posted on January 03, 2013 17:42
Up in Congress the Democrats wanted to raise taxes on 2% of the people -- while the Republicans wanted to cut government spending instead.
So they reached a compromise.
They voted to raise taxes on 77% of the people -- and to increase spending.
How did that happen? It's hard to tell but mathematics only works that way in Congress.
Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:50 PM
Republicans wanted to cut spending? Hogwash. If that were true, they had the majority and could have made it happen. It's the same Medicare Part D crowd, is it not?
Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:02 PM
So, Carter, you expected what, exactly?
C'mon, my man. You know that everything for our illustrious "representives" is all about making sure they stay our illustrious "representives"....right? Republican...democrat...yeah, right. You've been involved in politics for eons..at least as long as I have. You know that what's "right" and what's "good" for our country means squat vs. what's good politically for our representatives. I mean, you're not trying to say that's not what's the deal here...are your?
Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:44 PM
Carter...you know the deal.
Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:58 PM
And, the mainstream press is only saying that only 2% of the population got a tax increase.
We're being led down a path we're never going to be able to return from.
God help our kids and grandkids.
Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:27 PM
The last time we had a "surplus" in the Federal Budget was under Clinton. And, that was because the economy was so vibrant and revenue was so huge because of the economy, and because Clinton held spending at a minimum. Heck, Clinton even put in Welfare reform. I mean, a democrat putting in Welfare reform. Think about that for a moment.
Welfare reform today? Entitlement reform today? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...give us a break. One thing about some of the things posted here on the front page about Clinton...he did have his good points. I'd give my left one to have had Hillary vs. our socialist-in-chief we have today.
Friday, January 04, 2013 8:17 PM
"Clinton held spending to a minimum?" On what planet? I was around during the Clinton administration, I remember very well what happened. His first major domestic initiative was a huge (by the standards of the day) pork barrel spending program. It wasn't until the Republicans took over Congress and refused to pass his budgets that spending came under control and budget surpluses appeared. And welfare reform? He OPPOSED that until he couldn't hold out any longer. To this day he speaks of his regret that he wasn't able to stop it. How can he possibly take any credit for it?
Clinton was a terrible president who goofed off while the terrorist threat to our country grew. There isn't a single major policy initiative that he's responsible for that has stood the test of historical perspective. Even his "accomplishments" in the economic arena are bogus--he inherited a strongly recovering economy which he nearly tanked with an ill-advised tax increase, then sat back and benefited from the revolution in information management brought about by the private sector (computers, the Internet, etc.) and the free trade agreements negotiated by his predecessors. The best that can be said about his stewardship of the Oval Office is that he knew better than to buck too hard against the Republican Congress. Other than that, he was a zero as president.