2. is badly stated

Post #321,050 by boxley 2/5/10 10:22:36 AM Reply	2. is badly stated reagan cut taxes, bush1 imposed them and clinton cut taxes but more importantly clinton reigned in spending, a better republican than Bush2 ever was. Please restate your choices in a more plausable manner. Taxing the rich is nescessary. Getting people making above 101k a year to pay paroll taxes is also mandatory. Thinking that America's financial answer is a wealth transfer from the people to the state is wrong. If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #321,051 by drook 2/5/10 10:32:09 AM Reply	Like how? How will "taxing the rich" not be interpreted as "a wealth transfer from the people to the state"? I've never seen the one without people claiming the other. -- Drew
Post #321,053 by Another Scott 2/5/10 10:49:09 AM Reply	Your version is worse. ;-) Reagan cut taxes, then raised taxes when he (and the Congress) saw the cuts were blowing a hole in the budget. http://krugman.blogs...eagan-taxes-jobs/ http://en.wikipedia....ility_Act_of_1982 The tax increases didn't hurt the economy and the deficit started to come down. Clinton raised the top marginal rates (up to 39.6% for individuals, and up to 35% for corporations) and the deficit changed to a surplus (yes, it really was a surplus). http://en.wikipedia....ation_Act_of_1993 The economy under Clinton was the largest peace-time expansion in our history. I think my version stands. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!