American Politics during the Bush Presidency

The numbers are just the tax code from before the Bush tax cuts (which expire in 2010) so they are nothing new. That would be the the tax code that had balanced the budget as opposed to the one that has a projected 2009 deficit of 482 billion dollars.

The home example is a bit misleading since there was the rollover provision where you could defer any gain as long as you traded up.

The inheritance tax is also misleading since there are about a zillion ways to dramatically reduce inheritance taxes. Only suckers pay retail or inheritance taxes.

I've never heard anything about an additional tax on houses over 2400 sf or any of the other "proposals" listed. Personally, I've always been for phase-in increased gas taxes (e. G. 5% increase per year for 20 years) as a way to discourage consumption over time.

For me, the problem with the Bush tax cuts is that the American people are unwilling to live with the level of government services the new revenue base can fund. That's a large part of the huge deficits we are experiencing. The most obvious result is the increasing chunk of tax revenues that goes to paying interest on debt rather than services.

The Bush tax cuts have been good for me personally but I don't think they have been good for the country.

Sorry, you did. I forgot. I'd be okay with him too but it won't happen. Doubt his ego would allow for him to be VP.

The Bush tax cuts actually resulted in more tax revenue being collected due to the cuts stimulating the economy. This worked fine until the Republicans began spending like Democrats on one program after another, then there was all t he pork. Don't bring up the war, just look at the budget, "entitlement" programs are what are killing us not military spending. This is the classic Guns N Butter debate; we just got way too much Butter.

Does anyone remember in the mid to late 90's the Democrat's triad about "economic discrimination"? How we were denying low income earners (read minorities) the opportunity of home ownership and the congressional legislation to force the major lenders to reduce their threshold for new home buyers. After years of handing out home loans like they were candy to unqualified buyers the house of cards collapsed. Add to that oil prices and now we have a serious economic down turn.

Anybody remember the "WIN" tax from the early 1970's, the Democrats had the brilliant idea they could tax us out of a recession? Democrats always believe the answer to any problem is to tax more so they can spend more since they know better how to spend our money. Me personally I would rather spend that money on ladies of the evening, soiled doves, ect (you get the idea)

I just don't think we need more taxes, we need more restraint in spending, no we need a lot more restraint in spending.

So ends my stroll down memory lane and my triad about taxes, spending and politics

But I'm so [i]emotionally[/i] inspired by his speaches!

Isn't [u]that[/u] the primary qualification for the Presidency?

[QUOTE=Jackson]But I'm so [I]emotionally[/i] inspired by his speaches!

Isn't [u]that[/u] the primary qualification for the Presidency?[/QUOTE]Worked wonders for Ronnie!:)

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]The Bush tax cuts actually resulted in more tax revenue being collected due to the cuts stimulating the economy.[/QUOTE]This article contradicts that statement:

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121798022246515105.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries[/url]

The gist of which is "The rebates added nearly $80 billion to the permanent national debt but less than $20 billion to consumer spending. This experience confirms earlier studies showing that one-time tax rebates are not a cost-effective way to increase economic activity."

[QUOTE=Doggboy]Worked wonders for Ronnie!:)[/QUOTE]Ahh, but at least Ronald Reagan had some executive governing experience, for example, 8 years as governor of the country's largest state, president of a labor union, employment in private enterprise, etc. before he sought out the Presidency.

My point being is that being a great orator appears to be the Messiah's [i]ONLY[/i] qualification for the job. Unfortunately, for some people, that's apparently enough.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Ahh, but at least Ronald Reagan had some executive governing experience, for example, 8 years as governor of the country's largest state, president of a labor union, employment in private enterprise, etc. Before he sought out the Presidency.[/QUOTE]Admit it Jackson, Obama is the thin, black, anti war, anti big oil, pro environment, democratic, reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Ahh, but at least Ronald Reagan had some executive governing experience, for example, 8 years as governor of the country's largest state, president of a labor union, employment in private enterprise, etc. Before he sought out the Presidency.

My point being is that being a great orator appears to be the Messiah's [I]ONLY[/i] qualification for the job. Unfortunately, for some people, that's apparently enough.[/QUOTE]Ronnie was Governor of Texas?

Sid thanks for the list, you just took me off the apathetic roster and got me back to the polls. I love this guys platform.

The largest state is actually Alaska. Texas hates to admit it.

I believe our fearless leader meant to say "our most populous state." California is, of course, the third-largest state. But they sure do elect some "eclectic" choices when it comes to governors. My personal favorite is Culbert Olson. He appointed my dad state Fish and Game Commissioner. My dad did know a fish from a game (such as poker or bridge) but that was pretty much the extent of it. I also like Jose Antonio Remualdo Pacheco, Jr. Now [b]there[/b] was a governor!

I just don't know whether to vote for the Black Muslim or the god damn foreigner at this point.

[QUOTE=Doggboy]Admit it Jackson, Obama is the thin, black, anti war, anti big oil, pro environment, democratic, reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.[/QUOTE]OMG, you're right!

Now I'm going to need to buy some Ambien.

[QUOTE=Gato Hunter]The largest state is actually Alaska. Texas hates to admit it.[/QUOTE]Okay, okay. I'm clarifying my statement.

Ronald Reagan was the governor of the most [u]populous[/u] state in the country for 8 years.

Is this a flip-flop?