Who cares what they cut, most social spending is not authorized Constitutionally. "Houston, we have a problem"
A cry heard frequently. Yet even conservative courts haven't found it unconstitutional. All a matter of how you define the scope and intent of the preamble.
It's retro-active, besides, why would you care, you think the MASSIVE clinton tax INCREASE at the beginning of his term was the best thing since sliced bread.
What Clinton (or Reagan) did isn't germain One analysis that has to be done is to look at long range effects as both a best and worst case scenario. "I'll worry tomorrow" is what got us in this mess.
Announcing a tax cut without first presenting a budget may be good politics. It makes little economic sense.
What's stupid is trying to train them for anything besides government work. Job training is the duty of private business.(I think otherwise you could call it corporate welfare)
One which they are all too willing to push off on the Federal or State government. Have the tax payers foot the bill and they reap the benefits. Which is truly corporate welfare.and the purpose of Workforce Development Boards. Quoting 2-3% unemployment is to use flawed statistics as the Labor Department stops counting people after a year of being unemployed and doesn't dela with underemployment at all.
They just don't like large FEDERAL government. The states can be a liberal as they want. What's wrong with that?
Just that W's other efforts aren't aimed in that direction. FB charities are, after all, federally funded. So far, no one has rushed to repeal any of the legislation that mandates State run (and often funded) welfare.
Then you get into the problem of regional recessions nad how to deal with that on a State by State basis. In dollar amounts (the high EARNERS pay so much more, their break is bigger) Did she flunk basic math?
21% (or 32%) of the wealth, 43% of the tax benefits. Did you? And remember that what is being reformed is income tax, not payroll tax.
There is no transfer of taxation IT'S A SURPLUS!!
First, it's a projected surplus based on a number of best case assumptions. And we still have a $6 trillion plus deficit. Directly or indirectly the nation enjoyed the benefits of it, now we should pay the piper.
"According to the Census Bureau, 3.7 million Americans suffer from hunger as a result of being unable to buy basic foods. About 9 million households have "uncertain access to food." I find that truly vulgar So would I, if I thought it were true.
Why not? What if it is?
If the statistics Ivans quotes were true, who has been in charge for the last eight years and allowed this to happen??? THE DISINGENUOUS DEMOCRATS!!!!!!
I though we had a Republican Congress? Or is it less logical. Lets see, the deficit wasn't the Republican President Reagan or Bush's fault because the democrats were in control of congress. But the Republicans get credit for the recovery because they were in control of congress. Is sense a basic illogic here. May I assume that if the situation was reversed, the Democratic president would get blamed for the deficit and the Republican President would get credit for the recovery?