When Clinton got the budget into surplus, you kept reminding us that the budget and all other financial measures originate in the House. Did the Constitution get amended without anyone else but you noticing? Or do you simply never hold your own party responsible for anything?
We have expenses that people in other states just don’t. Huge mortgages, plastic surgery, personal guru, chi therapy. I could go on and on…
BTW, the definition of “rich” is hardly based on anybody’s feelings. :dubious: In this context, it’s a relative term, obviously. More specifically, it’s about fairness - the most should be paid by those for whom the payment would have the least effect on their lives, right? Someone making $250K is far less affected by a $50K tax bill than is someone making $25,000 affected by a $2500 bill, of course, even though the percentage is progressive. Yet we still have the notion being spread by those attracted to simplicity that a constant percentage is more fair than a progressive one.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
It was a trick question.
[/QUOTE]
Which is pretty much what I said, right? 
-XT
Am I correct in saying that the higher tax rate for anyone making over $250k, it only applies to the amount you make over $250k?
So, if you make $251,000, only that $1000 is at the higher rate, the rest is taxed at the previous rate.
I’m not sure what you think you’re talking about, but I am pretty sure it doesn’t matter.
Clinton didn’t bring the budget into surplus, you are correct about that. The GOP controlled Congress, including the House, and they balanced the budget. So far, so good.
Obama’s party controlled Congress, including the House, as well as the White House. And nonetheless, Obama broke his promise to rescind the Bush tax cuts.
So that particular lump of ratshit you posted about not holding your own party responsible seems to be a case of projection.
Can we go two years in a row with no budget? 2012 is an election year - if we don’t this year, we won’t next year.
Maybe we will get lucky and have some responsible person in the Oval Office to clean up Obama’s mess.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes.
Palin? Huckabee? Trump? 
And it’s not “make over $250k”, it’s have taxable income over $250k which probably means you make more like $300k, and if any of that is capital gains it’s taxed at a lower rate, and at that point you have already gone over the SS cap so you are paying a lower rate of taxes than someone with $100K in taxable income.
Of course. Let’s try it with simpler language then, shall we?
As compared to today, when the budget, and taxation policy, is controlled by the President instead, according to you:
Your attempts to blame everything on the Democrats remain as laughably childish as ever.
I’ll tell you what, the Median income is $52,029. That’s the income greater than or equal to what half of American households make. If you’re making $200,000 more than most of your fellow Americans, and you don’t consider yourself rich, than I don’t think the word has much meaning.
For reference I do agree with your point about relative depravity which is a sociological thing that basically means one person’s rich is another person’s poor. What defines rich is the environment one grows up, what they’re accustomed too, and what their fellows have.
I grew up in a 4 person household that made less than $12,000 a year. (working mom, me, sister, and grandfather who wasn’t quite old enough for social security, but not in a state to work very well). Monday I’m gong to find out if I’m hired for a $40,000 a year job, the income of which will only need to support myself. If I get it I’m going to feel very rich.
If I have kids in that bracket they won’t see at as rich but as normal, and dad’s obsession with finding things cheap to be odd.
Likewise from the 3rd world, my childhood environment was very rich. Safe drinking water, no dangerous childhood factory work, schooling, etc.
So yeah I agree rich is a vague term, but for most people $250k a year is rich if the word has any meaning.
Facts? 
:smack: You’re answering someone who doesn’t need facts – he already knows all the answers.
Let’s set the “after” part aside and dwell on the “peak” for a moment. When the best American stock averages are adjusted for inflation and to assume dividend reinvestment, the 2007 peak was over 90% of the 1999 peak! Not only did stocks rise during part of Bush-II, but 1999 buyers were almost “in the money” for a short while in 2007!! That’s some stock market the Younger Mr. Bush gave us.
I’m not arguing that he has a backbone but he extended the tax cuts for the rich AFTER the 2010 election.
Unemployment was higher throughout his presidency than it was at the end of the previous presidency. He left office with unemployment about 4% higher than where it was when he took office (4.2% and holding steady verus 8.2% and in freefall).
The Dow Jones was lower (by 20%) on the day he left office than the day he took office (a unique event since WWII).
Fannie and Freddie were not the precipitating factors in this crisis. This has been covered in numerous threads and yet people still keep claiming that they were at fault.
As much as I agree with you, we do have an entitlements problem (specifically a medicare/medicaid problem) that we have to address if we want to be solvent over the long run. But you’re right, the current crisis is entirely the result of the recession combined with the Bush tax cuts/wars. The recession will go away and we will still be left with the sort of deficits we had during the Bush years unless we stop invading countries and set taxes at Clinton era levels.
This is probably something we should do. I will note the difficulty of raising taxes on people that live paycheck to paycheck versus people who actually have investment on which they have taxable gains (as opposed to IRA’s and other tax advantaged investments).
So the argument is that if you increase the taxes on someone who spends everything they earn, you diminish consumption or increase personal debt, if you increase taxes on someone who has enough money to squirrel a significant amount away every year, you diminish much less. We do not need more capital sitting on the sidelines ready to invest, we need more people spending money so that people have a reason to invest.
Well, to be fair, that is about the point where you can start to live off of very safe investments. You no longer need to worry about money to maintain a relatively affluent lifestyle.
Simpler nonsense remains nonsense.
No, as compared to back when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Obama did not do what he promised then. The House controls all spending, and the Dems controlled the House. But Obama still broke his promise to rescind the cuts. So he is not very likely to bring it off now that he and his party no longer control the House, where all spending bills originate.
Well, if you find it laughable to blame the party that controls Congress and the White House for spending, then to be consistent, you cannot blame the GOP for the deficit since 2001.
That’s if you want to be consistent, which you aren’t. Because you made this stupid claim -
So the one claiming (wrongly) that the President controls spending is you.
Regards,
Shodan
All I know is that I have a nice 2 bedroom apartment; I drive a decent car (2007 Mustang, bought used); I can usually spend about $100 - $200 dollars a month on shit I don’t really need; I pay for HBO *and *Showtime; and my cat doesn’t go hungry.
On the other hand, spending $1000 on Christmas caused me to bounce a check in January and budgeting for things like car registrations, taxes due and child support are essential.
Yeah, I still complain about shit, but I realize how well I have it made compared to the single mom with three kids who works at Target and lives in double-wide.
That being said, if you quadrupled my salary I would just about reach that elusive $250K. I guran-goddamn-tee you, I would feel rich. I have a feeling I could make that work better for myself than what I currently make even if you doubled the tax rate for that bracket.
And yes, I’d still complain, but I’d realize how much better I have it than the guy in a rental with a used car and only two premium cable channels.