In just over a year. Remember the election in 2006? Change???

[Civicus_Sooner]

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.


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

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.

[JohnnyMack]

:rolleyes:

[Civicus_Sooner]

:rolleyes:

Thoughtful and informative as always.:D

[OUDoc]

I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than that shows.

[sooner_born_1960]

Yeah, but you make a hell of a lot more than that shows. :)

[Civicus_Sooner]

I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than that shows.
You need a better accountant. ;)

[SoonerStormchaser]

One hundred beeeeelion dollars?

[Fraggle145]

Remember, it's Congress that makes law not the President.

Doesnt he have to sign them or not sign them?

[SoonerInKCMO]

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


You might want to double-check the calculations that gave those numbers. They ain't right.

[JohnnyMack]

Thoughtful and informative as always.:D

I'm in a bit of a food coma from a late lunch. I'll get back to you.

[Civicus_Sooner]

Doesnt he have to sign them or not sign them?
Sure, he has to sign or veto but he doesn't get what he wants by the fact that he's the prez.

It's the same reason why the Republicans that ran Congress actually deserve the credit for the Clinton "balanced budget" and the Dems who ran Congress actually deserve credit for the deficit spending under Reagan. It's not exactly that simple but closer to reality than you will hear from the TV pubdits.

[Civicus_Sooner]

I'm in a bit of a food coma from a late lunch. I'll get back to you.

I thought you would and welcome friendly debates, sir!

[Civicus_Sooner]

You might want to double-check the calculations that gave those numbers. They ain't right.
I'm sure the TAx Foundation, a non profit, bipartisan organization is just lying through their teeth.

[Ash]

Doesnt he have to sign them or not sign them?

Don't let the facts of how government actually works or what has actually transpired or who has had the most impact on many of these things get in the way of a good spin job to make you feel better about the fact that we're seeing the cumulative effects of the W administration most of which was enabled by Republican controlled legislative and judicial branches.

Has Congress delivered less than they could have? Yeah. But it's tough to get things done when you don't have a working majority in both houses and W will shoot down anything that might actually make it to his desk if it doesn't fit with his view of things.

[LosAngelesSooner]

In just 10 months the "Republican" side of Congress has set the 2 year record for filibustering the Dems.

10 months to set a 2 year record.

Ya think THAT might factor in to why nothing has been changing since the Dems won "control" of Congress? (not to mention they really don't have much of a majority in the Senate.)

[Civicus_Sooner]

In just 10 months the "Republican" side of Congress has set the 2 year record for filibustering the Dems.

10 months to set a 2 year record.

Ya think THAT might factor in to why nothing has been changing since the Dems won "control" of Congress? (not to mention they really don't have much of a majority in the Senate.)
Could be. Fact is, your taxes WILL increase with either Obama or Clinton as President.

[soonerscuba]

Remember the first time you started this thread?

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109719

I know you want to blame the Dems for the economy and act as if the President has no effect on fiscal policy, but it's basic civics. The President drafts the budget of the US through the OMB, then negotiates terms with Congress, to say the executive branch doesn't hold a massive amount of sway over fiscal issues is just silly. I really don't know how to put it in more simple terms, this isn't politics, it's civics, and the process remains the exact same no matter who the players are.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Could be. Fact is, your taxes WILL increase with either Obama or Clinton as President.
Ah, Bullhockey. They will not. That's just freakin' scare tactics from the ultra-right. And it's tired and worn out. (just like saying that Republicans shrink deficits, encourage smaller government and don't engage in nation building :rolleyes: ALL things that the current President has disproven)

Besides...I live in CA. If my taxes increased any more I wouldn't even GET a paycheck. :cool:

[SoonerInKCMO]

I'm sure the TAx Foundation, a non profit, bipartisan organization is just lying through their teeth.

I'm not saying the rates are wrong; I'm saying the the amounts of tax (calculated by whomever) are wrong.

[SoonerInKCMO]

I'm not saying the rates are wrong; I'm saying the the amounts of tax (calculated by whomever) are wrong.

One example: Single person making $30k...
1993 (lowest starting point for the 28% bracket i.e. highest tax paid during Clinton terms for this income)
15% of first $22,100 = $3,315
28% of next $7,900 = $2,212
Total: $5,527
Your initial post: $8,400

2008 (lowest total taxes of any year for this income)
10% of first $8,025 = $802.50
15% of next $21,975 = $3,296.25
Total: $4,098.75
Your initial post: $4,500

[Fraggle145]

Don't let the facts of how government actually works or what has actually transpired or who has had the most impact on many of these things get in the way of a good spin job to make you feel better about the fact that we're seeing the cumulative effects of the W administration most of which was enabled by Republican controlled legislative and judicial branches.

Has Congress delivered less than they could have? Yeah. But it's tough to get things done when you don't have a working majority in both houses and W will shoot down anything that might actually make it to his desk if it doesn't fit with his view of things.


In just 10 months the "Republican" side of Congress has set the 2 year record for filibustering the Dems.

10 months to set a 2 year record.

Ya think THAT might factor in to why nothing has been changing since the Dems won "control" of Congress? (not to mention they really don't have much of a majority in the Senate.)


Remember the first time you started this thread?

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109719

I know you want to blame the Dems for the economy and act as if the President has no effect on fiscal policy, but it's basic civics. The President drafts the budget of the US through the OMB, then negotiates terms with Congress, to say the executive branch doesn't hold a massive amount of sway over fiscal issues is just silly. I really don't know how to put it in more simple terms, this isn't politics, it's civics, and the process remains the exact same no matter who the players are.


Ah, Bullhockey. They will not. That's just freakin' scare tactics from the ultra-right. And it's tired and worn out. (just like saying that Republicans shrink deficits, encourage smaller government and don't engage in nation building :rolleyes: ALL things that the current President has disproven)

Besides...I live in CA. If my taxes increased any more I wouldn't even GET a paycheck. :cool:

Thats what I was trying to say without all of the typing :D

[bri]

So, we're just posting random "OMG, POLITICS" emails now and calling it done?

Yay, internets!

[tommieharris91]

Gahhh that's horrible logic. Almost none of your points can be attributed to Congress or the president. The only thing they can really control are taxes and government spending. Politicians can't control gas prices, they can't control consumer confidence, they can kinda control unemployment, but not much.

[Fraggle145]

One site for you... And this goes for you mad forwarders too!! (As if i dont have other **** to do during the day then get and read a million god loves me, bless the soldiers (believe me i know soldiers in iraq right now and i dont need to be reminded everyday they are getting shot at), or fear mongering emails that arent true)

SNOPES.COM (http://www.snopes.com/)

here is a link to the email you are citing:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/votedforchange.asp

Anymore f**kin nonsense to waste our time should at least go through a filter first.

dont believe it just because you got an email.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[mdklatt]

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


There is no way this is right.

[My Opinion Matters]

I stepped in a mud puddle today.

[SoonerInKCMO]

There is no way this is right.

The funny thing about this is, that right on the page Civicus linked to, there's a little blurb at the top:


Note: If you clicked on this link in response to an e-mail, blog post, or message board comparing income taxes under Presidents Clinton and Bush, please see this page: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html).


The page linked says, in part:

the chart created by the author of this comparison contains some mathematical errors. Furthermore, the comparisons are exaggerated by the fact that annual inflation adjustments in the tax code would have lowered tax bills in 2008 relative to 1999 under a constant nominal income amount.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Some interesting stuff on that Tax Foundation site; look at this page: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/323.html and you can see where people get the data for statements like "The Bush tax cuts gave 2/3 of the cuts to people in the top quintile of income." or "The Bush tax cuts gave 1/4 of the cuts to people in the top 1% of income." And you can also see how these statements, while true, can be mis-leading. Check out the 'Share of Tax Liability' columns in table 4.

[mdklatt]

There must be a whole lot of Bruce's in CT.