Clinton Apologises
-
Since the presidents tack appears to be to demagogue the bush ( and obama) tax cuts I'm not surprised that they were outraged by president clinton's remarks. What does surprise me is the fact that he issued a shame faced apology so quickly.
I would have hoped he was abe of getting his butt smacked by the likes of axelrod.
Then again, as the DNC seems to think, he's possibly no longer lucid at the age of 65....
You gotta admit it's a little funny.
WSS
-
President Clinton's original statements came from his own beliefs. He is much wiser after serving two terms as president and the rest of the democratic party should listen to what he has to say.
But as we all know the democratic party still wants to increase taxes on everybody so they can continue "forward" with spending more money that we do not have.
-
If Clinton said so something you didn't agree with would his time as president still have made him wiser on your eyes?
-
If Clinton said so something you didn't agree with would his time as president still have made him wiser on your eyes?
If Clinton said so something you didn't agree with would his time as president still have made him wiser on your eyes?
Are you asking me?
I'd say yes.
I'd say 8 years as president certainly gives you an insiggt that most others wouldn't have whether or not I agree with the ideology. That's 1 reason I'd have preferred hillary to obama.
That's not why I posed the question.
I think the obama team knows that repealing those tax cuts would be a kick in the economy's balls.
That's why he extended them the last time.
But he's smart enough to know that he has to keep up the occupy wall street rhetoric.
Clinton give an honest answer and the democrats slapped him down.
I was only surprised that he bent over so quickly.
And it was hilarious that the dems suggested he was senile....
WSS
-
Lol, who said he was senile? That's actually funny.
And no I obviously was talking to T cuz he was the one who said he was wiser. But you just laid out T's answer for him so nvm haha
-
Maybe they shouldn't raise the retirement age....
WSS
-
Maybe they shouldn't raise the retirement age....
WSS
Maybe they shouldn't raise the retirement age....
WSS
That wasn't as good as I had hoped....
-
Woa! Steve, YOU'RE almost 65.
-
Woa! Steve, YOU'RE almost 65.
-
If Clinton said so something you didn't agree with would his time as president still have made him wiser on your eyes?
Are you asking me?
I'd say yes.
I'd say 8 years as president certainly gives you an insiggt that most others wouldn't have whether or not I agree with the ideology. That's 1 reason I'd have preferred hillary to obama.
That's not why I posed the question.
I think the obama team knows that repealing those tax cuts would be a kick in the economy's balls.
That's why he extended them the last time.
But he's smart enough to know that he has to keep up the occupy wall street rhetoric.
Clinton give an honest answer and the democrats slapped him down.
I was only surprised that he bent over so quickly.
And it was hilarious that the dems suggested he was senile....
WSS
I think the obama team knows that repealing those tax cuts would be a kick in the economy's balls.
That's really not what the economy depends on. This is a myth and I don't think they believe it at all.
It might help slightly to keep those tax cuts in place for a spell, but to suggest that without them we're going to kick the economy in the balls is ridiculous. Plus, all Clinton was saying is that we should re-up them now to get a deal done so we don't have a crisis. He doesn't believe they should be extended permanently. That was his next sentence.
You do remember the 90s, right? When there was this president who wanted to raise top rates and all the Republicans and their minions predicted economic calamity because this was taking money out of the hands of job creators and putting it in the hands of government? And they didn't give Clinton one single vote for it? Remember that?
I'm pretty sure that was Bill Clinton.
And then the economy didn't get kicked in the balls, and the additional revenue helped close the budget gap. But why not try to break out that same argument all over again? Who can remember the 90s, after all?
-
What are you talking about Heck?
Politicians clearly know more about the economy than economists
-
Never said the economy depended on it.
just saying it would slow things down and they didn't want to be the guys to do it.
I also don't think repealing them would be any boost at all, probably the opposite.
if team obama thought that it would have helped they could have repealed them on day 1.
you only need 51 percent for a budgetary matter.
they want the issue, not the tax rate hike.
WSS
-
What are you talking about Heck?
Politicians clearly know more about the economy than economists
What are you talking about Heck?
Politicians clearly know more about the economy than economists
Oh get off it woody.
Different economists have different ideas and all politicians turn to them for advice.
WSS
-
Never said the economy depended on it.
just saying it would slow things down and they didn't want to be the guys to do it.
I also don't think repealing them would be any boost at all, probably the opposite.
if team obama thought that it would have helped they could have repealed them on day 1.
you only need 51 percent for a budgetary matter.
they want the issue, not the tax rate hike.
WSS
Never said the economy depended on it.
just saying it would slow things down and they didn't want to be the guys to do it.
I also don't think repealing them would be any boost at all, probably the opposite.
if team obama thought that it would have helped they could have repealed them on day 1.
you only need 51 percent for a budgetary matter.
they want the issue, not the tax rate hike.
WSS
Well, you kind of are. You're saying without those low rates on top earners it would kick the economy in the balls. I don't think that's true.
As for the issue, I think you're right about that. It's one of the few things that polls really well. Though you're not remembering that they did push to repeal the Bush cuts for high earners, then relented to gain votes from Republican and conservative Dems.
I'd ask you: don't you think it's a little strange that all of these exact same arguments were made when Clinton wanted to raise the rates, and they didn't have the effects on growth that Republicans claimed they would, and the economy did just fine, and yet they're all out again making the exact same argument?
-
Well I don't know how many people you can muster up to claim that a huge across the board tax hike wouldn't be a drag on the economy.
And I think we'd both agree that either way it's not a panacea or an armageddon.
Why do I think obama refused to do it in his first couple years when it would have been a piece of cake?
Because if the economy had responded as slowly as it has he'd have been blamed.
Of course every politician once more tax dollars just throw at his constituents.
Who wouldn't want to hold on to a cake job?
I also think the republicans have given the democrats an out.
Reform the text code, eliminate deductions and you get more revenue then just raising be marginal rate.
But both sides are invested in this game of chicken.
By the way to the politics of it had I been on stage and was asked If Id accept 1 dollar tax hike for 9 dollars spending reduction?
I'd say hell yes. Put your money where your mouth is show me the real cuts not just a shell game and I'll give you a buck for every nine.
it probably won't ever happen so I'd never be painted into that corner.
WSS
-
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
-
Well I don't know how many people you can muster up to claim that a huge across the board tax hike wouldn't be a drag on the economy.
And I think we'd both agree that either way it's not a panacea or an armageddon.
Why do I think obama refused to do it in his first couple years when it would have been a piece of cake?
Because if the economy had responded as slowly as it has he'd have been blamed.
Of course every politician once more tax dollars just throw at his constituents.
Who wouldn't want to hold on to a cake job?
I also think the republicans have given the democrats an out.
Reform the text code, eliminate deductions and you get more revenue then just raising be marginal rate.
But both sides are invested in this game of chicken.
By the way to the politics of it had I been on stage and was asked If Id accept 1 dollar tax hike for 9 dollars spending reduction?
I'd say hell yes. Put your money where your mouth is show me the real cuts not just a shell game and I'll give you a buck for every nine.
it probably won't ever happen so I'd never be painted into that corner.
WSS
Well I don't know how many people you can muster up to claim that a huge across the board tax hike wouldn't be a drag on the economy.
And I think we'd both agree that either way it's not a panacea or an armageddon.
Why do I think obama refused to do it in his first couple years when it would have been a piece of cake?
Because if the economy had responded as slowly as it has he'd have been blamed.
Of course every politician once more tax dollars just throw at his constituents.
Who wouldn't want to hold on to a cake job?
I also think the republicans have given the democrats an out.
Reform the text code, eliminate deductions and you get more revenue then just raising be marginal rate.
But both sides are invested in this game of chicken.
By the way to the politics of it had I been on stage and was asked If Id accept 1 dollar tax hike for 9 dollars spending reduction?
I'd say hell yes. Put your money where your mouth is show me the real cuts not just a shell game and I'll give you a buck for every nine.
it probably won't ever happen so I'd never be painted into that corner.
WSS
I don't know if you intentionally tried to muddy the waters there, but either way that's what you did. I'd certainly agree, as would just about every economist, that a "huge across the board tax hike" would be a drag on the economy right now. But no one is talking about a huge tax hike, or an across the board tax hike, or a huge across the board tax hike. They're talking about raising the top rates back to where they were under Clinton as a way to help increase revenue in a time of massive deficits Republicans and Tea Party members supposedly care so much about.
So I'll ask again: don't you think it's a little strange that all of these exact same arguments were made when Clinton wanted to raise the top rates, and they didn't have the effects on growth that Republicans claimed they would, and the economy did just fine, and yet they're all out again making the exact same argument?
-
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
-
Nope.
First because the tax no tax kabuki dance has been going on for centuries.
But mainly because nothing is really all that easy to discuss in hindsight.
It was a different bubble and a different set of circumstances then.
So how big an improvement in today's economy do you expect we'd had if obama changed the taxes on day 1? And you can use your own current talking point scenario, just hit the rich?
Would we be where we are now? Better? Or worse?
WSS
-
Also I don't believe for a minute he was trying to act in a bi partisan manner.
He was more interested in shoving socialized medicine down america's throat.
He wanted to be thought of as roosevelt or l b j moving another giant step towards european socialism.
IMO
WSS
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
I think the first sentence is clearly wrong. The second sentence is embarrassing. And the third is what comes after embarrassing.
Cal could have typed that.
His acolytes should be embarrassed.....
But come on, you don't think obama care is a huge step forward in the history of the united states?
Even if you say you don't, I'm pretty sure the president and his gang do.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login