I saw an article this morning on MSN about the new president will "inherit" a deficit of $482 Billion dollars, this does not include another projected $80 Billion for the wars for the rest of the current administrations term. The article also stated that the old record deficit was $413 Billion dollars in 2002. Not too surprising by the same administration. I'm quite sure most of it is Bill Clinton's fault if not partially Hillary's fault also. A guy like Bush can only do so much in 7 1/2 years to get the country back on it's feet. A have to agree with my friends who worship the GOP and the great Bush that he will be remembered as quite possibly the greatest president we have ever had.Oops, almost forgot to push an equal share of the blame on Christine.

C'mon now Hank... a feller as smart as you surely knows that NOTHING gets spent by Congress without the president's signature on it... right?

We had a GOP-controlled Congress and a Republican president for 6 of the last 7 1/2 years too.

Are you tryin' to say that all of our budgetary woes fall at the feet of a Congress with a ONE vote majority in the Senate and maybe 30 in the House and who's only had that makeup for the last year and a half?

The reason Congress' approval rating is SO dismal is because they've FAILED to reign-in the Bush administration.

Dont forget the Repugs have held Congress for almost 15 years.

Remember the Contract with America?

ya, I remember the contract with america. The senate took a powder.

This should fit in nicely. I thought our problems were going to get fixed.

In Just one year - - -

Part 1

In just one year. Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following:

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember, it's Congress that makes law not the President.
He has to work with what's handed to him.

Quote of the Day........"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama

Part 2:

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.

www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html <http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html>

Taxes under Clinton Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above
think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest
President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they
will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that
fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is
like the movie, The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of
some money and they don't even know what happened.

PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:
Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS. I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again
until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border; also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ."
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

Hey LB... you got that in an e-mail I bet... huh?

Bottoms up!

I knew Lead Bouncer was a CCA legbreaker, but I had no idea he was a Koolaid drinker as well.

...I kinda feel like I should be surprised, but for some reason I'm not.

Oh and blaming the equity value collapse and mortgage fiasco on Congress is a hoot. All that lending took place in the last year huh?

Congress "voted" for higher gas prices too I guess. Oh that's right, it's their fault because we can't drill in the wildlife preserve or the ocean. Has nothing to do with the devaluation of the dollar, which I'm sure you'll blame on them as well.

They've been busy.

Most folks would call what's been handed to him "his ass."

You all think you can lay this at the dumby in hte white houses feet but it, like the housing problem, has lots of blame to go around. The Dem congress is right up there as the GOP congress of years past was as well. The GOP got so greedy with power they forgot the $'s they spent was not "thiers" it was ours. The Dems never knew that in the first place. They think they are entitled to take all they want from whoever they want and waste it on anything they feel like.
It always amazes me that people bitch about a tax cut for everyone across the board. I know it completely screws the "poor" because they dont get anything back........well that is because they never paid anything in the first place. They live in the country for free and drain the system rather than contribute to it. Then they complain they dont get more because if you give a tax cut it should benefit them too. They never paid in the first place.
The "middle class" get a chunk of money back that is about 5 to 8% of what they paid and complain about those dirty rich because the "rich", whoever teh hell that is, get a little more. Still a smaller % at about 2 to 3% but a little more. How dare they get this "handout" that they dont need. Lets all not forget that the money gotten back is more because they worked their a$$es off and made more. Smaller % but a little more $ because they paid so much more in the first place.
Our govern was once so profitable when hard work was rewarded and laziness not. Now we punish the working and reward teh lazy. That is the downfall of our country not this administration(though they tried hard to screw it up). Reward hard working peolpe and people work harder. Reward laziness adn tell them it is not thier fault and you will get more laziness.
It is very demoralizing to save all year, take no vacation to Hawaii or the like, working five days a week every week to try to pay off hundreds of thousands in student loans only to right a check to uncle sam for all you saved and never pay off anything. Then worse than that, you are told by some peice of shiat that you should pay more because you fall into their definition of "rich". We need another boston tea party in this counrty and it is only going ot get worse when BO takes over the riegns.

Really? Maybe you should take a look here. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/

If you make more than 225K/yr, you'll pay more under Obama than McCain.......anyone else won't.

You want taxes under control? Then get spending under control. Neither candidate seems all that interested in accomplishing this.

I thought Reagan was going to get federal spending under control. Supply side economics is a farce. Tax cuts do stimulate the economy but at the expense of the national debt. So in reality a tax cut ends up costing more future tax liability because of interest on the debt. The last time we had a balanced budget was under LBJ. Clinton came close with an $18 billion dollar defecit in 90.

Many of the so called "rich" seem to think that they are above paying taxes and that they deserve tax breaks. The more you make the the more they take. If I have to pay 15% then so should the guy that make 5 times my annual income.

TBJ,
Have you ever heard of the graduated tax system. 15% would be jsut fine. But the higher your income the higher % you pay. Right now it is not 15% it is 35% to just the Fed. If I make more I should pay more but not 35% to 15%. Under OB it would be 42% just for the Fed. Then, from there you pay prop tax, sales tax, L&I, unemployment, B&O, medicare, SSI, evan death tax and all the insurances.......pretty soon you are working your a$$ off and almost paying to do it. No person in this country should have to pay more than 25% of what they make to the Fed much less 42%. 15% would be a dream.

Do you think that's not the way it should be..........those that are more able to pay, should?

Put it this way. The IRS collects X dollars in a year. Someone is going to pay for the IRS to collect X dollars. Would it be more fair for the wealthiest to pay less, and the rest to pay more........SOMEONE has to pay, would you rather it was you than someone making 3.5 mil/year?

Like I said, get the spending under control and the taxes will take care of themselves. And who's going to get spending under control? Neither of them.

Great.

Dan, you're making too much sense. This could tarnish your reputation. Is it worth the risk?

Should Obama be elected, and he probably will, he's gonna' get a great big economic reality check very first thing. That change he's talking about, I expect further change in his rhetoric about that time. Much as the tax and spend party would like to continue to be the tax and spend party, the nation just can't afford it any longer. Clinton's administration was a pretty good example of that. Only the Republicans can pull off unrestrained spending any more. Talk about a perverse political world. Makes a guy want to spark off a joint just to escape for a while.

Sg

It doesn't help.

Taxing the rich only works up to a certian point. People get all bent out of shape when they hear that lowering taxes raises more money, but I guarantee in some cases it does work. This is a little long and the math may be off, but in real life this is the way things work. The very rich have a lot of money in investments. Many investments do not return much in capital, but appreciate in value. Real estate is a prime example. Here is how lowering taxes and offering tax breaks work to raise more money. Say Mr. H has an apartment worth 1 million. He bought it for $500,000 cash. He sits down and tries to decide whether or not to sell it and buy a bigger one. At present the property returns $100,000 a year in income. His net after expenses is $75,000. He is able use deprication to get it down to a taxable amount of $65,000. If he pays 30% in taxes his real income from the property is $45,500 on his million dollar asset. This is a 4.55% annual after taxes return. Since the building is still appreciating, this is not a bad deal for him. Still, he would like to invest in a $2,000,000 appartment.
If he does sell he typically will spend around 8% to sell and 3% to buy. This means that it will cost him around $140,000 to switch properties. This is money that will be spent in loan fees, escrow, title, real estate fees, excise tax, repairs, and other expenses.
If there is a tax free exchange, he is likely to do the deal. He will pay no taxes but the $140,000 he spends will be pumped into the economy. If the new purchase is just being built, a whole lot more money will be pumped into the economy from the new construction. Under this scenario, rent prices could drop with availability of new housing. More people can get jobs in the construction industry, and the economy moves. If he is denied the tax free exchange, he looks at losing another $200,000 to make the move. SInce his original investiment was $500,000 he is looking at only making $160,000 on the sale of the property. Many if not most investors will decide that the move does not make sense and will not buy. He and other investors don't buy, the building industry falters, rents go up and the economy starts to fall -remember stagflation under Jimmy Carter.

The capital tax works the same way with stocks. Many stocks grow in value and split, but only return 2 or 3 % in actual dividends, not a great return on value, but perhaps a good return on the original investment. If a person has stock worth $100,000 that he bought for $50,000 he might decide to sell some of it and buy a boat. At a 15% capital tax he figures he can pull out $50,000 and buy himself a $35,000 boat and have a little left over. The state gets its 8% sales tax on the $35,000 so the government gets a direct tax benifit of a little over 20% of the original $50,000. He has $5,000 left to dump spend on gas or other items. Put a 35 or 40% tax rate on the guy and everything changes. Since he now does not have enough extra to buy the boat he decides to take annual trips to Canada with his dividend money or to take out a consumer loan and make the payments with the dividends. In the first scenario the government loses the potential to make $10,000 in taxes plus and turnover taxes on the money spent. Spread over millions of people the economy again falters. In the second, the ecomomy fairs a little better, but the government still looses $7500 in taxable income and instead only gets to tax the $6000 in dividends. If the tax rate on this is to high, he again can't buy the boat and the economy falters.

The key is trying to find the right tax rate to get the government income without making to big of a discentive to make income. To high and the rich hide their income and do not turn it over. To low and the government can't run.

Krijack,

You're absolutely right. The Laffer Curve shows that a a certain marginal tax rate, you will begin to see less tax revenue even with a higher marginal tax rate. The key is to stay on the left side of the Laffer Curve, without going to the point where tax increases lead to less tax revenue.

Unfortunately, there is really no way to know where you are on the curve, other than to increase marginal tax rates and see if tax revenues rise or fall.

As far as current tax receipts being higher even WITH tax cuts, the reason isn't clear at all, as much as GOP fans would like to believe it is. The confounding factor is government spending. With billions of additional government spending over the past 8 years, there is no way to tell if the higher tax receipts are due to decreasing tax rates, or simply the product of taxes being paid on the billions that the government has pumped into the economy over Bush's last 2 terms.

It's not a simple issue.

What IS simple is that less government spending equals less taxes required. That much is an indisputable fact. So which candidate is going to get spending under control, and how?

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...e-Solution.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...ax-Revenue.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...Cuts-Boost.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...nistration.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...y-Constant.html

TAX RATES

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...y-Constant.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...-of-Income.html

Spending

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...-Increased.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...Nine-Times.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/feature...cretionary.html