Tell me...What would YOU do about this economic mess?

How so? I've heard that said before.

 

Now what were Clinton's economic policies that would get us "out of this mess in a hurry?"

 

Taxing the rich who can't leave or offshore to death to pay for the monstrosity of a state, verses just letting it go bankrupt. It all adds up to the fall of a great nation, just merely a different side of the globalist puppet coin.

 

Gingrich didn't pass the tax increase. To the contrary, he and the Republicans fought against the tax increase and fought for massive tax cuts that were mostly thwarted by Clinton's veto power, until 2001.

What happened to those deficit hawks when Clinton left office in 2001?

 

Increasing taxes and decreasing (proportionately) military spending were the two major ones.

 

Yes, increasing taxes is always a good way to stimulate the economy. Your bogus claim has no recognition with reality. Everyone knows that the house ran the country and Clinton just signed on while playing with Lewinski.

 

As of 2010, tax revenue was approxmately 2.162 trillion dollars, or 14.9% of the GDP. Federal outlays was approximately 3.456 trillion dollars, or 23.8% of the GDP.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Based upon the massive difference between revenue and outlays, taking an all-of-the-above approach on spending cuts and taxation is necessary to decrease the gap between revenue and spending in order to lower to deficit.

Last year, The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform would propose an all-encompassing plan involving different ways to raise more revenue while reducing taxes. Some of their proposals included:

1. Creaton of a comprehensive tax reform law passed by 2012.
2. Elminating all forms of tax expenditures (these aren't tax increases)
3. Utilize increased revenue from decreased tax spending to lower marginal tax rates and reduce the deficit.
4. Cutting tax rates across the board after a decrease in tax spending.
5. Utilizing a significant portion of excess revenue for pay down our deficit.
6. Adding pro-growth tax expenditures for the housing market, low-income families, etc.
7. Decrease the amount of tax brackets yet maintain progressivity
8. Eliminate the Alternate Minimum Tax
9. Eliminate PEP and Pease
10. Break the gap between Capital Gains and Income taxes

These are just a few of the vague recommendations the Commission made. Their December 2010 report explains them much better:

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sit...files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

I agree with most aspects of the December 2010 report, but I also feel we can do more to implement new and innovative tax policy that would require less law-making but possibly better results. Furthermore, when trying to resolve our economic problems, we must consider tax cuts, tax reform, tax innovation, and tax increases, all in a pragmatic and realistic manner.

 

Unfortunately, that plan targets Americans only..IE screwing over the taxpayer..how about eliminating foreign aid? How about slapping tarriffs on anything that comes into the US from China? How about handing a bill to Mexico for all the illegal alien welfare?

 

You could also scale back military spending and our military influence on a large scale. Withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan at a faster rate is a starting point. However, we can go one step further, and sell some of our military bases in Europe that are of no strategic importance. We can also stop financing the maintaining of the NATO nuclear sharing program on foreign soil. If we need a level of brinksmanship in the form of nuclear weapons, keep our weapons on our soil.

Furthermore, protectionism in any shape or form will deter economic growth. Free yet fair trade is an appropriate way for a nation to conduct itself in such a globally connected economy. What you can do is provide corporations with a reason to produce in the United States, without isolating yourself from the global economy. One way to accomplish this is by lowering corporate tax rates. You can also lower the marginal income tax rates for all Americans,which the Bole-Simpson Commission plan does. Providing corporations with a reason to do business in the United States should increase production of goods and services, and if marginal income tax rates or lowered, an increase in capital investment in those goods and services should increase.

Next, to stimulate growth in new and innovative, as well as key job sectors, tax cuts can be imposed retroactively on specific interested corporations and businesses to encourage renewable energy and infrastructure development. In accordance with this tax cut in the renewable energy sector, after the corporate income tax is elminated, a pro-environment carbon emissions tax can be imposed on specifically big oil corporations to improve air quality, ecosystem development, etc. Many big oil corporations invest in renewable energy, and the technology is available, but it is not being exploited for positive environmental and economic use on a large-scale. A carbon emissions tax would help deter our utilization of foreign oil if phased in over 5 to 10 years at a low yet increasing rate. Hopefully, if technology after 10 years of this phased-in and phased out tax has been developed by large-scale technology corporations such as Google or Microsoft due to a tax cut we imposed on them, the costs of production of renewable energy technology should decrease, and big oil will then become part of our new alternative fuel revolution. Essentially, this a two part initiative that will start wth primarily technology corporations,and will end with big oil corporations.

Furthermore, if you have any comprehensive action items to implement what you feel this nation should do, I would love to hear them.

 

Increasing taxes is a great way to reduce the budget.

Businesses seemed to respond favorably the competent budget management during the Clinton administration. Seems to me that is good for the economy, but it's not something one could prove.

 

Eliminating tax expenditures, tax loopholes, lowering marginal tax rates, lowering corporate tax rates are also great ways to reduce the budget in accordance with appropriate spending cuts. The Bole-Simpson Commission report indicates that the three aforementioned policies along with elimination of the alternative minimum tax, PEP, and Pease, could reduce the deficit to zero by 2035.

 

Please explain how lowering tax revenues is a great way to reduce a deficit.

 

Lowering tax rates does not equate to lowering tax revenues. Google "The Laffer Curve"

 

Excuse me while I'm laffering out loud.

 

Slick Willy was the one to give China "Favored Nation" trading status. He also gave the Chinese significant amounts of military, nuclear and missile delivery technology in return for campaign contributions. He's still getting contributions from the Chinese through his foundation.

Bill Clinton was, and is, a traitor.

 

Lowering revenue does not reduce the deficit, what does is eliminating tax expenditures, which prevents adequate revenue from being collected, along with comprehensive tax reform that eliminates loopholes. Furthermore, appropriate tax increases that break the gap between capital gains and income can increase federal revenue and investment capital. On the other hand, tax cuts for small businesses and corporations free up money for capital investment in this nation, and lowering of marginal tax rates in accordance with elimination of tax expenditures and tax loopholes allows the government to generate more revenue without drastically raising income taxes and provide more capital for investment in products and goods.

 

It does if tax loopholes and expenditures are still in place. The tax system becomes much more efficient if you eliminate these two factors. The Bole-Simpson December 2010 commission proposal would have accomplished this if implemented.

 

I didn't assume anything and you misread my post!

I didn't talk about anything whatsoever to do with taxes! Why...because as I said in my post which you did not read, not a single person has the slightest idea how the federal government actually should function, and without knowing this, you cannot possibly talk about taxes! Are we a nation who prefers to be in five unprovoked and preemptive wars? If the answer is YES, then we need taxes to pay in full the cost of these wars. If the answer is NO, then we know we might only need $500 billion for military spending instead of $800 billion. And so on and so forth for every aspect of federal government...

 

Well, the beauty about politics is that it is completely subjective, and that every policy, every ideology, and all rhetoric is legitimate. Therefore, as you stated, our policy will be based upon the direction that the American people and our politicians want to take this nation in each aspect of government. There is no single objective way that government should function. The closest thing we have to this is the United States Constitution, but it is also subjective. Every human-made thought is subjective because we are a subjective form of life.

 

This needs to be rephrased to sound more cogent. What I meant to say was instead of "eliminating tax expenditures which prevents adequate revenue from being collected" is eliminating tax expenditures, which will allow adequate revenue to be collected.

 

So increasing taxes actually led to the economic boom of the 90's? Good grief why did the administration push for the renewal of those Bush tax cuts back in December? He should have let them expire so taxes would increase to pull us out of this stagnate economy!

Of course Obamacare does have over $400 billion in tax increases (over 10 years) that went into effect in January. Maybe those tax increases will be enough to pull us out of this mess?

As for defense, the collapse of the cold war lead to a plan to reduce defense expenditures before Clinton even took office, so I guess the best that can be said is that he didn't get in the way. So I guess there are no military threats now that we need to worry about?

 

Tell me, would you go to work if you had to pay 95% tax?

Could we fund government on a 1% tax?

The Laffer Curve is a legitimate economic tool. There are many principles and fundamentals in life that are timeless. Excessive taxation and government control are not condusive to liberty and prosperity.