and i've said the same thing more than once, that i don't like either candidates plan as both suggest a tax break to individuals, while both have the deficit increasing under their plans. the deficit will hinder this nation, as other countries will really be questioning our ability to ever get out of debt.
but i also think now is the wrong time to raise the corporate tax rate, which is what i was trying to get across from the beginning. in good times, you raise it, but certainly not in bad times. reagan lowered the rate, clinton bumped it up one percent. it worked for both at the time. but these are different times now.

But this is why i shouldnt waste my time arguing about it. No one acknowledges the basic points of the discussion. You guys just paste stuff from partisan sources that agree with your cause.

I will save you the trouble. There is a guy i know well that will completely agree with you guys. He is one of if not the most influential lobbyists in DC. PM me if you want the name.

What i am saying is save the canned rhetoric.

Cant you come up with your own thoughts and support them with your own facts?

Where is the theory that says that raising taxes has a positive effect on the economy? How can hurting business help the economy?

but what if someone had listened? where would we be now?
also, you use greenspan as a way to give props to clinton, and now you take the other tack?

What about cutting spending? Understandably the current administration hasnt done very well with it but these two clowns dont even bother talking about it, dont even give it lip service.

he gave props to Clinton while he was still in office and then afterward. His book is an interesting read if not totally agenda filled.

What you really have to think about is what would have happened if people chose NOT to listen to Greenspan when it mattered. Where would we be?

i did a search since i wanted to educate myself on the topic, since all i got here is that i was a republican. those are the things that came up. had i found the opposite, i would have put that up. i'm trying to learn about the stuff...exactly how could i back up my pov if i found it to be incorrect? i said back a few pages ago that i was basing my initial thoughts on what i have observed over the last few years in my current job. as well as how things have been going for the last 11 years that tony has worked at his job. so, i did searches, and that's the stuff i found. in other words, i did have my own thoughts, my own facts, and from what i've read, i was pretty much on the right path.

and all that stuff i found, and put up..all of that is partisan? the guy from us news? the guy from the ny times?

Now, we are talking!!!!

Hurting business doesnt help the economy. We have to prioritize though. this deficit is killing us. I think we all agree.

yes, clinton was aided heavily by tech boom. i will contend that his policies greatly AIDED the boom.

A big part of what made his economy was his fiscal responsibility. He realized that the deficit was killing us.

yeah, we have a choice between two proponents of larger govt and bigger deficits. wonderful.

We agree. I completely agree.

What will work? For who? Scandinavia and Canada have some of the best Standards of Living. If you lower tax rates on business are you also gunna make sure your salary increases when the company does well? I don't think so. You're living in probably the most business friendly area of the country, but the workers are paid the least there. Sounds like you enjoy static salaries for workers. So that's "working" for you. I heard Canada is one of the most business friendly countries, and has a top 3 type standard of living. I don't think you could stand for their personal income taxes though. There is no country that works well with the Republican Recipe (low business regulation, low taxes of all types, and low Gov't spending.) That doesn't work, but keep pushing that crap.

However we have had the tech bubble burst and housing bubble burst and are dealing with increased competition in the global market not to mention considerably higher energy prices since those times. Thats not even talking about the current global banking crisis. The deficit simply has to be dealt with over time and cutting spending would be a start. The handouts should wait too but those help get people elected.

You cant compare countries. 80% of canada is not even inhabitated. Scandinavia is closer to a state. I am still waiting on how raising taxes helps workers accross the board. Please dont bring in people who make $7 an hour because unskilled labor will never do exceedingly well simply because they are unskilled and easily replaced.

You said yourself that Corporations are not interested in the welfare of workers. You can't mandate that they "help" workers(something I doubt you give a s-h-i-t about...so, it's an odd question.) So, the only way to help workers is to get some of the profits back in taxes that go for what you call "handouts" like social security, medicare etc. I think you're saying that some higher paid workers are hurt by higher taxes. Maybe, but they would have a house full of people to take care of if there were no Social Security, and Medicare. I'd be having to pretend I care about what story my mom would be telling me. She'd probably be living with me(she was just a worker.)

Cutting spending where though? 54% of spending is on military. 30% is on human resources aka hand outs and what not.

Where do you want to cut? And then on top of that, you want to cut while ALSO giving a tax cut?

Coach does this mean you arent mad at me anymore? I promise i will not post a pick to your pick thread ever again. I defer to you as the greatest football handicapper i have ever seen.

LOL...Anything with her in it is a riot. Can she entertain us somehow for 4 years? Maybe Fox will pay her some incredible amount to replace Hannity.