House Democrats May Raise Taxes for Wealthy

[ted]

From every economic measure, the Clinton years marked the greatest period of peace and prosperity in the history of the United States. The economy is good today, but comparing it to the Clinton years would be like comparing a dime to a dollar.

You sure about that?

t.

[Marnie]

From every economic measure, the Clinton years marked the greatest period of peace and prosperity in the history of the United States. The economy is good today, but comparing it to the Clinton years would be like comparing a dime to a dollar.

Sure, if you take Ronald Reagan out of the picture. Clinton was lucky in that he was the benefactor of what Reagan achieved in the 1980's, despite what Bush I did.

[Leonard]

Actually control of the economy is relegated to Congress, not the President, and Congress has by and large shirked that responsibility by creating the so-called 'Federal Reserve.'

The Federal Reserve has ultimate control over the U.S. economy, and is not a government entity at all, but a PRIVATE BANK, formed by Member Banks (rather like the Member States formed the Federal Government), complete with stock holders! At this time the MAJORITY of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank, is not owned by Americans, but by foreigners.

Don't get me started. The point is that in reality, although we may gripe and groan about how "...the President is handling the economy...." any president deserves neither credit nor blame for the economy. Think Congress, and Federal Reserve.

[forrestkc]

I remember when Bill Clinton increased taxes on the 'rich.' My wife and I and our little girl were barely scraping by: Driving a 15 year old junk heap, living in a small apartment, making about $20,000 a year. Well, sir, the Clinton program made ME RICH! Although my yearly income had fallen by about $120, my taxes increased $24!!!!

Thank you, Demoncrat party, for making me "rich."

I don't know what to tell you. From 1993 thru 2000, 22 million new jobs were created, thats well over twice the job creation rate of the last 6 years. The poverty rate dropped to its lowest level in history, and the median household income increased every year. Over the last six years, the median household income has fell every year and 2006 may be the first year it actually increases, and the poverty rate has went up every year.

From every economic measure, the Clinton years marked the greatest period of peace and prosperity in the history of the United States. The economy is good today, but comparing it to the Clinton years would be like comparing a dime to a dollar.

During the 90s, the economy was doing good, but you are forgetting something. At the close of Clinton's last term, we were entering into a recession. This continued into the first part of Bush's first term, and it was reversed by tax cuts and interest rate reductions. Clinton's booming economy was coming to a close on it's own, and had Gore won in 2000 and taken us the way of tax increases, we would have likely gone into a full blown depression. In addition to these facts, Clinton was forced to make changes in his policies after the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. His primary objective was getting a second term, so he did things he ordinarily wouldn't have. During his second term, he was so tied up with the Lewinsky scandle, he couldn't do much to muck up the works.

Gore was never proposing tax increases. In fact, he was proposing tax cuts targeted at the Middle Class, specifically families with children. The recession that came about at the beginning of Bush's term was a result of interest rate hikes to curb the irrational exuberance of the dot com boom. Greenspan himself credited the booming economy of the nineties with the centrist policies of the Clinton economic team. The Clinton economic policies were basically a continuation of the Bush Sr. economic policies which were a near total reversal of the Reagan era policies. I would not in anyway regard the Clinton years as an example of liberalism success as Clinton was certainly not a liberal. Instead, the Clinton years would be an example of the success of pragmatism started durring the Bush Sr. years and continued on through the Clinton years.

We had the same congress until this year that we had durring the Clinton years, the only thing that changed was the president.

[Guest LadyC]

"The recession that came about at the beginning of Bush's term was a result of interest rate hikes to curb the irrational exuberance of the dot com boom."

ok, i liked when ted asked you in regards to what you said earlier... so i'm going to use the same question he did.

you sure about that?

[kat8585]

Clinton was certainly not a liberal.

Clinton was not a liberal????!!!! That's the funniest joke I've heard in a long time!!

[Marnie]

Actually control of the economy is relegated to Congress, not the President, and Congress has by and large shirked that responsibility by creating the so-called 'Federal Reserve.'

The Federal Reserve has ultimate control over the U.S. economy, and is not a government entity at all, but a PRIVATE BANK, formed by Member Banks (rather like the Member States formed the Federal Government), complete with stock holders! At this time the MAJORITY of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank, is not owned by Americans, but by foreigners.

Don't get me started. The point is that in reality, although we may gripe and groan about how "...the President is handling the economy...." any president deserves neither credit nor blame for the economy. Think Congress, and Federal Reserve.

Great Post. Though I question whether the Congress has as much power as it once did as the Federal reserve has taken the power for themselves. The Federal Reserve (a private company) sets the interest rate and the interest rate has a huge influence over how well the economy does. Our national debt is also owed to the Federal Reserve. If we had stuck to the Constitution and had Congress issuing the legal tender, we would not have this debt.

Amen and amen.

[forrestkc]

So you guys are saying that monetarism, the cornerstone of our modern economy is a bad thing? I would much rather a handful of economists oversee our economy than a bunch of ignorant politicians.

[forrestkc]

Clinton was certainly not a liberal.

Clinton was not a liberal????!!!! That's the funniest joke I've heard in a long time!!

The problem is that you are so far to the right that you think the center is much closer to you than it is. There is hardly a dimes worth of difference ideologically between Clinton and Bush Sr. Look at policies, almost a mirror image of each other. Guys like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are solid Liberals and Clinton is a mile to the right of them. Clinton had the highest approval ratings of any President since FDR. He consistently had the highest approval ratings of any President since FDR. If Clinton was a liberal, then 70% of the country must be. He was over 60% even at the height of the Lewinsky Scandal. You would be hard pressed to find a politician that represented the mainstream more than Clinton did. In fact, I will go so far as to say that if you let the American people trade Clinton for Bush today, that at least 2/3rds of the American would take Clinton back in a heartbeat.

[ted]

Clinton was certainly not a liberal.

Clinton was not a liberal????!!!! That's the funniest joke I've heard in a long time!!

The problem is that you are so far to the right that you think the center is much closer to you than it is. There is hardly a dimes worth of difference ideologically between Clinton and Bush Sr. Look at policies, almost a mirror image of each other. Guys like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are solid Liberals and Clinton is a mile to the right of them. Clinton had the highest approval ratings of any President since FDR. He consistently had the highest approval ratings of any President since FDR. If Clinton was a liberal, then 70% of the country must be. He was over 60% even at the height of the Lewinsky Scandal. You would be hard pressed to find a politician that represented the mainstream more than Clinton did. In fact, I will go so far as to say that if you let the American people trade Clinton for Bush today, that at least 2/3rds of the American would take Clinton back in a heartbeat.

One of the reasons Clinton looked so mainstream is because you would be hard pressed to find a President who put his finger into the air to test the political impact of his ideas more than he did. He was truly "all things to all people".

That's great if you are looking for hand outs and wanting someone to never make a decision on his own, but it's not so hot if you are expecting solid leadership from the top office in the country. He didn't take a stand on anything until he was fully briefed on what he thought the polls showed would be the coolest position that people would like.

And yes, Clinton and Bush Sr agree on quite a bit: they are both globalists.

What does that prove?

t.