Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyldeman30
That is a typical liberal response that are revenue problem is the Bush tax cuts. You could put a 100% tax on the most wealthy Americans and it still will not help with our debt problem.
|
Well intended, but sadly wrong again. Clinton did it with the tax rate at only 39%. $86.4 Billion surplus by fiscal year 2000, and he still managed to add 23 million jobs to our economy. Imagine that? Bush lost 800,000 jobs and sent another 2.5 million overseas during his terms while the tax rate was the same as it is now, a cozy 35%. Bottom line, that 4% costs us $126 Billion each year in revenue, or over $1.35 Trillion since they were implemented starting in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...administration
I should clarify that there is a difference between debt and deficit. "Debt" being our total borrowed and owed, while "deficit" being the difference between our revenue and spending each year. Doesn't change the fact that you need more revenue than you spend in order to pay back total debt. Debt incidentally which is $14,407,780,264,415 as I type this...or $129,222 per tax payer if you prefer.
Think about that that number, "$129,222 per tax payer", while considering that GE made $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, and not only did they pay ZERO dollars in U.S. Federal taxes, they actually got $3.2 Billion tax benefit. Further, they laid off 21,000 workers and closed 20 factories between 2007 and 2009, and more than half of their workforce is now outside the United States.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gener...ry?id=13224558
Shall I get you some statistics on Exxon/Mobil, or are have I thoroughly pissed you off enough already? =P
By the way, quite calling me a "liberal" when it comes to matters of money. I happen to be a fiscal conservative, but socially liberal. You can break out the liberal b/s when I start bashing on you about abortion or Jesus.
