quote Originally posted by MadMark: So then what he wants is to bring everyone down to his level. How nice of you RayB. Wouldn't it be better to let people have the opportunity to better themselves?

real estate tax does not level anyone
it is a small % of a property's value
not confiscation of the property
most have a homestead exemption and an extra one for older retired people
only the totally broke or fools lose a home to real estate taxes

WHY SHOULD WEALTH BE EXEMPT FROM TAXES
WHY DO YOU NUT CON'S EQUATE ANY DIFFERENT TAX TO RED TERROR ?
THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO BE PAID FOR
THE HUGE DEBTS RUN UP BY BuSh2 AND OTHERS NEEDS TO BE PAID DOWN
ONLY TRAITORS DO NOT SUPPORT A COUNTRY'S NEEDS

PATRIOTS DO NOT WANT TO DROWN OUR COUNTRY IN A BATH TUB
SOME NUT CON LEADERS HAVE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO DO JUST THAT

quote Originally posted by ray b: IN NUT-CON DOGMA BEING A PIG HAS BECOME A VIRTUE THAT WHY THE ONLY FAIR TAX IS A TAX ON WEALTH IT WORKS FINE ON HOUSES EVERYONE PAYS BASED ON THE PROPERTY VALUE WHY NOT TAX ON WHAT THEY OWN INSTEAD OF EARNINGS OR SPENDING [SALES TAX] ? i HAVE HEARD A LOT OF INSULTS ON THAT IDEA BUT NO REAL DEBATE ON THE FAIRNESS OR JUSTICE OF SUCH A TAX PLAN

Yes, that's because you don't offer substance yourself.

A wealth tax would put people on the street. Buy a house, then they start taxing wealth, you can't afford your house, so you downsize. The problem is, nobody can afford the house you're selling because everyone is now being taxed on wealth. So people are getting put on the street just because they saved and paid for something.

Let's say you earn $50k/yr. You save up as much as you can and you finally buy that dream car you have always wanted. BOOM, sell it because that is wealth and you are not allowed to have wealth.

It's a monstrosity of an idea.

quote Originally posted by ray b: CAN YOU GUYS STAY NEAR A TOPIC WITHOUT DOOM AND GLOOM OR REDS BS

Lets see, France, socialism, doom and gloom.. All part of the same topic as that is what is destroying their economy.

'reds' is a term that lost favor long ago, especially now that the USSR fell. Time to get with the 90's Ray.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Yes, that's because you don't offer substance yourself. A wealth tax would put people on the street. Buy a house, then they start taxing wealth, you can't afford your house, so you downsize. The problem is, nobody can afford the house you're selling because everyone is now being taxed on wealth. So people are getting put on the street just because they saved and paid for something. Let's say you earn $50k/yr. You save up as much as you can and you finally buy that dream car you have always wanted. BOOM, sell it because that is wealth and you are not allowed to have wealth. It's a monstrosity of an idea.

I THINK THE monstrosity of an idea IS NOT TAXING WEALTH
GIVING PEOPLE LIKE Rmoney free rides on their billions
and low low tax rates on their millions
while workers pay a far higher % of smaller incomes
now there is a truly monstrosity of an idea.

quote Originally posted by ray b: I THINK THE monstrosity of an idea IS NOT TAXING WEALTH GIVING PEOPLE LIKE Rmoney free rides on their billions and low low tax rates on their millions while workers pay a far higher % of smaller incomes now there is a truly monstrosity of an idea.

You didn't talk about what I said.

Would you be in favor of slightly lowering the upper class tax rates, or possibly leaving them the same, but completely eliminating tax breaks? Sounds like you don't like the free rides. Me neither, but that's not to do with the tax percentages. It has to do with the breaks.

quote Originally posted by ray b: your nut con meme about france is WRONG THEY ARE NOT BROKE OR POOR FRANCE IS RICHER PER PERSON THEN THE USA

Whatever, i'm done arguing with you. If you don't like it here so much because we are all 'pigs', you can catch the next train out of here. I'm sure you can sit next to Tinton.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Whatever, i'm done arguing with you. If you don't like it here so much because we are all 'pigs', you can catch the next train out of here. I'm sure you can sit next to Tinton.

THE PIG WAS THE GUY WHO HAS 42 BILLION AND NEEDS ALL OF IT
NOT YOU POOR DELUDED VICTIMS OF THE GOP PROPAGANDA

GEE OVER REACT MUCH ??????????

quote Originally posted by ray b: GEE OVER REACT MUCH ??????????

Not in the least.

quote Originally posted by ray b: THE LOW RATE ON UNEARNED INCOME NEEDS TO END ESP AS THERE ARE NO LIMITS OR BRACKETS RICH GUYS LIKE Rmoney SHOULD PAY A LOT MORE THE A WORKER NOT LESS ANY GOP Rmoney plan is suspect there are 70k+ pages in the tax code you and me only worry about a few of them the majority of those pages are for the rich to dodge taxes I have no problem with ending oil depletion allowances and most of the loop holes but the result must be the rich pay more then the workers not less I do NOT trust Rmoney or any other GOP PLAN

I agree that Romney's tax plan is suspect as the simplification he promotes isn't described yet, but it's a start.

I'd like to see a simplification of the tax code. I'd like to see 0 loopholes or tax breaks. But Ray, I don't want to raise their rates to extreme highs.

I'd prefer them stay where they are or lower an in a flat tax.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I agree that Romney's tax plan is suspect as the simplification he promotes isn't described yet, but it's a start. I'd like to see a simplification of the tax code. I'd like to see 0 loopholes or tax breaks. But Ray, I don't want to raise their rates to extreme highs. I'd prefer them stay where they are or lower an in a flat tax.

I think the flat sales tax is the best idea going. Those with more, buy more and contribute more. Those with less, don't. Everyone contributes but no one gets singled out and screwed.

Problem is if a flat tax were to go into effect, you know lobbyists and legislators personal agendas would pervert it, and add more on top of it and we would be back where we are today, but worse.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 10-04-2012).]

I think this is what Ray B is trying to say:

quote Average real income per family in the United States grew by 32.2 percent from 1975 to 2006, while they grew only by 27.1 percent in France during the same period, showing that the macroeconomic performance in the United States was better than the French one during this period. Excluding the top percentile, average United States real incomes grew by only 17.9 percent during the period while average French real incomes — excluding the top percentile — still grew at much the same rate (26.4 percent) as for the whole French population. Therefore, the better macroeconomic performance of the United States and France is reversed when excluding the top 1 percent.

http://economistsview.typep...n-income-growth.html

quote Originally posted by ray b: I THINK THE monstrosity of an idea IS NOT TAXING WEALTH GIVING PEOPLE LIKE Rmoney free rides on their billions and low low tax rates on their millions while workers pay a far higher % of smaller incomes now there is a truly monstrosity of an idea.

Actually, I do not understand what you are talking about. If the 42 Billionaire is a California citizen, and owns any real estate, he pays that wealth tax,( property sales tax plus property tax). If he has a Veyron, he pays wealth tax( Sales tax, gas guzzler tax, annual license fee that will be many more dollars than most pay), if he gives me a billion, he would pay the wealth gift tax that you will never pay by giving me a billion, in fact about any time the money is churned there is a taxable event that the poor will not pay the kind of dollars that a 42 Billionaire would. When was the last time a poor person paid their yacht tax or, sales tax on a marble venus de milo?
If a 42 Billionaire keeps all his money in a checking account and does not buy anything more than a bum on the street yea, his tax is going to be very minor.

Is this fair? According to his 2010 return, Romney paid about $3 million to the IRS.
How much did you pay?
I wrote a check for over $200,000 beyond the amount withheld from payroll. I am good with that but, you "seem" to be saying that I should be taxed on the taxed and if there is any left, tax that again even if there is no taxable event.

So, what is fair? A one dollar tax on every 100 Billion of already taxed idle dollars in cash? That is a wealth tax and you and me do not pay that.

I really think the progressive tax system covers this punishing success and sacrifice well enough.

quote Originally posted by FriendGregory: So, what is fair?

That no one has any more than another.

quote Originally posted by FriendGregory: I really think the progressive tax system covers this punishing success and sacrifice well enough.

This is usually where Ray's logic starts to fall apart..
I make say 50k, get taxed on that income.
If I choose to minimize my expenses I have some left to invest in the market.
I put 2k into investments.. Stock A does poo.. I lose 80% of my investment.. Tax write off, but I'm still out 2k. Stock B does decent/well.. Ray want's to double tax my investment/risk.

Also missing from his logic is my and others investment is injecting capitol into a company so they can grow/stay afloat.. No investment.. people lose jobs.

Ray's big idea.. Take all the income, and give it back to us so we have what a gov't committee thinks we need.
"Here's your bus pass, here's your 700sq ft apt, you can have an 800sq ft if you get married and have children, here are your food vouchers"
Sound familiar? When/Where has this ever worked?

quote Originally posted by User00013170: That no one has any more than another.

Then I should be one and will commit no more effort or time than another. Hey, your right, that is fair.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: This is usually where Ray's logic starts to fall apart.. I make say 50k, get taxed on that income. If I choose to minimize my expenses I have some left to invest in the market. I put 2k into investments.. Stock A does poo.. I lose 80% of my investment.. Tax write off, but I'm still out 2k. Stock B does decent/well.. Ray want's to double tax my investment/risk. Also missing from his logic is my and others investment is injecting capitol into a company so they can grow/stay afloat.. No investment.. people lose jobs. Ray's big idea.. Take all the income, and give it back to us so we have what a gov't committee thinks we need. "Here's your bus pass, here's your 700sq ft apt, you can have an 800sq ft if you get married and have children, here are your food vouchers" Sound familiar? When/Where has this ever worked?

currently there is no tax on you seed investment cash
say you bought apple at 200 and sold a 600 2 years later
no tax on the 200 sead
only the 400 is subject to tax

SO WHERE IS THAT MYTHICAL DOUBLE TAX


now why should you or Rmoney pay a low low rate on that 400
while joe outstanding worker pays both a SStax and a higher income tax rate on his 400 in overtime work

WHY IS THAT FAIR OR JUST ????


btw that 200 you risk on apple DOES NOT GET INVESTED IN APPLE
SOME GUY IN 1975 OR WHEN EVER APPLE STARTED INVESTED A BUCK OR A FEW BUCKS
SOME INVESTMENT CORPRAT TOOK ABOUT 1/2 THE CASH
AND APPLE AT IT'S IPO GOT 50 CENTS ON THE FEW DOLLAR IPO PRICE
THAT IS WHEN SOME ONE INVESTED IN APPLE

quote Originally posted by ray b: btw that 200 you risk on apple DOES NOT GET INVESTED IN APPLE SOME GUY IN 1975 OR WHEN EVER APPLE STARTED INVESTED A BUCK OR A FEW BUCKS SOME INVESTMENT CORPRAT TOOK ABOUT 1/2 THE CASH AND APPLE AT IT'S IPO GOT 50 CENTS ON THE FEW DOLLAR IPO PRICE THAT IS WHEN SOME ONE INVESTED IN APPLE

Damn that "corprat". If it wasn't for him we would have an iPhone free world today!

[This message has been edited by Xyster (edited 10-04-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Xyster: Damn that "corprat". If it wasn't for him we would have an iPhone free world today!

maybe just a little less smug world

but the point is 50% of an IPO stock sale is commission
the PIG GRABS 1/2 THE CASH AT DAY ONE

but if you buy the stock years later
1 you do not get taxed again on the cash price paid
2 none of that money you paid 200 is going to apple
3 there is NO DOUBLE TAX only the new capital GAIN IS TAXED
4 AND AT A LOWER RATE THEN WORKED FOR WAGES

Show of hands, how many idiots think this tax fiasco will grow Frances economy?

This is a disaster!! More over, this is a DUH disaster.

quote Originally posted by ray b: THE PIG WAS THE GUY WHO HAS 42 BILLION AND NEEDS ALL OF IT NOT YOU POOR DELUDED VICTIMS OF THE GOP PROPAGANDA GEE OVER REACT MUCH ??????????

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Show of hands, how many idiots think this tax fiasco will grow Frances economy? This is a disaster!! More over, this is a DUH disaster.

Well... I'm not one to wish ill on people... but if I had to pick one country to prove to the rest of the world that aggressive socialism doesn't work, I'd have to pick France. They'll see... and when the **** hits the fan, then we can point back to this day as a defining moment. I mean, how can you blame the wealthy when they're being taxed 75%? At that point, you would certainly have to realize that the blame lies with someone else... right?

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Well... I'm not one to wish ill on people... but if I had to pick one country to prove to the rest of the world that aggressive socialism doesn't work, I'd have to pick France. They'll see... and when the **** hits the fan, then we can point back to this day as a defining moment. I mean, how can you blame the wealthy when they're being taxed 75%? At that point, you would certainly have to realize that the blame lies with someone else... right?

I dunno, people like rayb will see it fail and then claim the rate needs to be 85%, then 95%, then 99%, then he will blame ...someone, ANYONE else but himself for simply not being able to do math.

we had 90% tax rates under ike in the 50's
we had the richest and strongest economy at that time

spin that

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: we had 90% tax rates under ike in the 50's we had the richest and strongest economy at that time spin that

Don't get dizzy, here I go, hang on.
We had to recover from funding a war. People didn't like it but did see a patriotic correlation. Besides, the economy was booming. It was easy to make a buck. We had a captive customer base. Not at all like today. There is no patriotic duty to pay for overspending on redistribution of wealth and it is hard to make a buck.
You still there ?

quote Originally posted by ray b: THE PIG WAS THE GUY WHO HAS 42 BILLION AND NEEDS ALL OF IT

That PIG might still need a loan to pay the roster of the Miami Dolphins, or get a loan to buy the team. Bo those players need to make a million plus/triple/quadruple a year each ? Who is anybody to say how much anybody else makes ? I don't need a three bedroom house for the wife and I. I don't need my Tacoma 4X4, my CJ7 4X4, my Fiero, my boat(s), not even my welding machine. I don't even need a beer. What is your point, ?

quote Originally posted by ray b: we had 90% tax rates under ike in the 50's we had the richest and strongest economy at that time spin that

There is no need for spin. All you have to do is look past the shallow, simplistic view of the historical tax rates and analyze how the rates affected revenue.

Why 70% Tax Rates Won't Work

by Alan Reynolds

This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on June 16, 2011.

The intelligentsia of the Democratic Party is growing increasingly enthusiastic about raising the highest federal income tax rates to 70% or more. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich took the lead in February, proposing on his blog "a 70 percent marginal tax rate on the rich." After all, he noted, "between the late 1940s and 1980 America's highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent."

That helped set the stage for Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) and nine other House members to introduce the Fairness in Taxation Act in March. That bill would add five tax brackets between 45% and 49% on incomes above $1 million and tax capital gains and dividends at those same high rates. The academic left of the Democratic Party finds this much too timid, and would rather see income tax rates on the "rich" at Mr. Reich's suggested levels — or higher.

This new fascination with tax rates of 70% or more is ostensibly intended to raise gobs of new revenue, so federal spending could supposedly remain well above 24% of gross domestic product (GDP) rather than be scaled back toward the 19% average of 1997-2007.

[P]undits cling to the myth that lower tax rates mean lower revenues.
All this nostalgia about the good old days of 70% tax rates makes it sound as though only the highest incomes would face higher tax rates. In reality, there were a dozen tax rates between 48% and 70% during the 1970s. Moreover — and this is what Mr. Reich and his friends always fail to mention — the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest tax rate was 28%.

When the highest tax rate ranged from 91% to 92% (1951-63), even the lowest rate was quite high — 20% or 22%. As the nearby chart shows, however, those super-high tax rates at all income levels brought in revenue of only 7.7% of GDP, according to U.S. budget historical data.

President John F. Kennedy's across-the-board tax cuts reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 14% and 70% respectively after 1964, yet revenues (after excluding the 5%-10% surtaxes of 1969-70) rose to 8% of GDP. President Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts further reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 11% and 50%, yet revenues rose again to 8.3% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform slashed the top tax rate to 28%, yet revenues dipped trivially to 8.1% of GDP.

What about those increases in top tax rates in 1990 and 1993? The top statutory rate was raised to 31% in 1991, but it was really closer to 35% because exemptions and deductions were phased-out as incomes increased. The economy quickly slipped into recession — as it did during the surtaxes of 1969-70 and the "bracket creep" of 1980-81, which pushed many middle-income families into higher tax brackets. Revenues fell to 7.8% of GDP.

The 1993 law added two higher tax brackets and, importantly, raised the taxable portion of Social Security benefits to 85% from 50%. At just 8% of GDP, however, individual income tax receipts were surprisingly low during President Bill Clinton's first term.

The Internet/telecom boom of 1998-2000 was the only time individual income tax revenues remained higher than 9% of GDP for more than one year without the economy slipping into recession (as it did when the tax topped 9% in 1969, 1981 and 2001).

But that was an unrepeatable windfall resulting from the quintupling of Nasdaq stocks — combined with (1) the proliferation of nonqualified stock options that have since been thwarted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and (2) the 1997 cut in the capital gains tax to 20%. Realized capital gains rose to 4.6% of GDP from 1997 to 2002 — up from 2.5% of GDP from 1987 to 1996 when the capital gains tax was 28%.

Suppose the Congress let all of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013, which is the current trajectory. That would bring us back to the tax regime of 1993-96 when the individual income tax brought in no more revenue (8% of GDP) than it did in 2006-08 (8.1% of GDP).

It is true that President Obama proposes raising the capital gains tax to 23.8%, which could raise more revenue than the 28% rate of 1993-96. But a 23.8% tax on capital gains and dividends would nevertheless be high enough to depress stock prices and related tax revenues.

Still, pundits cling to the myth that lower tax rates mean lower revenues. "You do probably get a modest boost to GDP from tax cuts," concedes the Atlantic's Megan McCardle. "But you also get falling tax revenue. It can't be said too often — and there you are, I've said it again."

Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of Income and Wealth (Greenwood Press, 2006)

More by Alan Reynolds
Yet the chart nearby clearly shows that reductions in U.S. marginal tax rates did not cause "falling tax revenue." It is not necessary to argue that tax rate reduction paid for itself by increasing economic growth. Lowering top marginal tax rates in stages from 91% to 28% paid for itself regardless of what happened to GDP.

It is particularly remarkable that individual tax revenues did not fall as a percentage of GDP because changes in tax law, most notably those of 1986 and 2003, greatly expanded refundable tax credits, personal exemptions and standard deductions. As a result, the Joint Committee on Taxation recently reported that 51% of Americans no longer pay federal income tax.

Since the era of 70% tax rates, the U.S. income tax system has become far more "progressive." Congressional Budget Office estimates show that from 1979 to 2007 average income tax rates fell by 110% to minus 0.4% from 4.1% for the second-poorest quintile of taxpayers. Average tax rates fell by 56% for the middle quintile and 39% for the fourth, but only 8% at the top. Despite these massive tax cuts for the bottom 80%, overall federal revenues were the same 18.5% share of GDP in 2007 as they were in 1979 and individual tax revenues were nearly the same — 8.7% of GDP in 1979 versus 8.4% in 2007.

In short, reductions in top tax rates under Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, and reductions in capital gains tax rates under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, not only "paid for themselves" but also provided enough extra revenue to finance negative income taxes for the bottom 40% and record-low income taxes at middle incomes.

quote Originally posted by fierobear:

Seriously, why would you bring facts into this discussion? This discussion is supposed to be based on emotion and theoretics.

bear you are pushing VOODOO

WE KNOW VOODOO FAILED

BASIC MATH SAYS MORE IS NOT LESS
AND LESS IS NOT MORE

VOODOO CLAIMS LESS IS MORE
RAYGUN AND BOTH BUSH 1 AND 2 HAD DEFICITS
CLINTON RAISED RATES AND GOT MORE
AND HAD A SMALL SURPLUS TOO
BuSh2 KILLED CLINTON'S SURPLUS
AND CREATED MORE DEBT NOT LESS

YOU CAN CLAIM ALL KINDS OF BS
BUT THE NUMBERS DONOT SUPPORT YOUR BS

BTW YOUR OWN NUMBERS
SHOW YOUR FAIL

RAYGUN'S 28%= 8% WAS LESS THEN CLINTONS 39.X = 9+% OF GDP

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 10-08-2012).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: bear you are pushing VOODOO WE KNOW VOODOO FAILED BASIC MATH SAYS MORE IS NOT LESS AND LESS IS NOT MORE VOODOO CLAIMS LESS IS MORE RAYGUN AND BOTH BUSH 1 AND 2 HAD DEFICITS CLINTON RAISED RATES AND GOT MORE AND HAD A SMALL SURPLUS TOO BuSh2 KILLED CLINTON'S SURPLUS AND CREATED MORE DEBT NOT LESS YOU CAN CLAIM ALL KINDS OF BS BUT THE NUMBERS DONOT SUPPORT YOUR BS

Ray B, how's Miami? Que estas haciendo! I totally miss Miami... the pastelitos... the croquetas... cafecito... cortadito... muy bien.

Oye'... how are you holding out with the mass migration of the ultra-wealthy from Argentina and Venezuela because of communism?

quote Originally posted by ray b: bear you are pushing VOODOO

Ray, I just gave you FACTS, and you won't acknowledge facts. There's nothing else to say to you.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Oye'... how are you holding out with the mass migration of the ultra-wealthy from Argentina and Venezuela because of communism?

Todd, that is a low blow ........[/sarcasm], .
rayb, , I feel left out, .

YES THERE IS A STEADY INFLUX OF PIGS FROM SOUTH AMERICA
RUNNING HERE WITH MONEY THEY STOLE FROM THEIR COUNTRY'S

i SUPPOSE YOU THOUGHT THE NAZI'S IN ARGENTINA WERE GOOD GUYS
AFTER THEY DISAPPEARED SO MANY OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN THE DIRTY WAR

THE WAY THE NUT-CON'S SUPPORT THOSE THIEVES IS A CRIME

WE NEED A SIMPLE IMMIGRATION LAW
IF THEY DONOT USE ENGLISH HERE DEPORT THEM ON THE SPOT
AND PUT UP FULL SIGNS NO MORE IMMIGRATION

quote Originally posted by ray b: YOUR FACTS FROM YOUR TABLE RAYGUN'S 28%= 8% WAS LESS THEN CLINTONS 39.X = 9+% OF GDP LESS IS NOT MORE

I see you conveniently didn't mention the drop in Capital Gains Tax that coincides with the increase in revenue. I wonder why?

quote Originally posted by ray b: YES THERE IS A STEADY INFLUX OF PIGS FROM SOUTH AMERICA RUNNING HERE WITH MONEY THEY STOLE FROM THEIR COUNTRY'S i SUPPOSE YOU THOUGHT THE NAZI'S IN ARGENTINA WERE GOOD GUYS AFTER THEY DISAPPEARED SO MANY OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN THE DIRTY WAR THE WAY THE NUT-CON'S SUPPORT THOSE THIEVES IS A CRIME WE NEED A SIMPLE IMMIGRATION LAW IF THEY DONOT USE ENGLISH HERE DEPORT THEM ON THE SPOT AND PUT UP FULL SIGNS NO MORE IMMIGRATION

Que les paso, Ray! You used to say the peope coming here from Cuba and South America were poor and a drain on our economy?

Por fin, what about my grandmother? She used to speak English, but then after the on-set of alzheimers, she only spoke Spanish. Would she have to get deported too?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I see you conveniently didn't mention the drop in Capital Gains Tax that coincides with the increase in revenue. I wonder why?

And two other things:

1. It wasn't "Clinton's" surplus. He had a Republican Congress.

2. Much of that extra revenue was from the Dot Com boom.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: And two other things: 1. It wasn't "Clinton's" surplus. He had a Republican Congress. 2. Much of that extra revenue was from the Dot Com boom.

Also the "surplus" only existed on paper. There was never a year where we spent less than we took in. The surplus numbers didn't include intragovernmental debt.
Here's the Treasury's site listing the National Debt by year: http://www.treasurydirect.g...istdebt/histdebt.htm
It goes up even the year of "Clinton's Surplus™."

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Que les paso, Ray! You used to say the people coming here from Cuba and South America were poor and a drain on our economy? Por fin, what about my grandmother? She used to speak English, but then after the on-set of alzheimers, she only spoke Spanish. Would she have to get deported too?

the poorer ones send lots of cash home out of our local economy and out of our national economy too
that is a major reason miami is the poorest major american city
rich crooks are a different problem but still a problem as stealing is wrong

did your abulow kill people in Argentina ?