PDA

View Full Version : So what's in Hillary's tax returns?


HolmeZz
03-06-2008, 09:16 PM
There's obviously something there she doesn't think will sit too well with the public or she would've released them just to quell the controversy. Any guesses?

bango
03-06-2008, 09:54 PM
We might find out that her and her husband are the two wealthiest people on earth.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:13 PM
I think she may be too embarrassed at donating her husbands underwear to Goodwill and be cheap enough to take it as a write off.

SBK
03-06-2008, 10:28 PM
Her tax returns will show her to be a hypocrite about the taxation policies she claims to favor. She'll have taken every break, every loophole and tax avoidance possible, all the while claiming she doesn't need Bushes tax cuts and that rich people should be paying their fair share.

beer bacon
03-07-2008, 05:28 AM
Hillary's tax returns would reveal that she has been funneling millions of dollars into madrassas all over the Middle East. She is one of those secret mooslims.

tiptap
03-07-2008, 06:21 AM
If she gets the nomination then it will be done. Having to do that before taking on the mantle of the Democratic candidate is having to deal with that before one would have to. After all she may not have to. And it will be the 2007 return that is released and that hasn't been filed yet.

Deberg_1990
03-07-2008, 07:19 AM
We might find out that her and her husband are the two wealthiest people on earth.


But, but...i thought the "Common Folk" digged them because they viewed them as one of their own?? :)

chiefforlife
03-07-2008, 08:11 AM
Shouldnt she be required to do so, as a senator also. I thought public officials had to. Maybe Im wrong?

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 08:18 AM
If she gets the nomination then it will be done. Having to do that before taking on the mantle of the Democratic candidate is having to deal with that before one would have to. After all she may not have to. And it will be the 2007 return that is released and that hasn't been filed yet.

Actually, she promised yesterday to release them by April 15th or thereabouts.

tiptap
03-07-2008, 08:22 AM
Actually, she promised yesterday to release them by April 15th or thereabouts.
And that would be the 2007 returns and those only. I can see waiting so you don't have to put out the 2006 and then turn around and put out the 2007 as well. This goes along with my reasoning about looking at this.

patteeu
03-07-2008, 08:32 AM
If she gets the nomination then it will be done. Having to do that before taking on the mantle of the Democratic candidate is having to deal with that before one would have to. After all she may not have to. And it will be the 2007 return that is released and that hasn't been filed yet.

I agree with your last sentence. She'll release the 2007 return after a year of being politically cautious with her finances. What she doesn't want to release are the returns from previous years when her husband got fat on money from evil corporations and foreign entities like Dubai.

patteeu
03-07-2008, 08:33 AM
Actually, she promised yesterday to release them by April 15th or thereabouts.

Did she specifically say she'd release something from 2006 or was it a more ambiguous statement?

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 08:35 AM
Her tax returns will show her to be a hypocrite about the taxation policies she claims to favor. She'll have taken every break, every loophole and tax avoidance possible, all the while claiming she doesn't need Bushes tax cuts and that rich people should be paying their fair share.

It is not hypocritical to use legal methods to reduce one's tax burden.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 08:36 AM
Shouldnt she be required to do so, as a senator also. I thought public officials had to. Maybe Im wrong?


I think (coudl be wrong) that all they need to do is general statements of net worth etc. Very broad, non-specific disclosure.

pikesome
03-07-2008, 08:39 AM
It is not hypocritical to use legal methods to reduce one's tax burden.

It is when your party bitches about the rich not paying their fair share.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 08:44 AM
Did she specifically say she'd release something from 2006 or was it a more ambiguous statement?

I think it's all of them since 2000, but the sources aren't specific.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4373868

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/a_note_on_clintons_tax_returns.php

tiptap
03-07-2008, 08:44 AM
I agree with your last sentence. She'll release the 2007 return after a year of being politically cautious with her finances. What she doesn't want to release are the returns from previous years when her husband got fat on money from evil corporations and foreign entities like Dubai.

I know Republicans think it is cheating to seek changes in legislation that evens the tax burden while presently, under existing laws, pursuing wealth aggressively, but people like their leaders to do well financially. This doesn't have much traction except on the far right. That is because they think the left doesn't like making money. That they aren't willing to seek gain.

I guess you could be looking for the evil tie ends and you can raise Cain about previous years dealings. But you are going to have to do it without any tax records for those years.

tiptap
03-07-2008, 08:50 AM
I think it's all of them since 2000, but the sources aren't specific.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4373868

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/a_note_on_clintons_tax_returns.php

It is just wishful thinking discussed about releasing any returns beyond 2007.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 08:55 AM
It is just wishful thinking discussed about releasing any returns beyond 2007.

I'd be surprised if they don't, especially after being hammered with quotes like this one.

"Rick Lazio can't explain why it took three months to release his taxes. Now he won't come clean with New Yorkers and reveal the real cost of his reckless trillion-dollar tax plan. It's time for Mr. Lazio to stop playing games and start talking straight," - Clinton spokesman, Howard Wolfson, in 2000.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

tiptap
03-07-2008, 09:27 AM
This is the difference between questions involving an indicted individual, with close association with a candidate and the legal, privacy protected actions of the other individual. Now politically you can raise this comparison. The same kind of thing surrounded Truman and he himself benefitted from in political gain from the Pendegast political machine. But Truman himself was not party to the shenanigans and did not defend those illegal actions. He also did not shirk that friendship on the personal level.

Cochise
03-07-2008, 09:29 AM
It would really be a no-win for her, no matter if they are all legally spotless, the pied pipers of the Obama movement are still going to criticize the entire thing in some way or another.
At least, for Clinton, they have at best an argument from silence.

bkkcoh
03-07-2008, 09:35 AM
But, but...i thought the "Common Folk" digged them because they viewed them as one of their own?? :)

They are similar to the Beverly Hillbillies, except they should be called the DC Hillbillies!!!

Shouldnt she be required to do so, as a senator also. I thought public officials had to. Maybe Im wrong?
Absolutley true, they are paid by the public with taxees, they should disclose there tax returns.


Her tax returns will show her to be a hypocrite about the taxation policies she claims to favor. She'll have taken every break, every loophole and tax avoidance possible, all the while claiming she doesn't need Bushes tax cuts and that rich people should be paying their fair share.
Her and Bill have said many times that they have gotten benefit from the tax cuts for the rich, this isn't a surprise. But they also said they would be willing to forgo the tax cuts also to be fair. Isn't that noble of them. I haven't seen where they have written a check to the IRS to make up for the tax cuts they received either.

It would really be a no-win for her, no matter if they are all legally spotless, the pied pipers of the Obama movement are still going to criticize the entire thing in some way or another.
At least, for Clinton, they have at best an argument from silence.

We could only wish that would be all that it took to keep the Clinton's quiet.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 09:39 AM
I think the gay, conservative, HIV-positive guy pretty much covers it.

I can think of several non-scandalous reasons the Clinton's don't want their tax return out:

1. Their gross income is obscene, in the eyes of their key demographic, lunch pail Democrats. Remember how the Kerrys were portrayed in the media as rich and out of touch despite his modest income as a Senator.

2. Their marginal tax rate was relatively low due to the use of creative tax shelters (e.g. Clinton Family Foundation).

and several scandalous:

1- Bill's income from foreigners in unfriendly nations (Kazakhstan, China, Saudi Arabia don't have sister cities with Scranton and Harrisburg);

2- Income from sweetheart stock deals;

3- Income from large contributors, raising stories of influence peddling, especially when the national press starts linking it to her earmarks.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

jettio
03-07-2008, 09:42 AM
I think it will show total income from certain intermediate foundations and companies, but you would have to see the books of those companies to know where that money came from and those books are probably exempt from disclosure under the rules for Presidential candidates.

If Bill Clinton set up his pass-through foundations and companies as tax-exempt, those returns would be always reviewable. My guess is that he probably has those set up as taxable entity and that they have some confidentiality protections.

Hillary's strategy is to disclose as little as possible as late as possible so that reporters will have less time to figure out where the money comes from.

More than likely, Bill has made most of the money charging the market rate for him going somehwere and running his mouth or selling his cachet as an ex-POTUS. No doubt he made some money associating with some potentially embarrassing people, but I doubt if that is apparent from the joint tax return.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 09:51 AM
It is when your party bitches about the rich not paying their fair share.


No, it's not.

Regardless of one's wealth, they can do whatever is legal to reduce their tax burden. It's not the individual's responsibility to maximize their tax payments -- it's the government's responsibility to determine what the rules are, and then let individuals do as they wish WITHIN THE RULES and then pay the applicable tax.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 09:53 AM
Did Hillary ever put the WH furniture back?

bkkcoh
03-07-2008, 09:53 AM
No, it's not.

Regardless of one's wealth, they can do whatever is legal to reduce their tax burden. It's not the individual's responsibility to maximize their tax payments -- it's the government's responsibility to determine what the rules are, and then let individuals do as they wish WITHIN THE RULES and then pay the applicable tax.

But they should bitch about it when other people use the same methods to do the same thing.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 09:55 AM
Absolutley true, they are paid by the public with taxees, they should disclose there tax returns.

Why? Should every mayor, cop and firefighter have their tax returns open to the world to see? Why?

Her and Bill have said many times that they have gotten benefit from the tax cuts for the rich, this isn't a surprise. But they also said they would be willing to forgo the tax cuts also to be fair. Isn't that noble of them. I haven't seen where they have written a check to the IRS to make up for the tax cuts they received either.

Of course they benefitted from the tax cuts for the rich, since they qualify as rich. What obligation did they have to pay more than what they were required to by law?

Are Democrats under some obligation of stupidity to pay more than their legal tax burden?

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 09:57 AM
But they should bitch about it when other people use the same methods to do the same thing.

And usually, they're arguing for a change in the rules, not to hang someone who plays within the current rules. There's a difference between criticizing someone for playing within the rules, and criticizing the rules by using real world examples.

patteeu
03-07-2008, 09:58 AM
I know Republicans think it is cheating to seek changes in legislation that evens the tax burden while presently, under existing laws, pursuing wealth aggressively, but people like their leaders to do well financially. This doesn't have much traction except on the far right. That is because they think the left doesn't like making money. That they aren't willing to seek gain.

I guess you could be looking for the evil tie ends and you can raise Cain about previous years dealings. But you are going to have to do it without any tax records for those years.

What in the name of Dick Cheney are you talking about? Hillary isn't withholding her tax returns because she's afraid of me or Republicans, she's withholding them because she's afraid of what voters in the dem primary might think. I suspect that there are plenty of people in that category who would have a conniption if they found out that Bill was helping Dubai gain influence here.

Why do you think she's withholding her returns?

Cochise
03-07-2008, 09:59 AM
Isn't "they must be hiding something" the kind of rumor-mongering and innuendo that isn't supposed to be coming out of the fresh, new, ubermoral Obaama camp? The same kind of thing as they stomp their birkenstocks about Hillary doing?

chiefforlife
03-07-2008, 10:01 AM
Did Hillary ever put the WH furniture back?

I forgot about that, they took everything that wasnt nailed down.:eek:

bkkcoh
03-07-2008, 10:02 AM
Why? Should every mayor, cop and firefighter have their tax returns open to the world to see? Why?

Good point.

Ok, let me rephrase my comment, if the person is responsible for legislation that impacts the city, state, or country they live, then they should be accountable to their constituents and should be able to show thier returns.

And usually, they're arguing for a change in the rules, not to hang someone who plays within the current rules. There's a difference between criticizing someone for playing within the rules, and criticizing the rules by using real world examples.

But they have complained prior to them being able to take advantage of the rules in play. Granted, that is a slightly different situation, but similar none the less.

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 10:02 AM
Last I checked, Clinton was a politician, therefore, of course there's dirt in her returns. Show me a politician who isnt fudging their returns. Shit, I fudge mine.

All those ****ers in Washington are corrupt. My tax woman does half of Washingtons finest. Believe me, DIRTY!

I dont see any of them, including Obama who benefits from the Bush tax cuts, willing to give ANY of it back.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 10:03 AM
and several scandalous:

1- Bill's income from foreigners in unfriendly nations (Kazakhstan, China, Saudi Arabia don't have sister cities with Scranton and Harrisburg);

what is scandalous about income for either lobbying or speaking? He's helping the trade imbalance!! ROFL

2- Income from sweetheart stock deals;

Which are these, or are you just talking out of your ass?

3- Income from large contributors, raising stories of influence peddling, especially when the national press starts linking it to her earmarks.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

What campaign doesn't have large contributors, which raise stories of influence peddling?

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 10:05 AM
Good point.

Ok, let me rephrase my comment, if the person is responsible for legislation that impacts the city, state, or country they live, then they should be accountable to their constituents and should be able to show thier returns.


What a horrible, horrible idea. What in hell business is it of anybody's how much money someone makes.

I mean, for President, etc., it makes sense. Other high-ranking government officials have to do the same too, and place money in blind trusts, etc., but for the most part, this idea is terrible.

Why would the mayor of Omaha have to tell everyone how much he makes, and why would they care anyway?

Finally, anyone getting illegal income probably isnt' reporting it anyway, so the benefit is a bit questionable to begin with.

Cochise
03-07-2008, 10:06 AM
what is scandalous about income for either lobbying or speaking? He's helping the trade imbalance!! ROFL

No kidding. He makes a lot of money from speaking engagements. Is that a surprise? What's wrong with it? He's a private citizen earning a living. I bet that just about every retired politician does this. If I could rake by just giving a speech once a month, you better believe I'd be doing it.

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 10:11 AM
No kidding. He makes a lot of money from speaking engagements. Is that a surprise? What's wrong with it? He's a private citizen earning a living. I bet that just about every retired politician does this. If I could rake by just giving a speech once a month, you better believe I'd be doing it.

Yeah, and he makes a killing too. I heard its somewhere around a million a pop...excuse all the puns BTW...;-0

pikesome
03-07-2008, 10:13 AM
And usually, they're arguing for a change in the rules, not to hang someone who plays within the current rules. There's a difference between criticizing someone for playing within the rules, and criticizing the rules by using real world examples.

Not a lot of difference. The issue with the taxes isn't that the rich break the rules, it's that their "not paying their share". Or even "redistributing wealth". Add the presumption that those comments are more for winning votes than a real desire to see tax revenue change...

Cochise
03-07-2008, 10:20 AM
Yeah, and he makes a killing too. I heard its somewhere around a million a pop...excuse all the puns BTW...;-0

We should be glad he's overseas and the women of America are safe for a few days at a time.

pikesome
03-07-2008, 10:21 AM
what is scandalous about income for either lobbying or speaking? He's helping the trade imbalance!! ROFL

If it's from the same people who donated to Bill's campaigns... I'd say maybe some. Maybe it's the same group of Chinese donors they've been dealing with before. The guy who's going to jail.

Besides, if Hillary's too stupid to scrub her tax returns maybe she's not suited for the Presidency. I'll guarantee McCain has the smoking guns removed.



Which are these, or are you just talking out of your ass?



What campaign doesn't have large contributors, which raise stories of influence peddling?

That's why we do this in the first place. The assumption is that someone will find misdeeds if there are any. Not releasing them is suspicious, nothing else, since it's tradition for candidates to.

chiefforlife
03-07-2008, 10:21 AM
Isn't "they must be hiding something" the kind of rumor-mongering and innuendo that isn't supposed to be coming out of the fresh, new, ubermoral Obaama camp? The same kind of thing as they stomp their birkenstocks about Hillary doing?

No, in fact, he has been calling for more transparency in government. All she has to do is produce her returns, just as he has.

Cochise
03-07-2008, 10:25 AM
Besides, if Hillary's too stupid to scrub her tax returns maybe she's not suited for the Presidency. I'll guarantee McCain has the smoking guns removed.


I see, we're afraid that maybe she isn't corrupt enough to be the Dem nominee?

pikesome
03-07-2008, 10:34 AM
I see, we're afraid that maybe she isn't corrupt enough to be the Dem nominee?

I know she's corrupt, she's a sitting Congresswoman. If she's going to be La Jefa I'd like her to be smart enough to hide it.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 10:51 AM
No kidding. He makes a lot of money from speaking engagements. Is that a surprise? What's wrong with it? He's a private citizen earning a living. I bet that just about every retired politician does this. If I could rake by just giving a speech once a month, you better believe I'd be doing it.


Word.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 10:57 AM
The issue with the taxes isn't that the rich break the rules, it's that their "not paying their share". Or even "redistributing wealth".

And why is it hypocritical to say these things if you're wealthy? And why is it hypocritical to pay your fair share of tax as determined by the then-existing tax laws?

oh right, it isn't...

Add the presumption that those comments are more for winning votes than a real desire to see tax revenue change...

And yet, when he was President Clinton instituted broad-based tax reform which as weighted more towards putting the burden on the wealthy, which in turn played a role in helping the structural deficits he had inherited, hwich in turn helped the entire economy.

Now, thanks to the current moronic administration, we're back to structural, annual deficits, partly as a result of tax cuts having been given primarily to those who need them the least, and severe limitations on our government's ability to increase spending or cut taxes further now that we're in a down economy. That's not even to speak of the looming entitlements crisis that we're [not] [edit: should be "NOW" not "not"] less able to handle effectively due to BushCo's moronic (mis)management of the federal budget.

a1na2
03-07-2008, 11:12 AM
And why is it hypocritical to say these things if you're wealthy? And why is it hypocritical to pay your fair share of tax as determined by the then-existing tax laws?

oh right, it isn't...



And yet, when he was President Clinton instituted broad-based tax reform which as weighted more towards putting the burden on the wealthy, which in turn played a role in helping the structural deficits he had inherited, hwich in turn helped the entire economy.

Now, thanks to the current moronic administration, we're back to structural, annual deficits, partly as a result of tax cuts having been given primarily to those who need them the least, and severe limitations on our government's ability to increase spending or cut taxes further now that we're in a down economy. That's not even to speak of the looming entitlements crisis that we're not less able to handle effectively due to BushCo's moronic (mis)management of the federal budget.

You disgust me, but then most hard line liberals don't get the picture of what the other side of the house does.

I will not support Bush, but to call him names because you are in disagreement is too low for even you.

I detested some of the things Clinton did but do not disrespect him in like manner as you.

Regardless of who is in office you should hold more respect for the country than what you are showing.

Cochise
03-07-2008, 11:22 AM
You disgust me, but then most hard line liberals don't get the picture of what the other side of the house does.

I will not support Bush, but to call him names because you are in disagreement is too low for even you.

I detested some of the things Clinton did but do not disrespect him in like manner as you.

Regardless of who is in office you should hold more respect for the country than what you are showing.

Settle down Beavis

tiptap
03-07-2008, 11:26 AM
He calls BushCo (short hand for Bush and Co.) actions moronic. I don't see the dis of the Presidency. Just the administration's actions. You are just looking for a fight with Ammorix.

patteeu
03-07-2008, 01:16 PM
And why is it hypocritical to say these things if you're wealthy? And why is it hypocritical to pay your fair share of tax as determined by the then-existing tax laws?

oh right, it isn't...



And yet, when he was President Clinton instituted broad-based tax reform which as weighted more towards putting the burden on the wealthy, which in turn played a role in helping the structural deficits he had inherited, hwich in turn helped the entire economy.

Now, thanks to the current moronic administration, we're back to structural, annual deficits, partly as a result of tax cuts having been given primarily to those who need them the least, and severe limitations on our government's ability to increase spending or cut taxes further now that we're in a down economy. That's not even to speak of the looming entitlements crisis that we're not less able to handle effectively due to BushCo's moronic (mis)management of the federal budget.

I'd be surprised to find out that revenues under Clinton were higher than they are under Bush. Either way though, the biggest difference between the surplus years of the late 90's and the deficit years under Bush is spending. Luckily for Clinton, democrats were held in check by Republicans. Unfortunately for Republicans, there was no one to hold them in check when Bush took over the WH.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 01:19 PM
You disgust me, but then most hard line liberals don't get the picture of what the other side of the house does.

Other side of hte house?

I will not support Bush, but to call him names because you are in disagreement is too low for even you.

No, it's standard operating procedure in politics, and the fact that I truly despise his economic (mis)management of this country since his inauguration does not help. Since I consider sound economic policy to be one of the most important jobs a PResident can have, then it affects my entire opinion of him very strongly.

he's not a bad or evil person. He's just a lousy President, IMHO.

]quote]I detested some of the things Clinton did but do not disrespect him in like manner as you.

Regardless of who is in office you should hold more respect for the country than what you are showing.[/quote]

Really? You weren't one of the Republicans crying for his impeachment? You weren't vilifying him like so many were about things that were both irrelevant and, ultimately, baseless, such as Whitewater?

If so, then you're among the few, and frankly, I'd be very impressed/surprised to find that you weren't calling for his head as loud as anybody else.

I dont' want Bush impeached, or dead. But I firmly regret his election and reelection, and think that he has been a mediocre-at-best President.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 01:47 PM
I'd be surprised to find out that revenues under Clinton were higher than they are under Bush.

Raw income, you're almost certainly right. As a percentage of GDP, I'm sure they're down.

Either way though, the biggest difference between the surplus years of the late 90's and the deficit years under Bush is spending. Luckily for Clinton, democrats were held in check by Republicans. Unfortunately for Republicans, there was no one to hold them in check when Bush took over the WH.

First, even if you wish to give credit to Republicans for holding down spending under Clinton, need i remind you that the Republicans continued to control the purse-stirngs, and often both houses of Congress, for most of Bush's tenure as President, and spending ahs only escalated.

Second, Clinton's policies during the first two years were developed with solid Democratic majorities. The structural reform that went a LONG way towards emphasizing deficit reduction were passed OVER THE REPUBLICANS STRONG objections, and carried despite their votes against.

Many Republican testimonials about the economic damage these tax hikes would cause were made completely absurd by subsequent events. A booming economy resulting in part from sound government finance and deficit/debt reduction which in turn meant more money available for private credit markets to tap, which meant lower interest rates.

Third, it's more than adequately proven over the last 30 years (a LONG track record) that if there is only party in favor of sound government finance, it is the Democratic party. Repbulicans have completely abandoned sound fiscal management of the federal government, instead weakening us for the looming entitlement crises ahead.

FOURTH, it was the Republicans who have watered down Paygo provisions to such an extent that they are nearly meaningless, in order to ensure that their tax cuts got through.

Frankly, it's abhorrent. They wish to cut taxes to appeal to the masses, but lack the testicular fortitude to have corresponding spending cuts. Meanwhile, in addition to weakening our federal government's ability to respond to crises or adjust to the looming entitlement problems, they also do systemic harm to the economy.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 01:50 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>This is worth a read. http://centuryinstitute.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=677

What Everybody Doesn’t Know About Fiscal Responsibility


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>Bernard Wasow, The Century Foundation, 8/17/2004 </TD></TR><TR><TD>http://centuryinstitute.org/images/index/transparent.gif </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>Everybody knows that free spending Democrats need to be reined in or they will bust the budget. Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility while Democrats spend every penny they get, and more. Such has been the conventional wisdom for decades.


There is only one thing wrong with this homily: it flies in the face of the facts. Since the end of the Second World War, every Democratic president has left the national debt smaller relative to GDP than his predecessor. And since Richard Nixon’s second term (completed by Gerald Ford) every Republican has done the opposite, raising the national debt relative to income. There may be no political cliché more blatantly false than the idea that Republicans are fiscally conservative.

George W. Bush—whose tax cuts and spending increases have managed to turn a projected $5 trillion surplus into a $5 trillion deficit—is far from an exception to the fiscal norms of the past 30 years. In fact, both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush racked up bigger accumulations of debt under their watches than the current president.

We cannot evaluate dollars of national debt alone (although almost all the accumulation of national debt over the past 55 years has been under Republican presidents). Inflation and a growing economy make the same dollar amount of debt very different in its significance from one decade to the next. Instead, it is useful to look at debt relative to income. That is what a banker looks at if you apply for a mortgage and it makes sense for evaluating national indebtedness as well.

If your debt is growing, but more slowly than your income, your debt burden is getting lighter even if you owe more dollars. But if your debt is growing faster than your ability to service it (that is, faster than your income) you are skating onto thinner ice.

One way to measure the fiscal responsibility of each president by looking at the growth rate of the national debt held by the public compared to the growth rate of national income under his watch. Applying this standard to the 14 presidential terms from Truman’s 1949-1952 term until today we see a pattern that looks nothing like the conventional wisdom.

The record of Democrats is uniformly conservative: debt grew more slowly than income in all six presidential terms. The excess of income growth over debt growth ranges from 2 percent per year (under Carter and Clinton, in his first term) to 8 percent per year (Clinton’s second term).

Among Republican presidents, Eisenhower and Nixon, in his first term, behaved similarly to Democrats. But then things changed. The next five terms of Republican presidents have been marked by fiscal profligacy and an increasing debt burden. From Nixon-Ford, under whom the national debt grew 2 percent per year faster than national income, through Ronald Reagan, who in his first term saw the national debt grow almost 10 percent per year faster than national income, until today, debt growth has outpaced income growth for five straight Republican terms. Under president George W. Bush, growth of the national debt has exceeded growth of GDP by 5 percent per year.

If we add up what happened under Democrats and Republicans since 1949, Democrats reduced the debt to GDP ratio by a total of 54 percentage points while Republicans raised it by 14 percentage points. Without Dwight Eisenhower’s conservative fiscal approach, the record under Republicans would have been much worse. We should be grateful that Eisenhower was an old-fashioned Republican, preferring the predictions of arithmetic to silly notions like supply-side magic.

This growth of the debt to GDP ratio should be a major concern. When our national debt grows relative to our income, we need a higher tax rate just to collect enough revenues to service the debt. This prospect has not appeared to bother presidents over the last five Republican presidential terms, covering more than a quarter century.

The prospect of an exploding national debt ought to bother the average American family, too. How will we properly care for our aging population if so much of our tax revenue will be needed to service the national debt?

We are told by experts that it 's not facts but perceptions that drive political choices. Let us hope that perceptions are not free floating, that they will eventually align with reality. When this happens, the free ride the Republicans have been getting on fiscal policy should come to an end.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

pikesome
03-07-2008, 02:09 PM
Amnorix, maybe you're right. Maybe Clinton was a wise and financially responsible President. But that National Healthcare the Clinton's tried to pass then and Hillary wants now would have changed all that data greatly don't you think?


None of this explains why she hasn't released her tax filings.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 02:14 PM
Here's an example of what the "thoroughly vetted" candidate doesn't want the public to know about in a timely fashion. And yes, Ammorix, the sale price could actually be legitimate.

Bill Clinton profits from company tied to felon, China

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/NATION/15653289/1001

The spring before his wife began her White House campaign, former President Bill Clinton earned $700,000 for his foundation by selling stock that he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese government, public records show.

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

A spokesman for the William J. Clinton Foundation declined to identify the buyer who was willing to pay so much for a struggling company's stock, saying only that the transaction was handled by a securities broker. It occurred seven months before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her bid to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The spokesman, Ben Yarrow, declined last week to say whether Mr. Clinton knew about the Chinese government's connection to Accoona or the felony fraud conviction of one of the company's founders.

"President Clinton gave a speech; he did not endorse a product," Mr. Yarrow said.

The $700,000 capital gains was listed on the tax returns of Mr. Clinton's foundation that were reviewed by The Washington Times.

The lack of disclosure about the buyer and the general activities of former presidents' foundations troubles some ethics experts.

Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which studies political money and ethics, said even though the law doesn't require former presidents to disclose donations and stock transactions to their foundations, they should do so to avoid the appearance that money was buying special access.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 02:21 PM
Amnorix, maybe you're right. Maybe Clinton was a wise and financially responsible President. But that National Healthcare the Clinton's tried to pass then and Hillary wants now would have changed all that data greatly don't you think?

I'm not an expert in the 1993 universal health care proposals that Clinton supported to disastrous effect, but I do know several things:

1. it was a market-based universal healthcare system. It was not socialized medicine.

2. like it or not, anybody who needs healthcare who can't afford it gets it paid for by the public anyway. The entire medical system, and governments, are burdened by those unable to pay for necessary medical services. These costs are hidden from taxpayers, and very difficult to quantify, but they still exist.

3. our healthcare system is structurally ineffecient and deficient. Massive healthcare reform encompassing insurance, hospitals and everything else is a question of "when", not "if". What the solution is, I don't know, but what we have now is terrible.


I can't quantify the costs the new system would have had on the federal government. I can say that healthcare costs are escalating at unsustanable rates now, and have been for many, many years. Those costs need to be managed better, and simply saying "it's all malpractice insurance because of greedy lawyers" is silly.


None of this explains why she hasn't released her tax filings.


She's said she's GOING to release her tax filings, right? I'm not sure what all the excitement is about. There will be months between her release of the information and when voters decide who the next President is.

pikesome
03-07-2008, 02:27 PM
I'm not an expert in the 1993 universal health care proposals that Clinton supported to disastrous effect, but I do know several things:

1. it was a market-based universal healthcare system. It was not socialized medicine.

2. like it or not, anybody who needs healthcare who can't afford it gets it paid for by the public anyway. The entire medical system, and governments, are burdened by those unable to pay for necessary medical services. These costs are hidden from taxpayers, and very difficult to quantify, but they still exist.

3. our healthcare system is structurally ineffecient and deficient. Massive healthcare reform encompassing insurance, hospitals and everything else is a question of "when", not "if". What the solution is, I don't know, but what we have now is terrible.

I'm not arguing if it was good or bad just that it would have cost a bunch of money. A bunch. It's not an unreasonable position that the surpluses of the Clinton presidency aren't totally because of the President's frugality. It looks like they were trying to find ways to spend it and couldn't.

And no I'm not giving the Repub Congress credit, frugality wasn't their motivation either.





She's said she's GOING to release her tax filings, right? I'm not sure what all the excitement is about. There will be months between her release of the information and when voters decide who the next President is.

I guess she's last and Obama's been hammering at her over it. Makes her look suspicious.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 02:32 PM
Pittsie: It neither passes nor fails the smell test. More facts are needed. He reported the income on his taxes, so he's done what he should have.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 02:44 PM
I guess she's last and Obama's been hammering at her over it. Makes her look suspicious.



Perception is often reality in the nutty world that is Washington DC and national politics. IMHO it's much ado about nothing, but whatever.

I'm not on Clinton or Obama's side. It's just that salvo after salvo against Clinton seems weak to me most of the time. Advice from aides regarding pardons from 1999/2000, whether tax records should be released in March or April, etc. ad infinitum.

a1na2
03-07-2008, 03:11 PM
Perception is often reality in the nutty world that is Washington DC and national politics. IMHO it's much ado about nothing, but whatever.

I'm not on Clinton or Obama's side. It's just that salvo after salvo against Clinton seems weak to me most of the time. Advice from aides regarding pardons from 1999/2000, whether tax records should be released in March or April, etc. ad infinitum.

Both?

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 03:20 PM
Perception is often reality in the nutty world that is Washington DC and national politics. IMHO it's much ado about nothing, but whatever.

I'm not on Clinton or Obama's side. It's just that salvo after salvo against Clinton seems weak to me most of the time. Advice from aides regarding pardons from 1999/2000, whether tax records should be released in March or April, etc. ad infinitum.

It's a legit argument, IMO. She's arguing, in essence, that because I'm the vetted candidate, there's nothing out there to further drive up her unfavorabilily rating. I think Democratic voters have a right to know whether their candidate has the same kind of Cheney/Halliburton ties so demonized by the left.

pikesome
03-07-2008, 03:26 PM
It's a legit argument, IMO. She's arguing, in essence, that because I'm the vetted candidate, there's nothing out there to further drive up her unfavorabilily rating. I think Democratic voters have a right to know whether their candidate has the same kind of Cheney/Halliburton ties so demonized by the left.

Hell, I want someone to ask her about Vince Foster's files. I never have heard an answer that didn't sound like bullshit and that involved her aides directly.

Doesn't really matter, I'm in the ABH camp too. Even if it means McCain.:Lin:

chiefforlife
03-07-2008, 03:27 PM
She's said she's GOING to release her tax filings, right? I'm not sure what all the excitement is about. There will be months between her release of the information and when voters decide who the next President is.

People would like to have this information before they decide who the Democratic nominee is.
She would like to wait until she has the nomination. Makes it seem all that more suspicious...

bkkcoh
03-07-2008, 03:44 PM
People would like to have this information before they decide who the Democratic nominee is.
She would like to wait until she has the nomination. Makes it seem all that more suspicious...

And do you think if there was anything in there that would raise questions, she would release the information?

I would seriously doubt it, if it would help her, she would have done it immediately.