You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Bill Clinton’ category.
Wow, that’s a shocker, isn’t it? Of course I don’t mean in bed; I mean in economic policy..
One of the reasons blacks have such fond memories of the Clintons is because as a group, they benefited during the policy changes of the Bill Clinton Presidency. There was a big difference from where they were before Clinton was elected, to where they were when he turned over the reins of power to his successor.
Today due to the influence of a misguided press, they seem to be mixing fiction with fact in their overwhelming support for Hillary over Bernie Sanders… ( In NY it was split 75/25). Such is understandable. The explanation of the difference between fact and fiction, is that the Bill Clinton upon leaving office, did not have the same outlook as the one who entered. Hillary has continued his same line of financial maturity, (most notably after the presidency, when they became wealthy). Whereas, Bernie as a poor Senator is very similar to the young Bill Clinton as a poor governor, both having far greater empathy for the middle and problems of the lower class, than they do or did to the top 1%.
Both the policies of Bill and Bernie were and are aimed at correcting the flaws embedded in the economics of a growing middle class, no matter how hard it hurt the rich. By contrast, Hillary pays lip service to the middle class’s economic hardships, but her views appear to be compromised and tempered by her connections to the upper 1% who definitely seem to have her ear…..
So let’s compare Bill’s achievements piece by piece?
The economy added almost 23 million jobs under Bill Clinton’s 8 years. The GDP grew 35% over the same time. Unemployment hit a 30 year low.
Average hourly wages grew 6%. Medium average household income grew 14%. The median income of African American families increased by a third and Hispanic families saw their median incomes rise by almost $7,000. Poverty rates dropped to near record lows. And of course the federal budget went from enormous deficits to enormous surpluses,
How was this done? Basically,…. by getting rid of Reaganomics and establishing “sound” economic policy.
Fundamentally, the middle class is the engine of U.S. economic growth and prosperity. When it grows; the national economy grows. When it contracts; our economy contracts.
Bill strengthened the Middle Class by seriously hiking the minimum wage!!!!! 20%. Next, Bill pushed and got the Family Medical Leave Act, which meant that having a baby would no longer cost you your job. This is something we simply take for granted today; it is almost unbelievable to think that firing pregnant moms was the norm prior to that bill’s passage and signature. Third, establishment of Child Tax Credits, a necessary plank for middle class families still to this day…
Bill Clinton made entering the Middle Class easier for those on the bottom by strengthening the Earned Income Credit, a credit whose amount grew as ones wages grew up to a certain point, offering strong incentive to work more. Welfare reform up to $3 billion dollars yearly, continued to push people out of poverty and into the middle class. This included housing vouchers for those working their way out of welfare , as well as business tax breaks for businesses hiring them.
To help young families, more money than every before was directed to Head Start and child care. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was founded to bridge the lower incomes after Medicaid incomes cuts kicked in. WIC funding increased 45% over his tenure. Food Snap funding initially got a $3 billion boost, then fell off rapidly as the economy boomed. As well as Federal Housing Assistance growing $9 billion per year enabling many lower middle class owners to realize home ownership for the first time.
Together, these dropped poverty level rates among Blacks from 33% at the time of Bill’s swearing in, to 22% at his swearing out….
As millions of more Americans entered the middle class and as real wages grew, President Clinton also met his goal of spending less on tax breaks for the wealthy and debt services—and giving the middle class more room to spend and grow the economy instead.
And for the first time in 30 years, incomes of the bottom 20 percent of the workforce rose nearly as much as the top 20 percent, and the number of people living in poverty actually declined.
Furthermore, for the first time, Afro Americans had opportunity equal to their white peers. With equal access to education, and federal money being spent on poorer schools as well, many Afro Americans were equally poised alongside their white counterparts, to engage in middle class opportunities as technology opportunities suddenly blew up with the growth of internet technologies. Suddenly there WERE lots of blacks making lots of money. Locally, Delaware call centers pretty well hired out all Wilmington to staff their offices.
In the quality of life category, violent crime which peaked just before Bill Clinton came into office, fell significantly over the course of his tenure, and has continued long afterwards.
But all these changes were instigated, and completely made into realization,… by the increase of the top marginal rate on top incomes…
Clinton’s 1993 budget, passed over the vociferous opposition of congressional Republicans, included revenue enhancements focused almost exclusively on those who benefited most from President Reagan’s tax reductions 12 years earlier—large corporations and America’s most affluent earners. These included:
- An increase in the top ordinary income tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent
- Repealing the cap on earnings subject to the Medicare payroll tax
- Increasing the corporate income tax rate for profits above $10 million
- Reducing the deductibility of business meals and entertainment expenses
These “paid for” all the improvements Bill Clinton used to strengthen the Middle Class and then went on to paying down the federal debt, thereby decreasing cost of the portion of debt servicing …. Had these policies not been overturned by the successor George W. Bush, the entire national debt was on scheduled to have been eliminated by 2009….
By turning the federal budget around, President Clinton accomplished three critical things. First, he reduced federal borrowing as the economy improved, allowing that capital to flow to more productive uses and giving the private sector a needed boost. Second, he allayed the fears of an impending debt crisis, taking that issue off the table. And third, the fiscal improvement allowed the government to focus on the other economic matters listed above—investing in the future, growing the middle class, mitigating poverty, and strengthening Afro-America’s communities.
Undoubtedly President Clinton’s policies are what spurred the economy out of the Reagan doldrums by focusing on the middle class and by making targeted public investments directly in the neighborhoods of Afro-Americans. I just wanted fellow white Americans to first understand WHY black Americans were and still are so loyal to the “Clinton” name…..
=====
Which brings us now to 2016. Exactly twenty fours years after that election featuring Ross Perot making a “giant sucking sound”. (Can you believe it’s been that long)….
=====
If you are Afro American over 35 you probably already know of what I just told you; you lived it. So naturally everyone should see where there should be a lot of loyalty still deserved by the wife of the man who created so much good.
But!
Do you know that the policies now espoused by Hillary Clinton are very similar to those espoused by George W. Bush’s father, George Herbert Walker Bush when he ran against Bill Clinton? (“Stay the course.”) Do you know that the policies now espoused by Bernie Sanders are much closer to what Bill Clinton ran on in 1992, than are those of his wife today?
The crux of Bill Clinton’s success was his quick passage of the higher taxes on the top one percent. That allowed a return to the proper balance of wealth and investment to America. Everyone knows no wealthy person is going to invest in a poverty area. Which is why to eradicate poverty areas, you first need federal investment directly into those people who live in those areas. When they are no longer living in poverty, that area is no longer a poverty area. This in a nutshell, is why allowing MORE investment credits to wealthy people with the sole purpose to entice them to invest, is a no-go… No one willingly loses a million dollars to get a reward of $10,000 extra dollars for doing so.
Which is all that Republican ideas offer. They merely let the rich keep all their money and do nothing to invest in poor neighborhoods. But, if you tax the rich so much it tortures them (MAKE IT STOP)!), then say, … no taxes if you invest in South Bridge Wilmington, you actually do get people to invest in South Bridge Wilmington. Like ShopRite. 🙂 But you have to first have very high taxes to make tax breaks the incentive they once were and again should be…
(If you’ve noticed, incoming corporations now no longer ask for tax breaks for an incentive to move into Delaware; they ask for cash up front. Tax breaks are no incentive anymore because taxes are way, way, way too low. Lower tax breaks? Pffft. It’s no big deal).
Therefore, you NEED higher tax rates to
a) generate private investment back into the economy
b) fund public sector projects no private investor would sink money into.
c) raise wages.
None of which ever happen when tax rates are too, too, too low on the top 1%. You may wonder how this works?
Higher taxes tax profit… That is all. They tax all the money that is left over after every other expense has been accounted for… If you have a business and put money back into it to grow your business, it is quite possible you have no profits left over. If you have no profits, you cannot be taxed on them… Therefore higher marginal tax rates provide the best incentive currently known to mankind, (otherwise known as greed), to convince a business owner to either repair or expand his business. This action done by all business owners everywhere at the same time, is what we all call “economic growth”…
Now taking the contrary course, that of cutting taxes to spur investment, does not give you more investment.. Instead it makes you buy up what is already there… It is way more profitable to “buy” a bank for example, than start one from the ground up. You “buy” a bank, fire its president, vice presidents, and officers and replace them with those on your payroll, presto, you’ve already earned profit… which incidentally, will not generate much tax revenue because of the lower rates which gave you so much money to buy the bank in the first place. Why would anyone invest in something which after 15 years, has a total payoff of 3%…. when they can selectively put that money in stocks and make 8% in 4 weeks? This explains why we have great gains in our stock markets and very little physical investment in the infrastructure, when taxes are low; and the opposite when tax rates begin climbing… Ironically the obvious way to spur more physical investment in our economy, is to make “making money” too expensive so you have to “hide” it before it gets taxed…. Higher marginal tax rates do that…
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top 1% from 31% to 39.6%, a jump of 8%. The economy took off like a rocket and over the rest of his term we had the best economy ever in America’s history. Bernie wants to raise rates on our highest income earners from 39.6 to 52% (12.4%); it would only hit those making more than $10 million a year, and then it is only on those amounts over that $10 million to which this rate will apply… By contrast, Hillary is stating that she only wants to generate only 3% of what Bernie will….or show an increase of 0.3%…..
This is why Bernie is more like Bill than his wife Hillary.
Hillary said she wants minimum wage at $12 dollars by 2020.. Bernie is advocating $15 dollars. Bill Clinton jumped minimum wage 20%… If one takes the $10 wage already voted on by Delaware’s legislature, her cap would stop it at $12 dollars, roughly a 20% level of increase. Yet Bernie’s takes it up to $15 dollars or a 50% increase over the current $10 dollar amount… something some localities and states have made it into future law already.
So in daring, Bernie is more like Bill than Hillary is.
When it comes to putting through more blacks through college, Bernie is more like Bill than is Hillary. He advocates tuition-free college for all.
When it comes to health insurance, Bernie is more like Bill than is Hillary.
When it comes to infrastructure investment and jobs, Bernie is more like Bill than is Hillary.
When it comes to caring more for Black children, Bernie is more like Bill than Hillary.
====
And it makes perfect sense. When Bill ran for president he was an governor of a poor state comprised of many blacks, making $35,000 a year. Except for his free governor’s mansion, he was very middle class. From 2007 to 2014, the Clinton’s earned $141 million. It is not hard to understand why they won’t be such strong supporters of the middle class if it comes at the rich’s expense.
Bernie Sanders has a net worth of $300,000. If he weren’t a Senator, he’d be living on Social Security. That makes him the poorest of all presidential candidates. That makes him so much more like Bill Clinton, than Bill’s wife Hillary is today…
======
There is no denying Black loyalty exists for Hillary Clinton. She was beside Bill when all this went down 20 years ago. But, her interests no longer rest as strongly with the black peoples of America, as they once did. Now, out of necessity, and new friends, she has to balance what is best for poor blacks in our cities, with what is best for her new friends who are very well to do…
If any of you have a spouse that has ever had a mistress or homey on the side, you know exactly what I mean when we are talking about rationing down the amount of attention being given to you.
Bernie is running for a mission: to make all Americans better. If you are black and American, you are still an American… Under Bernie, your life will get better. Bernie can benefit you faster and better and more like did Bill Clinton, than can his wife…..
Because, Bernie,… actually is a lot more like Bill, than is Hillary.
it is from this headline: How Bodenweiser story is playing in the UK paper, DAILY MAIL
Here is the rescued comment…. to set the scene, the previous commenter had just mentioned the silliness of a 1987 divorce playing into determining who would be our next President….. (and now the comment.)
“I agree it is inconsequential, the Staples thing… But it brings up a fabulous point… And we all like fabulous points here.. lol…
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. But, if Romney also lied under oath…. what does a Republican do?
Does he admit publicly that his party was very wrong in the 1990’s? That his party was only playing politics? That his party only made it important because they thought it might embarrass the President and use that to get a Republican in the next term? Does a Republican admit that lying under oath about a personal matter, is really no big deal at all, they they, as a party were telling terrible lies as to how they felt?
Or do they stick to that story, and abandon Romney on principal? He lied under oath, and therefore, even though he is of “my party”,.. he is “unfit” to be president.
I mean one can’t morally have Donald Trump impute that Obama is lying about something that happened in college, and is therefore unfit to be a president, when you have documents paraded in front of all America, showing Romney to have actually lied, not just lied to the American people, but lied under oath….
My question for Earl Gray, Mike of Delaware, Mr. Pizza, and those who support high moral principals: what is a Romney supporter supposed to do when his morals are put into the spotlight and he has to answer which was right? To have impeached Bill Clinton and now fire Romney? Or continue ones support for Romney and have the National Party officially “apologize” publicly to William Jefferson Clinton? It truly is quite a dilemma for the Republican Party.”
This totally blows Donald Trumps announcement out of the water. Sorry Donald, take a seat on page ten. TMZ reports that in the unsealing of divorce documents today of a divorce case between the head of Staples and his ex, under oath Mitt Romney testified that “Staples was worth nothing” and “its founder was a dreamer”. Then as soon as the divorce was final, Mitt Romney and his friend, both took their stocks to Goldman Sachs and cashed them in for a fortune.
The lying under oath part, is as tricky as that which applied to Clinton. It will depend upon what “is” means. Could Mitt have been telling the truth and then just days later, the stock went from zero to millions?
But no matter which definition “is” was, it went through a “Republican” House of Representatives in what historians now deem a purely partisan travesty of justice. Considering the unconscionable infidelity was simultaneously being practiced by Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde, who while cheating on THEIR spouses, they were condemning the president for doing it to his.
Republicans will no doubt dismiss lying under oath as being inconsequential, and surely not a high crime or misdemeanor which could ever be considered worthy of impacting the President of the United States.
What goes around…. comes around… Karma is a bitch…
(UPDATE: As I was putting in the tags, a pattern clicked. Why is it that “lying” is almost always involved as being central to every story written about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? Here it is again. If we elect a Republican, we, who have been warned over and over and over again, surely will deserve all the horrible things we will get out of these next four miserable years… )
Eric Cantor was tipped off early that the firm of Standard and Poors was going to devalue the dollar, irregardless of whatever deal they came up with.
Prior to the devaluation of America’s Treasury bonds, Eric Cantor had sent a letter (how did he know…), warning the Tea Party Republicans that pressure to raise taxes would be ratcheted up by the upcoming Standard and Poor’s devaluation….
He was right… Thank goodness, after 12 years, with this devaluation, we are finally starting to hear a few of the common sense arguments on the main stream media, that illustrate for all… that raising taxes to “now” be our best economy grower.. .
If you read Standard and Poors correctly, their report implies that the Tea Parties line (the one about NOT raising taxes), IS the primary obstacle that prevents the fixing of America’s debt problems… By implication, that makes the election of Tea Party candidates, the sole reason our bonds were devalued. (On the other hand, according to the ratings agencies, Obama receives high marks for his part in trying to make a better life for all Americans.)
In a secret email, Eric Cantor says…..
“Over the next several months, there will be tremendous pressure on Congress to prove that S&P’s analysis of the inability of the political parties to bridge our differences is wrong. In short, there will be pressure to compromise on tax increases. We will be told that there is no other way forward. I respectfully disagree.” Eric Cantor
He knew well in advance…
He continues….
“We have said from the beginning of the year, the new Republican Majority was elected to change the way Washington does business. We were not elected to raise taxes or take more money out of the pockets of hard working families and business people. People understand Washington can’t keep spending money that it doesn’t have. They want to see less government – not more taxes.
Back up: we were not elected to…. take more money out of the pockets of hard working families and business people……..
No one said anything about more taxes for the 99% on the bottom… At issue is how much to tax the 1% on the top…
Taxing the top 1% at a marginal rate of 40% and increasing capital gains taxes to a rate of 40%…… actually PUTS MORE MONEY BACK INTO THE POCKETS OF HARD WORKING FAMILIES AND THOSE BUSINESS PEOPLE RUNNING THE ESTABLISHMENTS THOSE FAMILIES CHOOSE TO PATRONIZE……..
So you see, Mr. Cantor.. Raising taxes on the top 1% is not a conflict of interest for you… You said so yourself….. We’ll support you in not raising taxes on the bottom 99%…
Raising taxes on just the top 1%, is good.. WHAM!!!!! It jump-starts the economy…. Whereas,….
Cutting taxes for the top 1%, is bad… We all know this is fact. You don’t need me to explain it; you know just from living through the past 12 years of the Bush Tax cuts… The last 12 years have made the Clinton Tax Hike Years in comparison, seem like the true Guilded Age..Gosh, it seems like so, so long ago, when everything was perfect.
The Bush Tax cuts, collapsed the economy…..
Tax Cuts kill jobs. Always have… always will….
(but what is really, truly, profoundly sad, is this exhortation from Eric Cantor) “When given the choice between bettering the American economy, and getting more Republicans in power, you better vote for getting more Republicans in power…Our new motto: F*ck the economy!”)
In today’s political world, the embattled progressives are ironically in the same position American forces found themselves in Afghanistan around the time Obama was sworn in………
Things do not seem to be going well at all….
They did not get the Bush tax cuts off the books. Those tax cuts are still sending jobs overseas. They did not get single payer health care; insurers still limit health care. And now, many of the federal programs supporting the economies in their districts, are about to be eradicated….
“If only” Obama had stood tough!.. “If only” Democrats were better negotiators and didn’t give up everything at the drop of the hat… “If only” the Democrats worked harder last December to get the Bush tax cuts not reinstated. “If only” Democrats hadn’t lost the House last election, things would be different. “If only” Obama hadn’t sold us out! “If only” Obama had a spine. “If only” Democrats hadn’t caved and given Republicans 100% of what they want…“If only” the media would educate the public. “If only” truth was allowed on the airwaves….
The Progressives should not base their future strategy on “what-ifs” and “if only’s” as Progressives (especially here in Delaware) are prone to do. Such an approach is not “reality-based.”
It is instead, “hope-based”, which is to say in reality … “illusion-based”…
The illusion persists that Obama can “make” Republicans do what Progressive want. It equals the illusion that the US, can “make” the government of Karzai, do what everything we want…
In both cases, both progressives and the US, can’t force the issue. Instead, what they have to do, is out-argue, snuggle-up, and win the battle of the minds; they have to convince the respective populations that if they follow their way, the population will be better off.
With this bill, we now have a “reality” to assist with that convincing…
The core of all the arguing, is the hypothesis that America needs to tax it’s wealthy a little more.
When American’s go to the polls in 2012, they will have begun to feel the effects on the economy of what happens when one cuts $100 billion a year. Just like the balanced budget deficit bill of 1937 pushed America back into depression, so will this bill.
Progressives need to be out there saying, “We told you this would happen; see? We were right all along; all you have to do is tax the wealthy and this all goes away…..”
Unfortunately (or rather fortunately), there will not be a World War III to pull us out of this next upcoming depression… We will just have to spend Federal Dollars as if there was one. Which means, we have to return to the top marginal tax rates of 1941 – 1945…
So yes, there are no new revenues in this bill. Had there been, the reality would be that the House would have allowed a default.
But the argument can now begin… anew,… starting tomorrow! That increases in taxes cause an increase in jobs….. Had another default issue been allowed to occur again before the election, that argument would have been held hostage once again…
Now, it can’t… It can’t…. The argument of “good taxation” will get out there. This future election will be all about job creation…..
The Tea Party and Progressives both make the same error. They feel that holding another side hostage to get their way, is acceptable. That is not how America works. Often we fail, to remember that America is the one who put the Republicans into the position they did. Likewise, it was the Americans who put Democrats in the same position, two years earlier.
This argument needs to be played out over the course of an election cycle. The Americans themselves need to weigh in on this argument. Each side must argue their case.
It comes down to Clinton’s way… versus Bush’s…..
Start changing minds.
Followed by Tweedle DEE, (or was it Tweedle Dum?)
The press within two hours is stymied. Not taking sides.
The issue has been clarified. It is ALL ABOUT taxing the top 1% their fair share…
Democrats quoted Ronald Reagan, saying it needed to happen…
Republicans said the people were taxed too much already.. (shows who/where their support comes from… 50% of Americans do not pay a Federal income tax) and won’t. Instead, they’ll just have to pay more for everything else under the Republican plan. More for tolls. More for medical care. More for prescriptions. More for electricity. More for gas. More for house inspections. More for licenses. More… for groceries.
it is real easy to figure out who is right. Boehner and the Republicans want to continue the policies that have been in effect during the Bush era. From 2001 to 2008….
The Obama camp and Democrats, feel the need to return back to the policies that were in place during the Clinton years,1993 to 2000, when growth, jobs, wealth, all climbed aggressively. …
So choose? The Clinton era? The Bush era…
Yes! It is that…. easy.
Here is Rick Carroll, Republican candidate for the 4th District, being set up in the puppet chair, having his strings pulled… Dare you to try not blinking before he does…
http://www.delawarefirst.org/government_and_politics/gop-weekly-message-september-17-2010/
The word “response” in his video title, is a misnomer. There is no mention of Markell, and barely any mention of the able Democratic leadership that brought open government finally to Legislative Hall. There is only one line about…”Democrats in Washington.”
So let’s get their logic. We are going to send Rick Carroll to Dover to fix what Obama has undone for the wealthiest 1% of Americans!
Here is the message.
America is overtaxed, over regulated, and undermined… hmm…
Over taxed?
This link is the chart that proves every Republican platform that says cutting taxes is what we need…. is a lie… Cutting taxes is not what we need… CUTTING TAXES KILLS ECONOMIES…
Republican response… Blah, Blah, Blah…
kavipsian economist responds with a question… (One that should be asked in every town meeting by the way) … if what you say is true, why is it that when implemented, like in the 1920’s, the Bush 1 years, and this past Republican administration, we get terrible Depressions and Recessions, and when taxes and regulations are increased, as they were under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and Clinton, we get richer, we grow, we have jobs with raises, and we even lower the National Debt and get a budget surplus? What you are saying goes against what history tells us? If it didn’t work 3 times, why will it finally work the fourth?
(Where’s Eileen when you really need her….)
Republicans: “blah, blah, blah..”
kavipsian Economist: “show me where it’s true…”
Republican: We can’t show you because there is no evidence that it works yet. That is exactly why we need to keep trying. All our funding comes from the top 1% of Americans and if we say what you’re implying, they will cut of all our funding.
kavipsian Economist: ” So, you are agreeing it isn’t true?”
Republican: I can’t answer that question because of financial obligations but you can…. Is there any historical proof that cutting taxes grows the economy?
kavipsian Economist: “No.”
Republican: “There you go, you just answered the question by yourself; now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go drum up some more contributions. This recession has cut into our money supply…”
So why when you give the wealthy more money, does the economy falter? Because you don’t control how they spend it. Which is preferable: investing in America and getting a 3% return, or investing overseas and getting a 17% return? That’s why giving the wealthy more money hurts America.
Now why does heavier taxing grow the economy? Because you are controlling how they spend it. Which is preferable. Work hard, and pay the Federal Government 40% of all you make, or… invest most of that back in your business, lower reported profit, and pay 40% on the little bit of income you report, if you report any at all… This is what happened from the end of WWII up to the Kennedy Tax cut. And happened again, immediately after Bill Clinton took office….
It works like this. To keep my money out of the IRS, I expand my business. I pay people with money I would normally pay the IRS so it really doesn’t cost me to do so… Those people spend, requiring more businesses to hire just to accommodate that extra spending,
which continues as a domino effect causing jobs to open up, which of course sends money to the Federal government. What Clinton was so masterful at, and didn’t happen on any previous Democrats watch, was as more people got back to work, he cut back on Federal Spending . After all, you really don’t need it to stimulate the economy when the private sector is roaring.
As more people work, more people spend, requiring more workers, resulting in more people spending, requiring even more workers, resulting in even more spending… requiring… And eventually, the debt gets paid down. Those receiving the cash, now need to invest it somewhere…. which causes more jobs, which causes more spending.
In sound byte from. Republicans suck money out of the economy; Democrats pump it back in….
Who benefits from Rick Carrolls spouted philosophy? Only those people who have so much money, they’d rather invest in the 3rd world than put it back into America.
It’s happened 3 times already. They’re fools if they think we’ll let them do it to us again…. The funny thing is, we all remember the great Clinton years. Let’s do what he did, expire the tax cuts, raise the rate to 40% for the top 1%, and watch them scurry to invest that money back into our economy.
And Delaware? Since the Democrats wiped out the local Republican party, Delaware spends less per it’s GSP (Gross State Product) than any other US State…. You can’t cut spending any more… We are the best, and that is solely because we have a Democrat for a Governor, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House.
If one looks at this chart, they find that the heavily Democratic states spend much less per GSP than the heavily Republican ones …
If the media would do their job, and ask Republicans why,… what they are proposing ruins this nation each time it is implemented, … there would be no Republican Party. It’s all based on a lie…
No?
Prove it… Your history bets you can’t.
Am I the only one finding irony in the fact that Tipper and Al Gore are dissolving their marriage, …. and Hillary and Bill are still the happy couple?
Republican values of keeping a marriage together for the sake of keeping a marriage together,… don’t work, even among Democrats.
Love is the only thing that works to keep relationships together and it works equally well for Democrats as well as Republicans… America’s 3rd best president, was right on … again.
There already is a flat tax for Delaware that begins above $60,000 dollars… Some, like El at Delaware Liberal, ask for a progressive rate to continue into the higher elevations of income levels.. The more you make, the more you pay…
This may sound unfair to some… and at face value it is… By face value I mean as the words themselves are written. For what is actually happening in a progressive tax, is this:
The more you make over what you can possibly spend in your wildest dreams, the higher percentage you pay of all that excess back the government that made your extravagant wealth possible….
Put that way…. that’s fair. That’s damn fair…
Most of us don’t have enough money. Most of us don’t pay much in taxes. That’s fair. But those with too much money over what they can spend? Don’t they have a duty too?
They’re the ones benefiting the most from the American dream. Shouldn’t they be the ones contributing the most to make it happen for others? Don’t they have the most to lose if all stability ruptures and violence, rioting and revolution begin eating away at all they have gained?
Obviously yes… and when people are starving next to you, it inhumane not to want to give up some of that money THAT YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY SPEND IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS so they can get one bite of food and live.
So we need a flat tax in Delaware… One that is fair. Republicans like flat taxes; they say they are fair. But somehow I don’t think they will like this one…
This upcoming year we have a budget deficit of $300 to $400 million ….. again…
WE the people, can make it go away if we invoke a flat tax based on percentages.
If you make $100 million over what you can possibly spend…. we tax it at !00%….
If you make $ 99 million over what you can possibly spend,….we tax it at 99%….
If you make $ 90 million over what you can possibly spend….. we tax it at 90%…
If you make $ 50 million over what you can possibly spend….. we tax it at 50%…
We follow the same pattern all the way down… fair is fair…
If you make $ 20 million over what you can possibly spend….. we tax it at 20%…
If you make $ 10 million over what you can possibly spend….. we tax it at 10%…
If you make $ 5 million over what you can possibly spend….. we tax it at 5%…
If you make $ 1 million over what you can possibly spend….. we tax it at 1%…
Under $1 million the tax code can stay the same… The budget crises had been solved…
Under this arrangement, those in the high end may grumble… “Why should we support a government that allowed us to prosper?” But if any of you are making near the low end, you see this arrangement causes you to pay far less taxes than you do now… Imagine… having more money…
Ironically this plan benefits those who the Republican leadership is always saying needs the help: those new millionaires…. Of course some tweaking will be done… It is not fair that someone would pay more taxes at $999,999 still under the old plan than they would at $1,000,001 under the new.. But we can fix that.
Some may say the top earner will leave Delaware.. He should. He’s not paying state taxes anyway, so his loss means nothing to us as far as revenue goes… But that is a threat, we have to take into account.
But just the top ten percent of left-over-income earners would clear our deficit.. Boom… Gone… Goodbye.
And the economy would get back into shape as Delaware got back to work….
It is rather obvious we must raise taxes on the top earners of this state, no matter what one’s political persuasion may be.. It is not about politics; it is about money….
Everyone else has sacrificed as much as they can possibly stand. It is time those spoiled ones at the top, who have no idea of what sacrifice entails, step up and contribute their fair share… After all, it’s only money they can’t possibly spend anyway…..
So the next time someone says they won’t raise taxes in Delaware ask them why?
Say why won’t you raise taxes on those who can’t possibly spend the money they’re earning anyway? Why should they get to keep their money, while everyone else in the state has to lose theirs?
When, but for just a few people, taxing them fairly under a flat tax based on percentages, would improve the lives of many?
It makes just way too much sense. We need $400 million? We take it from the top.
kavips 
