Which of these groups of people will John Kerry raise taxes on if given...?

[A18]

I vote 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

[Nym90]

1 and 2.

[Giant Saguaro]

All classes will pay more, especially if he's to get what he wants. It will cost us mightily. He'll hand it to us pretty hard, I think, but a GOP Congress will fight him. Otherwise, raising taxes is just the moral thing to do if you're an old school liberal, and I think that's awful. The deficit will provide a good excuse. That is one of the first things he would do - make sure we pay more in.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

[ATFFL]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

The part where he pays for tens of trillions of new spending with it.

[??????????]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

And Clinton wasn't going to raise taxes either..then guess what. The largest tax hike in US history.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

1 and 2 and maybe 3 if we have a poor economic situation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

The part where he pays for tens of trillions of new spending with it.

Oh my ing god, you guys are completely out of ing touch with reality.

1. Kerry does not have tens of trillions of new spending, no matter what Bush's partisan hacks say

2. Bush cut revenues like crazy

3. The Bush adminstration has the fastest growing discretionary spending in 40 years

4. The Bush adminstration turned an $87B surplus into a $600 billion deficit.

5. The Bush adminstration turned a projected $5.6T deficit for this decade into a projected $4.5T deficit

6. Bush plans further tax cuts

7. Bush plans further spending hikes

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

And Clinton wasn't going to raise taxes either..then guess what. The largest tax hike in US history.

Clinton never said he'd never raise taxes on people who make less than $200K a year.

[raggage]

Only one and two

[danwxman]

Whoever is President 2008-2012 is going to HAVE to raise taxes dramatically. Bush knows it won't be him...so he doesn't care how much he bankrupts the US government.

[Gabu]

He'll raise everyone's taxes 5000%, then declare that money is abolished, then declare that capitalism is abolished.

[ATFFL]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

The part where he pays for tens of trillions of new spending with it.

Oh my g god, you guys are completely out of g touch with reality.

1. Kerry does not have tens of trillions of new spending, no matter what Bush's partisan hacks say

2. Bush cut revenues like crazy

3. The Bush adminstration has the fastest growing discretionary spending in 40 years

4. The Bush adminstration turned an $87B surplus into a $600 billion deficit.

5. The Bush adminstration turned a projected $5.6T deficit for this decade into a projected $4.5T deficit

6. Bush plans further tax cuts

7. Bush plans further spending hikes

Despite all of the amazingly stupid things you have posted on the forums I have never been rude to you.  Not once.  No matter how often you posted something that proved you were a brain dead idiot I never pointed it out.   Go away, learn some manners, and come back.

Now, for the content of your post, I will refute it for those with the brain power to understand.  You can stop reading here, none of this will make any sense to you, I am sure.

Here is an independent analysis of Kerry's spending and tax proposals.  It estimates he increases the deficit by 2.5 trillion in 10 years.

Here is another with the same conclusion.

What I engaged in is called hyperbole.  I know that is a long word so I will dumb things down for you in the hopes you understand if you are still with me.  Hyperbole is the use of exageration to make a point.

Revenue is growing again following a sharp decline cause by two events.  The first is the tech bubble bursting at the end of Clinton's term and the second is 9-11.  Revenue as a share of GDP is growing again too.

Bush is raising discretionary spending, that is true.  We are back up to levels not seen since, well 1994.    Damn them facts!

The 2004 defecit was $413 billion, not $600 billion.  Darn[/url them [url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041014/ts_nm/economy_budget_dc_4]facts

Kerry also plans tax cuts for the middle class, if you believe him. 

Yes, Bush plans more spending, and I am not thrilled about that.  I would prefer to cut a lot of plans.  he still plans less spending than Kerry.

Now, if you are still with me and all these facts contradicting what you want reality to be have not scared you off, I am going to reiterate my initial point.  Manners: Get some.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

The part where he pays for tens of trillions of new spending with it.

Oh my g god, you guys are completely out of g touch with reality.

1. Kerry does not have tens of trillions of new spending, no matter what Bush's partisan hacks say

2. Bush cut revenues like crazy

3. The Bush adminstration has the fastest growing discretionary spending in 40 years

4. The Bush adminstration turned an $87B surplus into a $600 billion deficit.

5. The Bush adminstration turned a projected $5.6T deficit for this decade into a projected $4.5T deficit

6. Bush plans further tax cuts

7. Bush plans further spending hikes

Despite all of the amazingly stupid things you have posted on the forums I have never been rude to you.  Not once.  No matter how often you posted something that proved you were a brain dead idiot I never pointed it out.   Go away, learn some manners, and come back.

Now, for the content of your post, I will refute it for those with the brain power to understand.  You can stop reading here, none of this will make any sense to you, I am sure.

Here is an independent analysis of Kerry's spending and tax proposals.  It estimates he increases the deficit by 2.5 trillion in 10 years.

Here is another with the same conclusion.

What I engaged in is called hyperbole.  I know that is a long word so I will dumb things down for you in the hopes you understand if you are still with me.  Hyperbole is the use of exageration to make a point.

Revenue is growing again following a sharp decline cause by two events.  The first is the tech bubble bursting at the end of Clinton's term and the second is 9-11.  Revenue as a share of GDP is growing again too.

Bush is raising discretionary spending, that is true.  We are back up to levels not seen since, well 1994.    Damn them facts!

The 2004 defecit was $413 billion, not $600 billion.  Darn[/url them [url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041014/ts_nm/economy_budget_dc_4]facts

Kerry also plans tax cuts for the middle class, if you believe him. 

Yes, Bush plans more spending, and I am not thrilled about that.  I would prefer to cut a lot of plans.  he still plans less spending than Kerry.

Now, if you are still with me and all these facts contradicting what you want reality to be have not scared you off, I am going to reiterate my initial point.  Manners: Get some.

Oh, I'm the stupid one?

$2.5 trillion is less than what Bush proposes in new spending. At least Kerry has a way to pay for at least part of his.

From your chart, you'll notice that discretionary spending went down under Clinton, and that he turned deficits into surpluses.

The $600 billion figure includes the money borrowed from Social Security. We are planning on paying that back, right?

Kerry also plans to cut tax loopholes, and go after tax havens. BTW, did you know that $300 something billion of taxes go unpaid each year? Even a fraction of that money could go a long way to reducing the deficit.

Bushies attacking Kerry for this is beyond just hypocritical.

[patrick1]

From your chart, you'll notice that discretionary spending went down under Clinton, and that he turned deficits into surpluses.

Since when does the President control spending? 

[Napoleon XIV]

Taxes will be raised on everyone via one route or another.  Directly via the income tax is likely to mostly be on catagories 1 and 2 (at least it'll be spun that way), but Payroll taxes and gas taxes will fall on everyone.

Voted for all of them...

[opebo]

Kerry wouldn't raise taxes at all - remember the GOP congress?

Even if he had his way he'd only raise them on the upper class.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry wouldn't raise taxes at all - remember the GOP congress?

Even if he had his way he'd only raise them on the upper class.

I think this is assuming that the Congress isn't a bunch of diehard partisan obstructionists.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Kerry wouldn't raise taxes at all - remember the GOP congress?

Even if he had his way he'd only raise them on the upper class.

Here's the patented liberal tactic.

Congress tries to hold down discretionary spending and refuses massive tax increases.

President vetoes budget and shuts down government.

Liberal media blames it all on Congress.

Congress caves and increases spending/budget.

That's the Clinton approach.

[Nym90]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

And Clinton wasn't going to raise taxes either..then guess what. The largest tax hike in US history.

On those making over $200k/year, yes. On everyone else, no. Which Republicans said at the time would ruin the economy, and wouldn't help balance the budget. Going by supply-side logic, it was argued that tax increases would make the deficit worse.

Some of the speeches made by Congressional Republicans in 1993 about Clinton's economic plan belong on anyone's list of worst predictions of the centruy.

[opebo]

Kerry wouldn't raise taxes at all - remember the GOP congress?

Even if he had his way he'd only raise them on the upper class.

Here's the patented liberal tactic.

Congress tries to hold down discretionary spending and refuses massive tax increases.

President vetoes budget and shuts down government.

Liberal media blames it all on Congress.

Congress caves and increases spending/budget.

That's the Clinton approach.

No, spending grew very slowly under Clinton, much slower than under Bush.  Also Clinton created a surplus, Bush has created a deficit.

[stry_cat]

All classes will pay more, especially if he's to get what he wants. It will cost us mightily. He'll hand it to us pretty hard, I think, but a GOP Congress will fight him. Otherwise, raising taxes is just the moral thing to do if you're an old school liberal, and I think that's awful. The deficit will provide a good excuse. That is one of the first things he would do - make sure we pay more in.

A GOP Congress hasn't stopped Bush from spending out-of-control, don't see why they'd change their habbits now.

[ATFFL]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

The part where he pays for tens of trillions of new spending with it.

Oh my g god, you guys are completely out of g touch with reality.

1. Kerry does not have tens of trillions of new spending, no matter what Bush's partisan hacks say

2. Bush cut revenues like crazy

3. The Bush adminstration has the fastest growing discretionary spending in 40 years

4. The Bush adminstration turned an $87B surplus into a $600 billion deficit.

5. The Bush adminstration turned a projected $5.6T deficit for this decade into a projected $4.5T deficit

6. Bush plans further tax cuts

7. Bush plans further spending hikes

Despite all of the amazingly stupid things you have posted on the forums I have never been rude to you.  Not once.  No matter how often you posted something that proved you were a brain dead idiot I never pointed it out.   Go away, learn some manners, and come back.

Now, for the content of your post, I will refute it for those with the brain power to understand.  You can stop reading here, none of this will make any sense to you, I am sure.

Here is an independent analysis of Kerry's spending and tax proposals.  It estimates he increases the deficit by 2.5 trillion in 10 years.

Here is another with the same conclusion.

What I engaged in is called hyperbole.  I know that is a long word so I will dumb things down for you in the hopes you understand if you are still with me.  Hyperbole is the use of exageration to make a point.

Revenue is growing again following a sharp decline cause by two events.  The first is the tech bubble bursting at the end of Clinton's term and the second is 9-11.  Revenue as a share of GDP is growing again too.

Bush is raising discretionary spending, that is true.  We are back up to levels not seen since, well 1994.    Damn them facts!

The 2004 defecit was $413 billion, not $600 billion.  Darn[/url them [url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041014/ts_nm/economy_budget_dc_4]facts

Kerry also plans tax cuts for the middle class, if you believe him. 

Yes, Bush plans more spending, and I am not thrilled about that.  I would prefer to cut a lot of plans.  he still plans less spending than Kerry.

Now, if you are still with me and all these facts contradicting what you want reality to be have not scared you off, I am going to reiterate my initial point.  Manners: Get some.

Oh, I'm the stupid one?

$2.5 trillion is less than what Bush proposes in new spending. At least Kerry has a way to pay for at least part of his.

From your chart, you'll notice that discretionary spending went down under Clinton, and that he turned deficits into surpluses.

The $600 billion figure includes the money borrowed from Social Security. We are planning on paying that back, right?

Kerry also plans to cut tax loopholes, and go after tax havens. BTW, did you know that $300 something billion of taxes go unpaid each year? Even a fraction of that money could go a long way to reducing the deficit.

Bushies attacking Kerry for this is beyond just hypocritical.

Of course the Kerry proposal assumes we stop paying immediately for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of them show up in his budget proposal at all

According to the CBO the 10 year prjected debt from Bush is 2.3 trillion.  If we remove Iraq and Afghanistan, as the Kerry budget does, the Bush deficit is .9 trillion over 10 years.

Although CBO's baseline projections cannot incorporate possible policy changes, this report shows the budgetary implications over the next 10 years of some alternative policy assumptions. For example, the assumption that current funding for activities in Iraq and Afghanistan does not continue after 2004 shrinks the projected 10-year deficit from $2.3 trillion to $0.9 trillion. Debt held by the public at the end of 2014 drops from 36.6 percent of GDP to 28.9 percent.

Reality is likely to lie somewhere inbetween the two figures.  Kerry would have to add up to 1.4 trillion to his budget to pay for continuing operations unless he plans to pull out the instant the current supplemental appropriations bill runs out.

[David S]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

The part where he pays for tens of trillions of new spending with it.

Oh my g god, you guys are completely out of g touch with reality.

1. Kerry does not have tens of trillions of new spending, no matter what Bush's partisan hacks say

2. Bush cut revenues like crazy

3. The Bush adminstration has the fastest growing discretionary spending in 40 years

4. The Bush adminstration turned an $87B surplus into a $600 billion deficit.

5. The Bush adminstration turned a projected $5.6T deficit for this decade into a projected $4.5T deficit

6. Bush plans further tax cuts

7. Bush plans further spending hikes

Despite all of the amazingly stupid things you have posted on the forums I have never been rude to you.  Not once.  No matter how often you posted something that proved you were a brain dead idiot I never pointed it out.   Go away, learn some manners, and come back.

Now, for the content of your post, I will refute it for those with the brain power to understand.  You can stop reading here, none of this will make any sense to you, I am sure.

Here is an independent analysis of Kerry's spending and tax proposals.  It estimates he increases the deficit by 2.5 trillion in 10 years.

Here is another with the same conclusion.

What I engaged in is called hyperbole.  I know that is a long word so I will dumb things down for you in the hopes you understand if you are still with me.  Hyperbole is the use of exageration to make a point.

Revenue is growing again following a sharp decline cause by two events.  The first is the tech bubble bursting at the end of Clinton's term and the second is 9-11.  Revenue as a share of GDP is growing again too.

Bush is raising discretionary spending, that is true.  We are back up to levels not seen since, well 1994.    Damn them facts!

The 2004 defecit was $413 billion, not $600 billion.  Darn[/url them [url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041014/ts_nm/economy_budget_dc_4]facts

Kerry also plans tax cuts for the middle class, if you believe him. 

Yes, Bush plans more spending, and I am not thrilled about that.  I would prefer to cut a lot of plans.  he still plans less spending than Kerry.

Now, if you are still with me and all these facts contradicting what you want reality to be have not scared you off, I am going to reiterate my initial point.  Manners: Get some.

Oh, I'm the stupid one?

$2.5 trillion is less than what Bush proposes in new spending. At least Kerry has a way to pay for at least part of his.

From your chart, you'll notice that discretionary spending went down under Clinton, and that he turned deficits into surpluses.

The $600 billion figure includes the money borrowed from Social Security. We are planning on paying that back, right?

Kerry also plans to cut tax loopholes, and go after tax havens. BTW, did you know that $300 something billion of taxes go unpaid each year? Even a fraction of that money could go a long way to reducing the deficit.

Bushies attacking Kerry for this is beyond just hypocritical.

When you include money stolen ( er ... borrowed) from trust funds then there never was a surplus under Clinton or any other president after Eisenhower. If there had been a true surplus then the national debt would have gone down, but it went up every single year Clinton was in office.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Its also true that the deficit last year was about $600 billion when you include SS trust fund borrowing.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

What part of he'll only raise taxes on people who make over $200K don't you Republicans understand?

Why should I believe the promises of a career politician?