Clinton on tax cuts

According to AFP, a French news agency, Clinton made this remark on the Sunday talk shows:

On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.

"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," he said.

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

Clinton added: "We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense."

Someone said that Clinton said that he got 4 tax cuts that he did not need.

Here is where the Clinton logic breaks down. He could take that money and put it into savings and allow others to borrow it for investments and jobs. Or he could take that money and start a business himself and hire people. Or he could give that money to charities that are helping others.

Instead Clinton says that the money should go to the government because he doesn't need it and evidently does not know what to do with it. The government would know best....

 

Exactly, Bunyon!

I think that Democrats like Clinton are institutionalized in that they think all decisions concerning resources should be made by the federal government. Clinton is a sophist. It is a real pity to see intellectuals like Clinton without a foundation. I think that a Christian who has money in his hands should be able to act individually for good without insisting that the money be turned over to our pork barrel federal system that looks more and more corrupt as the 19th and 20th centuries fade into history but our desire to spend others' money for our own selfish ends continues. Since 1865 we have looked to the federal government for every little thing. That's just my opinion.

Our tax rates are too high on all economic classes and a fair system would require that everyone pay the same percentage, wouldn't it?

 

Yes, I heard Sean Hannity say something to this effect.

I would invite those of you who fully support the massive federal spending programs of the Administration to do the same. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello, BiR. I see that you are rocking the boat again, or are you trying to sink it?

It is this clintonesque economics that you are talking about that has destroyed Bush. The Democrats and the American public demanded all this spending because they live on government pork and handouts. However, the public has never wanted to take responsibility for their actions since 1932 when the red ink started.

What does Bush care? His family is aristocratic and has been for 4 generations. They are old money. Put yourself in Bush's shoes. If the public is stuck on stupid, what would you do? You would go with the flow and think that there is nothing that an aristocrat can do to deal with this 70 years of redneck economics that believes that borrowing and spending is the path to wealth. The public is giddy and nothing seems to sober them up. They love money.

 

The Wall Street Journal tipped me off to a site called "The Truth Laid Bear" where they have a link called "Porkbusters." It seems that no congressman wants to cut any pork for his district.

Indianapolis is a corrupt city nowadays. They have put their hands out for $12,500,000 for a museum that already is state of the art and has a private endowment. Why the American people should have to pay for this museum project defies logic. Here is what the link said about the wasteful Indianapolis pork project to be paid for by the American people:

This includes creating a passenger drop-off area, relocating the library, extending the walkway over Illinois Street, and creating a new visitors entrance. Indiana Business Journal (8/22/2005) reports: Executives at the nation's largest children's museum, jubilant to land $12.5 million in federal transportation money to improve the safety of its campus, now are trying to live down being labeled a prime example of congressional pork spending. "Why are taxpayers in California and Texas and Massachusetts paying for a museum in Indianapolis?" [said] David Boaz, executive vice president of the Washington-based Cato Institute…. The grant was included in the bill courtesy of Rep. Julia Carson, D-Indianapolis. "The federal government certainly has no business building or modernizing museums in Indiana…,” [wrote Veronique de Rugy, a research scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.] t's not clear why crossing Illinois Street creates a safety hazard for pedestrians. They need not walk on the street at all; from the museum's parking garage, visitors can cross Illinois via the enclosed bridge…. The museum already enjoys one of the largest endowments in the state, upwards of $250 million. "Why is that [museum], No. 1, part of a highway bill and, No. 2, why is it part of a federal highway bill?" Cato's Boaz asked in an IBJ interview.