince young people that they are being ripped off by their parents and grandparents. They are even promoting front groups of young people to advance this effort.

With his billion dollars, Peterson could convince a huge number of gullible young people to tax advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit. Insofar as he is successful in this effort, he can help to generate billions of dollars that can be used for items like health care, preschool education, and other pressing needs.

So, let's join efforts with Mr. Peterson and encourage his followers to take advantage of the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. There is a word for taking money from willfully ignorant young people who would deny their parents and grandparents the Social Security and Medicare benefits they need to survive: justice.

I disagree - it is well known that they are extremely right-slanted. Fair and balanced. What a joke. Why do you think people in the know refer to them as Faux or Fixed news - just a coincidence?

Chris Wallace's vicious sucker-punch attack on Bill Clinton (wherin Wallace got his rear end handed to him on a platter).

over the past 3 years, including charts. This is by the National Debt Awareness Center. There are lots of other links on there to check out too but, again, I am short on time today.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/02/25/hot-docs-bleak-and-uncertain-federal-budget-outlook-as-deficit-climbs.html

I saw today where they passed a budget to take us through the next couple months to the tune of $896B. Filled with pork. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to look it up tomorrow.

Bush supporter, but you can't blame Bush for this economic mess. Perhaps you should do a little more research before you go off like a screaming meemie. It was Bill Clinton who proposed everyone should have a mortgage in every pot, whether they could afford it or not, especially minorities, and the chickens came home to roost. Do a little research, kiddo.

LOL, you can't blame Bush for everything. I think the time is coming when all Americans will realize what a decent man he is, the last decent one we will have as a president. If Americans can vote in an illegal ursurper and think he is the Messiah, they sure won't vote for an honorable, Constitution-abiding successor, assuming we even have another election in this country with Comrade Obama in charge along with his Marxist cabinet.

There will be ZERO help for the average Americans who need it. It's like a reverse "Robin Hood." Take from the less fortunate and give to the wealthy.

This is Bush's policy (more like fascism than socialism), and we don't hear a whimper of protest, yet when Obama even hints at helping struggling Americans, everyone yells and screams SOCIALISM.

Bush can still do a lot of damage in the weeks he has remaining. That's what worries me more than anything.

I knew it was a mistake to pick Clinton for SOS. The person who said she had no problems obliterating Iran if they didn't do what she wants (or something like that). How do you think the current administration to include Hillary will handle this one.

has gone out of its way to be FAIR to everyone (including Republicans), right down to Eric Holder (the Attorney General) taking a look at Republican Ted Stevens' case (prosecuted under the Bush administration) and dismissing the charges against this REPUBLICAN because of mistakes made by the Bush administration.

They're trying to reach out to everyone, but most Repubicans and their followers are returning his outstretched hand of conciliation with a clenched fist.

This is truly sad and does nothing to help strengthen our country. What is comforting is that the "party of no" and their followers represent the minority of Americans.