It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Greenspan: We can't afford McCain's tax cuts

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 





But that poor black man getting 300dollars a month is the problem not the old white billionaire getting 20billion dollars.


What does RACE have to do with this? Are you implying that all "black" people(your term, not mine) are poor and all rich people are white? Or are you saying only that "white" rich people should be taxed more? Or perhaps only "black" poor people deserve a tax cut?

Your post is race baiting to the ultimate.




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Double post

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Krieger]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


I'm African American first of all, and second who does the GOP blame? The black woman collecting welfare and food stamps to feed her children. While ignoring the old rich white man they just gave 20billion dollars to.

And notice how Jam didn't refute anything, just flung mud.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Things have been ,messed up for a whole lot longer than 6 years.


8 years. And according to those charts, 8 years ago, Unemployment was around 4%, today, it's over 6%.
Clinton left office with a budget surplus of over $200 Billion. Today, our deficit is somewhere around -$400 Billion.



You are a fine Democrat walking the Democrat talking points. Why don't you take an independent view and take fault with both parties?


I am not a Democrat.

I do find fault with both parties, but the GOP, Bush, Cheney and McCain are MUCH more at fault as I see it.



As long as you continue the blame game, it doesn't help resolve the real problem.


I'm not trying to help the real problem. There's not a damn thing I can do to help the real problem or I would have done it a long time ago. All I can do is vote for the person who I think will do something DIFFERENTLY than has been done over the past 8 years. And you can believe I will do that.




Regardless of which one wins expect more of the same. It is Congress that passes the bills.


You're right. And if Obama wins, I fully expect Congress to be willing to go along with his plan. There's no reason for a Democratically-controlled Congress to buck against a Democratic president.

If McCain wins, we'll have more of the same. That's for sure.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 



Originally posted by skyshow
Who spent the surplus and ran the deficit up higher than ever in US history?


The Do Nothing Democrat Congress, for one.


Originally posted by skyshow
Who pushed hard and what party supported deregulation of the banking system?

Who pushed hard and what party supported deregulation of oil speculation that has lead to massive increases in the cost of oil ?


Both parties.


Originally posted by skyshow
Who ignored the intelligence data prior to 9/11 but accepted false info (WMD) against the advice of top advisors ...?


The main culprit was Bill Clinton, but practically every national leader fell for the poor intelligence.


Originally posted by skyshow

Who said "we'll smoke em' out" and then let him get away?


Don't know who said that, but Clinton let him slip away. Actually, Sandy Berger didn't have the cojones to give the order to blast bin Laden into eternity.

Sandy Berger. Remember him? "Down My Pants With National Archive Documents" Sandy Berger?



Originally posted by skyshow
Who was on the White House balcony enjoying a Brandy and smoking a cigar on the evening of September the 12th?


Don't know, don't care, since it is so irrelevant as to be silly.


Originally posted by skyshow
Who authorized all the Bin Laden family members to fly out of the country after US airspace was shut down?


Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton's Terror Czar.


Originally posted by skyshow
Who took the fall for Cheney in Vallery Plame, and why?


Prove Cheney was involved.

Next?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 





But that poor black man getting 300dollars a month is the problem not the old white billionaire getting 20billion dollars.

Again, I ask you, what does race have to do with this? Here are the statistics from the US census, breaking down poverty by race and other factors. There are FAR more "white" people in poverty than "black" people.
www.census.gov...

In the 2000 census, the latest available, there were a total of 32,907,000 individuals in poverty in the United States. 8,136,000 of those were "black", 15,271,000 were "white, not Hispanic", and 9,500,000 were "other" (such as Hispanic, Asian, etc.

Your statement about Republicans, etc. has no basis of fact. If you believe it does, please follow the new rules, and cite sources other than blogs, peoples' opinion,etc. Cite where the Republican Party has stated that in writing, or an official of the Republican party has stated that, as speaking for the Republican party. You will NOT be able to find such a source. Just because you think it is true, does not make it true.



.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


But who does the GOP Portray to be at fault? Not the rich white billionaire they just gave 18billion in tax cuts, then gave 5billion dollars of your tax money to them.

But 300dollars a month to that poor black person, that's who they say is to blame. Cause no white man would ever be on welfare... Wait, Corporate welfare outspends all welfare in one year...

Do nothing congress? THE REPUBLICANS OUTSPENT CLINTON'S 8 YEARS IN 4 YEARS!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by skyshow
 



The only thing I said about Democrats is why didn't they enact taxes on the rich in 2006. That is a legit question. Why does the American public continue to have to wait till somebody gets elected before passing relief upon Americans?




Because there is a Republican president who has stated he will be using his veto pen to ensure he is still a factor. People can blame the democrats for doing little since taking a slim majority in 2006 but they have a president who has vetoed 10 times as many bills in the last 2 years than he did in his first 6 and Republicans in congress who have been unwilling to support any legislation presented by the democrats, let along lend support to over ride a veto.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 



And notice how Jam didn't refute anything, just flung mud


what mud are you talking about.......There are more whites on welfare if you play the number games...Dang everybody acts like one party or the other is to blame when they are all to blame. I don't care if it is a Republican or democratic party, they need each others help in order to get things done.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


I don't blame the Democrats. I do blame McCain and Obama. They have these so called great plans but we have to wait till one get elected in order for them to get Congress to pass them. What the hell, are they not members of Congress themselves. Could they not have collaborated to get certain issues passed in order for the better of America. Is that too much to ask from two high profile Senators running for President? Surely with so many people behind them and the media spotlight they could have at least resolved something.

I guess people prefer wait till I get elected.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 

Don't confuse Krieger's mind with facts. I stated the US census figures above, and he ignored them. I asked for answers to specific questions, and he ignored them. He could not state any resource for his claims, could not point to ONE quote that he accuses people of, but he continues to spew his race baiting and victimization routine.
As to your comments, I agree with you. Both McCain and Obama are in the Senate, and neither one has done anything regarding the economy. What makes anyone think that things will change regardless of which one is elected. Furthermore, once elected as President, they lose their ability to make new laws. That is reserved for Congress, not the President.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Again this comes back to GWB. I dont want to derail the topic but the main reason that the Democrats are labled a 'do nothing' congress is because GW will veto any legislation that does not follow his politics are ideas. He will not cross party lines, he will not work with the congress, unless its a Republican congress. And the Republicans in congress are doing the same, they wont side with Dems to over ride a veto. They wont cross party lines and work with the other side.
In the first 6 years of GWs terms, the Dems met half way on a lot of legislation, much of which has led to problems. Not that it mattered because it was a Rep majority and a Rep president, so there only option for standing up for their own beliefs was a filabuster.
GWB ran for office on a 'uniter, not a divider' and he has been the most stubborn divider I have ever seen in office. Since the Dems got majority in congress, he has openly said that he would use his veto pen to maintain his own relevency.
McCain wants to change washington, but he and the rest of the Republicans had 6 years to pass all the legislation they wanted without any resistence. So to now claim that everything going wrong in the country is the Democrats fault, is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
The current housing mess we are in right now can be directly linked to Phil Graham, a Texas Republican, and McCains former economic stratigist. He single handedly deregulated the bank financing industry. Where was John McCain at when this happened? McCain speaks like he is the new kid on the block, here to right the wrongs of the world. What a joke!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


I am sure they are to blame also. But they needed Democrats help to pass many of those legislations during those 6 years.

Personally, I don't see the democrat congress as a no do congress. This always happens prior to election. If your party controls Congress and white house then you pass bills to help economy. If your party controls Congress but not white house than you pass few bills to help your candidate chances of winning.

The same thing will happen to Obama if he wins. Everybody will blame everything on him. And democrats and republicans will continue to blame each other and in four years you and I will still be debating the same issues but different candidates.

As far as Ghram, single handedly, I don't think so. Too many people from both parties gained a lot. Majority of things Congress pass benefit corporations more than Americans. I wish every Senator would have to disclose what exact company they invest in.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by skyshow
 



Originally posted by skyshow
Who spent the surplus and ran the deficit up higher than ever in US history?


The Do Nothing Democrat Congress, for one.


STOP LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've had enough. Do you even believe yourself? Are you just rationalizing your position by lying. From 2001 to 2003, when our big surplus turned to big deficit, congress was REPUBLICAN controlled.

farm3.static.flickr.com...

en.wikipedia.org...


So seriously, no more lying when facts don't match "how you want it to be."

Considering the GOP had congress from 94-06, I think maybe you want to change your answer to...

"the do nothing economically retarded president," but that would be unprovable opinion. Bottom line, to claim that the democratically controlled house caused the deficit is just plain not possible, because the dems didn't control the house.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 



I am sure they are to blame also. But they needed Democrats help to pass many of those legislations during those 6 years.


Actually when you have the majority in congress and a president who will not veto, you do not need the help from the other side. There were Democrats that did vote for a lot of the legislation and they can be held accountable for their votes but the Republicans did not need any help from the Democrats.

The only opposition the Democrats could implement was a filabuster but that only works for so long.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Clinton's budget surplus

was it really a surplus or did people just accept it as a surplus? I will let you decide....I must say there is a lot of reading.....

According to the GAO report who is required to audit the financial statements of the government.


Because we were unable to determine the reliability of significant portions of the accompanying financial statements for the reasons outlined above and described in more detail below, we are unable to, and we do not, express an opinion on the accompanying fiscal year 1999 financial statements.


Original source click GAO report

source pdf File



Because of the serious deficiencies in the government’s systems, recordkeeping, documentation, financial reporting, and controls, readers are cautioned that amounts reported in the financial statements and related notes may not be a reliable source of information for decision-making by the government or the public


same source as above


Hmmm..may not be a reliable source due to deficiencies


These deficiencies also affect the reliability of information contained in the accompanying Management's Discussion and Analysis and any other financial management information--including information used to manage the government day-to-day and certain budget information reported by agencies--which is taken from the same data sources as the financial statements.


Same source as Above

If you go to the original source you can also look at the other years Clinton had a surplus.....

Do you think the IRS would accept these numbers with all the deficiencies?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


My hats off to you. You definitely know where your coming from. Filibuster was pretty much their limited option. I believe the reps had enough votes in the house to pass a bill with no Dems help but needed Dems help in the Senate. I will have to look that up to make sure. Like I said my hats off to you. I look forward to hearing what you have to say in many more issues.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 


Classic class warfare...

It is a fact that under President Bush, the income tax load INCREASED on the rich. More poorer taxpayers were REMOVED from having to pay federal income tax than under any democratic president. If you really want to bore the hell out of yourself and dig through the data, every time the democrats have raised taxes (to punish the rich), it is the POOR that end up paying more income tax.

You increase taxes on rich individuals, you are going to kill job creation. Because they will hide their money overseas, quit investing, and quit buying their toys. If you increase the taxes on corporations, you screw the poor. Corporations dont have this magic piggy bank that they pay tax out, every dime a corporation has, comes from us. We buy their products and services, they use that money to pay their taxes. You raise their taxes, they raise their prices.

BTW, have you noticed that since the minimum wage went up....so has unemployment?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


No it didn't He cut taxes for them and increased the flow of tax money to Billionaires. Under Bush the Big Oil and Big War and Big Pharma have gotten more tax money then all those poor blacks have in the entire history of welfare. But they're the problem, not the billions going to billionaires.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
There was a breakdown done by an analyst and the difference for the average family a year is about $200 in comparison to Obama's plan.

Obama also plans on raising the maximum tax from 36% to 39%. The wealthy of course will pay this more than anyone else. Pretty unfair in my opinion.

I think both candidates are pretty weak in terms of economic areas. The only reason I give McCain the upper hand is because of the people he surround himself with (both (D) and (R) ).




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join