The economy was better under Clinton? Of course it was. Because of Reagan. The economy is like a freaking freighter, it can't exactly turn on dime. Whatever is happening now is because of policies five to ten years ago. The economy was rolling until Clinton got a hold of it. It will take time, but it will come around.

People, what the economy is like NOW has nothing to do with who's in office NOW or who controls the congress NOW.

It takes a few years for changes in the law or tax code to actually have widespread effect on the economy.

So don't blame the current government for the problems we see today. And don't give them credit if things are going rosy. If you study the economic history of the United States, it's pretty clear what kind of changes different Presidents/Congresses made to the economy and how it takes a while for those changes to do anything.

What we need is good economic policy more from more than one President in a row!

NothingYet:

Money taken from taxpayers is not Bush's to "give"

Nothingyet
People think it sucks and America is going to suffer because it is piss poor fiscal planning. Sure that extra $50 I get may mean I eat out once more this year, but I would much rather have the budget balanced. A balanced budget with perhaps a small surplus to reduce government debt is HELPFULL to the economy. A large and increasing goverment debt is STIFLING to the economy. Hence, in the long wrong a tax cut increases my chances of not having a job etc, etc.

Doesn't really mean anything to me personally cause I didn't make enough. Last time I didn't get a dime back. My parents didn't get a dime back because didn't make enough, even though they still had two dependants. If I was getting something back, I know I wouldn't be spending it, because I have to build up my savings in the likely event that I will need to live off of it when my job is taken due to to the sorry economy.

But it makes perfect sense to 51 of 100 of our leaders.

How it impacts you (cut & pasted from cnn):

1:
The richest Americans -- that's both singles and married couples whose AGI tops $311,950 -- now pay tax rates up to 38.6 percent. That rate would be cut to 35 percent.

Those who currently fall under the 35 percent bracket (single filers with incomes over $143,500 and joint filers with incomes over $174,700) will have their tax rate trimmed to 33 percent.

Taxpayers in the 30 percent bracket will have their rate nipped to 28 percent. (That's singles with an AGI of $68,800 to $143,500 and married couples with an AGI of $114,650 to $174,700.)

And those in the 27 percent bracket will pay no more than 25 percent. (Again, this applies to singles with incomes from $28,400 to $68,800 and married couples filing joint returns with an AGI between $47,450 and $114,650.)

Meanwhile, lower-income earners in the 10 percent and 15 percent tax brackets won't get a cut. However, they, like all other taxpayers, do get some relief because more of their earnings would be taxed at the lowest 10 percent rate.

Cuts would remain in effect until 2011, when rates would rise again.

2:
Currently, investors who owe dividend taxes must pay their "marginal" tax rates, or as much as 38.6 percent.

But the tax package would freeze the dividend tax at 15 percent for anyone in the top four tax brackets. The cut would start this year and run through 2008. In 2009, the dividend tax would revert to "marginal" tax rates.

Those in the 10 percent or 15 percent brackets would pay 5 percent taxes on dividends, starting this year. In 2008, they'd pay nothing. In 2009, the tax owed on dividends would revert back to 10 percent and 15 percent.

Meanwhile, the long-term capital gains tax rate would fall to 15 percent, down from 20 percent. For investors in the 10 percent and 15 percent bracket, the tax would drop to 5 percent, down from 10 percent. That could mean savings of roughly $416 for someone with $3,000 in long-term capital gains.

The new cuts would apply to investment transactions made on or after May 6, 2003 -- and, of course -- only to investments owned for one year or more. Short-term capital gains rates would remain the same -- that is, your regular income tax rate.

3:
Depending on your income, you can expect as much as $400 more from Uncle Sam. That's because the tax package would immediately boost the child tax credit to $1,000, up from a current $600. The upshot? Some 24.4 million families would get a $400 rebate check for their kids sometime this summer, according to CCH.

The child tax credit isn't as generous and may not even be available for those who "earn too much." In the eyes of Uncle Sam, that's singles with an AGI over $75,000 and married couples with an AGI exceeding $110,000.

If you do qualify for the full credit, be aware that it drops back to $700 in 2005 and $500 in 2011.

4:
Starting this year, married couples filing a joint return would be able to earn up to $56,800 and remain in the 15 percent bracket. That's twice as much as what singles can currently earn and remain in this bracket. Currently, married couples whose AGI tops $47,450 are kicked out of the 15 percent range.

At the same time, the so-called standard deduction (taken by taxpayers who don't itemize deductions) would be raised for married couples to $9,500 so that it's worth twice as much as the $4,750 break single filers get.

Once again, the marriage penalty relief is short-lived and would expire in 2005.

Since I'm not married and don't have kids and don't own stocks, really the only thing that impacts me is my tax bracket will change which is a good thing for me.

Someone called the tax cut a godsend.

Cool. Bush is finally getting the props He deserves.

It should have been bigger!

Control
I'm gonna go buy a gun with my tax break, so I can defend my house. It's the republican safety net.

I'm gonna buy me a gun so I can carjack some Republicans. I'm a coming for you Ken Lay! You hear me?

Good thing Bush is making up for the economic mess that Clinton gave us.

Hectomoo: I'd disagree. I'd say it happened because people finally had confidence in the economy, so they started investing again. This drove the stock prices way up, allowing companies to reinvest.

It made perfect sense to exactly half of our elected congressmen. Remember, the last vote that settled it was the VP. A guy that pretty much rode Bush's coattails (even while pulling Dubya's strings at the same time) and was pretty much an "Oh, yeah, I guess I -am- voting for VP, too." election.

Pr2
Ha! I'll be glad I'm single -- hangover notwithstanding. Shutting up might be a challenge for me, though.

As with any tax cut plan, it has good and bad points. The only good thing for my poor arse is that the prez finally got rid of that dreaded marriage tax.

But as a Gen-X'er, I feel like I will be royally screwed in the future. Think about it. All of the babyboomers will be old (and claiming to live off poor Social Security...which by the way, I will be paying), meaning that all of the younger workers will have to pay for this later.

But then again, does anyone really care about the younger generations? Tax cuts for the rich, no social security for the young.....yeah, were are heading into a great situation.

I would have no problem giving tax breaks to the rich if they spent their money and helped the economy. However, numerous studies have shown that the rich don't spend. They got rich for a reason.....they saved and invested instead of spending.

Heck, even if I was young and rich, I don't know if I would support it. So, let me keep a whole bunch more money and I'll invest it to make more. Then me and my CEO, CFO, and other rich buddies can talk about how much more money we made. Then I find out in a few years that I have to give it (and much more) back to the government since it spent out of its arsehole!!

Hey, I have no problem with tax cuts. But, I'm no idiot. I know if the government doesn't cut expenditures, someone will pay for it in the future.

Solution: Cut taxes and get rid of government.

BigBox: WHich ones can't you answer?

I blame this whole mess on a faltering nationwide educational system. It seems that half of the population of this country do not possess critical thinking skills.

CRUJONES how can you say that clinton farked up the economy?
every single republican president has put the economy in recession. Clinton help the economy for this country and then within 8 months of the bush reign he put us in debt

was wondering when Damon Troll would come through here.

Bigbox30 Light both ends (but don't bend it in half like another poster suggested). When the string is gone it's been 30 seconds.

Redtail1

Yeah, no kidding. This endless pendulum keeps swinging from Democrat to Republican and back again. We never make any progress...

I'm a Republican and I agree wholeheartedly. I think the country would be better-off if we just picked a party and gave it control of the government until it accomplished its goals (whichever party, and whatever goals they may be). At least then, we would know for sure whether we chose the correct party. This constant back-and-forth between the parties can't possibly produce progress, since the parties have vastly differing agendas, and are hindered by each other.

Give one party (I honestly don't care which one) a chance to rule for a while - fifteen or twenty years, maybe - and then we'll see whose ideology is best for America.

Decalogue: Because they believe that the economy doesn't change quickly. This is despite what happened after 9/11 and Bush's election. You know, when the economy instantly changed.

Clinton had a good economy because of what his predecessors did. It seems that Bush farked it up, but it is really just the effects of what Clinton did. It's not a coincidence that the economy has never been better than after twelve years of Reagan/Bush. It trickled down, but Clinton stopped it. Thus the situation we are in now.

Kpar902,7,8,9,14,16 I've been thinking about it for about a day now. I did the rest last night, but i got stuck. I wrote the page today.

Well, I dunno how to take this one. If I made more money, I'd probably be happy. If I had kids, I'd probably be happy. If I owned alot of stock that paid dividends (I have a handful, YTD dividends of $5), I'd probably be happy. I do not partake in most of the social services that my (small in comparison, but huge compared to the bracket below me that pays none) taxes pay for. Even though I don't see it, I do not go to the doctor (once in 5 years for which I had to co-pay) so the money my employer pays for medical insurance is, essentially, another tax that I get little benefit from (currently) -- I'd rather just take the money and pay for medical stuff as I go, but that wouldn't be fair to everyone else that's either always sick or scamming the system.

Oh well.

Anytime you get YOUR money back is a good thing. Don't worry about what someone else is getting worry about yourself. (Tax cut worth several thousand in my pocket) I love it!

Smokescreen
The rich don't spend on disposable goods, they save and invest. Investment is another way of saying that they put money back into building the economy. Investment is giving money to companies so they can improve and expand, creating more jobs. I fail to see the problem with this.

Sig Heil, Mr. Wright

Zippythechimp: I'm not getting jack shiat. Can I worry now?

G026r: You'd have to bend it, that's the only way to light it at the same time with only one match. I think that's the answer. If the fuse was truly unpredictable, how did it get measured at 60 seconds in the first place?

I think there's a glitch in the matrix.

I love it when I hear shiatheads talk like this...

To all you whiny liberals that biatch about tax cuts:
You get to keep MORE OF YOUR OWN MONEY.
It's that simple. If you want to give more money to the government, go ahead and donate it.

and then I read articles like this...

...single taxpayers with no children wont benefit at all.

Hey, youre right! This tax plan kicks ass!

/sarcasm

We're doomed.

Sig Heil, Mr. Wright

If you're agreeing with me, thanks. If you're comparing my idea to Nazism, well, of course whichever party is in control should be checked by the Judicial Branch.

This seems appropriate:

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

***St. Alfonzo/Bigbox30: If you bend it in half and burn both sides at the same time, one half could still burn in less than 30 seconds. The fuse is non-homogenous.***

Actually if you burn both sides, the point that they meet, no matter where it is, will be 30 seconds

x=60
x/2=30

can't mess with math

If any of you digerati have money in a 401K plan, companies keep money = profits for them. Stock goes up = money for you.

whichever party is in control should be checked by the Judicial Branch.

After 20 years of control, I'm sure that would be a balanced judiciary. Kinda like Fox.

Kpar You're right. I missed the one match bit.
I'm used to doing the problem with more than one match where it's assumed the time to light the match is negligible.

Godwin's Law was invoked on 05-23-03 10:59:19 AM

05-23-03 10:44:16 AM Fzumrk

St. Alfonzo/Bigbox30: If you bend it in half and burn both sides at the same time, one half could still burn in less than 30 seconds. The fuse is non-homogenous.

I just meant bend it around so you can light both ends at once. The 30 seconds are up not when one end or the other burns to the bend, but when the fuse is gone.

"This is despite what happened after 9/11 and Bush's election. You know, when the economy instantly changed."

The economy was already on the downturn before 9/11. Didn't you see all your friends being fired and all the huge numbers of layoffs before 9/11? 9/11 happened and it all just accelerated in the direction it was already headed.

Kpar90 G026r Re bending or not bending. i agree that you need to sort of bend it to light it with one match; but if you fold it in half, with the two side touching then it will burn at the speed of the fasted thread. perhaps we could agree that you turn the fuse into a circle.

Aah, Godwin was a farking nazi

Recovering alcoholics like to define "stupidity" as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

This is the third tax cut "to stimulate the economy" that the president has pushed through since taking office in January 2001. The economy remains in shambles. Think about it.

Zed: I never said it wasn't already going down, but you just confirmed my point. 9/11 happened and it all just accelerated in the direction it was already headed. Instant reaction.

After 20 years of control, I'm sure that would be a balanced judiciary.

Okay, even if it were unbalanced (which my faith in the wisdom of judges, and the length of their terms, would cause me to doubt), the party in control would still be open to being voted out. I'm just saying that we as a people should give one party or the other a chance for longer than we have, and see what happens. I'm not suggesting we legislate it.

Redtail: I won't complain because I don't depend on the government to provide anything for me other than national defense -- the only essential program.

So, let me get this straight. If you have a married household income of only 29,000 a year, you still get a 2% federal income tax reduction. How is this just for the rich again?

And if you are married and have a household income of 29,000, I'd highly advise you to go get yourself some more of that edu-ma-cation (Pell grant makes it free!!) so you can get a better job.

Flame away.

BigBox: That's what I meant. It has to burn at the same speed within each half, or else there's no way to gague the 60 seconds and the whole problem is based on a fallacy--that the fuse it inherently incapable of measurement.

Actually I called in Mr. Godwin around 10:57:58, BurnDown.

I woulda used the Chinese Communist salute, but there was never a Chinese version of Colonel Klink.