PDA

View Full Version : At least one DEM get it. Clinton: Extend Tax cuts



huntinman
06-05-2012, 05:39 PM
US Already in 'Recession,' Extend Tax Cuts: Bill Clinton
Posted By: Jeff Cox | CNBC.com Senior Writer
CNBC.com | 05 Jun 2012 | 04:01 PM ET
Former President Bill Clinton told CNBC Tuesday that the US economy already is in a recession and urged Congress to extend all the tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year.


In a taped interview aired on "Closing Bell," the still-popular 42nd president called the current economic conditions a "recession" and said overzealous Republican plans to cut the deficit threaten to plunge the country further into the debt abyss.

"What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long term debt-reduction plans as soon as they can, which presumably would be after the election," Clinton said.

"They will probably have to put everything off until early next year," he added. "That's probably the best thing to do right now. But the Republicans don't want to do that unless he agrees to extend the tax cuts permanently, including for upper income people, and I don't think the president should do that."


However, Clinton did say that Congress would be best off agreeing, at least for the time being, to extend all the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, including the so-called Bush tax cuts named after Clinton's successor, George W. Bush.

Those across-the-board cuts have been criticized by Democrats who say they were skewed toward upper-income earners.

To counter the cuts, President Obama proposed the Buffett Rule which was ultimately defeated that would have imposed a surtax on millionaires.

On tax questions in general, Clinton said it's reasonable to expect top earners to pay more and he defended the current tax structure, which he said wouldn't look so bad if the economy was doing better.


"They're still pretty low, the government spending levels. But I think they look high because there's a recession," he said. "So the taxes look lower than they really would be if we had two and half or 3 percent growth and spending is higher than it would be if we had two and a half or 3 percent growth, because there are so many people getting food stamps, so many people getting unemployment, so many people on Medicaid."

In the midst of a heated re-election campaign, Obama has faced a barrage of bad news lately, from anemic job growth and an increase in the unemployment rate to weak factory and housing activity. First-quarter gross domestic growth registered a meager 1.9 percent.

Like the current Oval Office resident, Clinton blamed much of the economic damage on the sovereign debt crisis "this European thing that's having a bigger impact than people know" as well as politics, saying, "The thing that cost jobs here has been the Congress's policies."


Politically, Clinton has found himself in a ticklish spot lately as reports have re-emerged about his sometimes ambivalent stance toward Obama. He recently praised Republican challenger Mitt Romney's record in private equity at Bain Capital, another remark that amplified the notion that the two don't always see eye-to-eye.

Clinton said Obama is "on stronger ground" when he challenges Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts, not as a businessman at Bain.

"There's a company not doing well, that's failing, and you buy it and have to impose some economies there and cutbacks because you're trying to turn it around so it can thrive in the economy. Whether you succeed or fail, that's a good thing to do," he said. "If you go in and buy a company and intentionally load it up with debt, loot its assets and the people lose their jobs and retirements...that's a bad thing."

"So to make a judgment on that, you have to know a lot of facts about every case," Clinton added. "I just think we'd all be a lot better off if we talk about we have two people running for the president. What would they do?"

Clinton had an average approval rating of 55 percent during his two terms, compared to 49 percent for Obama, who currently is at 46 percent, according to Gallup. Clinton made no predictions about the election but he said it will be important for Obama to draw clear lines in order to win.

"The most important thing in this election is what will President Obama do and what will Gov. Romney do with the economy and how will they deal with people who disagree with them," Clinton said. "Will they be divide and conquer, or would they be, 'let's bring everyone together'?"

2012 CNBC.com
URL: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47693595/

menmon
06-06-2012, 10:00 AM
The democrats get it...they know they need the revenue and want to keep the tax cuts for those that need it, while taxing the ones that can afford it and benefit more from it. Here is an example of why the rich should pay more. FDIC Insurance is funded by tax dollars and banks. If you are rich you have more money in the bank, so don't you think you should be more responsible for paying the insurance. That poor working stiff that does well to keep $500 is subsidising the rich guys insurance. Think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

luvmylabs23139
06-06-2012, 10:11 AM
HOw about everybody pay per head. That would be truly fair. Have 12 kids you pay per head for them, afterall, why should the person that has zero kids pay thru the nose for the dept of ed?
I'm just using your logic.

menmon
06-06-2012, 10:18 AM
I have no kids in the system and pay a lot of School Taxes on my property. That is the cost of owning property. If there was not a school, I would not have educated workers so I guess I can't be too upset. I wish they would use part of it and teach work ethic.

However at one point I had a kid in school and didn't pay much because I made little and had little, but someone helped pay my way. So it is my turn now.

luvmylabs23139
06-06-2012, 10:50 AM
I have no kids in the system and pay a lot of School Taxes on my property. That is the cost of owning property. If there was not a school, I would not have educated workers so I guess I can't be too upset. I wish they would use part of it and teach work ethic.

However at one point I had a kid in school and didn't pay much because I made little and had little, but someone helped pay my way. So it is my turn now.


well I have no kids so why pay for someone having 12? At some point people have to be held responsible for their actions and that includes their uh, trying to find a nice way to say it, but controling their carnal urges.
Heck I get taxed more for my intact dogs than those that are altered even though I control them in that respect.

luvmylabs23139
06-06-2012, 10:53 AM
I have no kids in the system and pay a lot of School Taxes on my property. That is the cost of owning property. If there was not a school, I would not have educated workers so I guess I can't be too upset. I wish they would use part of it and teach work ethic.

However at one point I had a kid in school and didn't pay much because I made little and had little, but someone helped pay my way. So it is my turn now.


Also may I add why should it be a cost of owning property as their is zero relationship between the property one owns and their use of the educational system?
I have acreage so my dogs have plenty of space not to use the schools!

Sean H
06-06-2012, 11:01 AM
The democrats get it...they know they need the revenue and want to keep the tax cuts for those that need it, while taxing the ones that can afford it and benefit more from it. Here is an example of why the rich should pay more. FDIC Insurance is funded by tax dollars and banks. If you are rich you have more money in the bank, so don't you think you should be more responsible for paying the insurance. That poor working stiff that does well to keep $500 is subsidising the rich guys insurance. Think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Terrible example. Rich people don't leave large sums of money in banks where they make almost zero return on it.

menmon
06-06-2012, 02:24 PM
I work at a bank...they do

menmon
06-06-2012, 02:32 PM
And they make large sums on Treasures?

menmon
06-06-2012, 02:43 PM
Because once a upon a time...we went to school and some landowner paid our way. May not always be fair but I'm sure I have gotten as much as I have put in.

luvmylabs23139
06-06-2012, 03:14 PM
Because once a upon a time...we went to school and some landowner paid our way. May not always be fair but I'm sure I have gotten as much as I have put in.

Lets be real, MY parents have paid more many times over than the cost of public schools for both my brother and me. In CT where we grew up they took money from our town thru state income taxes and fed it to the cities requiring the locals to pay a lot more in property taxes for schools. The cities spent more per student but the money all came from the burbs.
There is absolutly no way I got more than I or my parents have paid in. Now even in NF there is this crazy babysitting for 4 year olds paid by taxpayers.
Geeze, when I was 5 we were in TX part of the year. In order for me to be ok leaving CT schools my parents paid for me to go to 5 year old school in TX.
They paid thru the ass for silly elite K class. It was one of those schools that you were suposed to be on the list for before you were born. Our landlord got me in. They kinda ruled Palastine back then. I could tell you even more stories but ya know you might not get it since most of it invloves culture shock. Our shock. any and all opinions I have about certain parts of the population have been based on the actions of those parts of the population. All I can say is that MAMEE must be rolling in her grave. She was my babysitter in Tx and she lived in a house built and paid for by her employers. Yes they bought her house for her. She was our babysitter just as a favor to the sisters.

menmon
06-06-2012, 03:35 PM
I lived in NJ and was taxes out the wazooo, too. I understand it....but I know why they do it, so they can pay their bills. And the arguement is cut your expenses, but nobody wants to let go of anything.

It is the price of being sucessful....I like it better than the alternative.

Sean H
06-06-2012, 03:41 PM
I work at a bank...they do

Semantics.......$100,000 (now $250,000 until end of 2013) is not a large sum of money to rich folks.

menmon
06-06-2012, 03:53 PM
Most folks don't have a $100,000 in a bank and they keep them in more than one bank.

luvmylabs23139
06-06-2012, 04:09 PM
I lived in NJ and was taxes out the wazooo, too. I understand it....but I know why they do it, so they can pay their bills. And the arguement is cut your expenses, but nobody wants to let go of anything.

It is the price of being sucessful....I like it better than the alternative.


What does the taxpayer get for their money??? ANswer is nothing just ripped off. I got robbed in CT. I was a property owner but the stupid dums increased section 8 and then all of a sudden the leeching slime lived below me and across from me on my dime and made my life a living hell!!! THey should have been kept caged in, they ruined by propery value and destroyed my quality of life and I was forced to apy for it against my will. I did take my life in my hands more than once standing up to them but I will never regret that. I just regret being stopped more than once.

menmon
06-06-2012, 04:12 PM
It is just the cost of doing business....no politician is going to fix it.

huntinman
06-06-2012, 04:18 PM
I work at a bank...they do

We found your bank Sambo.

7440

luvmylabs23139
06-06-2012, 04:30 PM
[QUOTE=sambo;975189]It is just the cost of doing business....no politician is going to fix it.[/Q
So maybe we the actual taxpayers must revolt in a stronger manner and stand up to the leeches.
WE need to shut them down by all means possible!