Obama vs. JFK on taxes

One of the hot-button political issues right now is the 2001/2003 tax cuts and the impact of letting them expire at the end of the year. Democrats have raised questions about the wisdom of sticking with the "economic policies of the past." And it's true - tax cuts are an economic policy from the past, but not in the way you might think. It turns out there's actually a debate between Democratic presidents about just what these tax cuts mean for the economy...and in less than two minutes, this video highlights that debate.

• Category

  News & Politics

[space912]

Definitely no longer the same party, the Democrats were caught by Marxists

[William John McCloskey]

EVERYTHING WWAS REGULATED. Ameriquest managed to get around RESPA by creating boiler remote boiler rooms across the country. Again, I blew the whistle on Ameriquest and Wilimington Finance, neither have which would have existed if the CRA had not been kicked up a notch. CRA set the standard and created those monsters - neither of which did purchase loans - they churned out refi loans - all based on fraud and upselling.

[Mr101VM]

Yeah, it's basic Micro/Macro Economics - hoarding wealth causes recession depression. What happens when you keep tax rats the same in a recession or raise them? You make the problem worse. Go back to school and minor in Business please.

[RavenMichaels]

Play the whole clip of JFK talking about the tax cuts. He says that that the appropriate time for tax cuts is during a time when not already in a recession.

[100aegir]

he hasn´t invadet libya, and he came into office being given a trillion dollar deficit

[Illya Lypyak]

Two different economic times

[Unit01232]

0:57 Wasnt Obama the one that added a trillion dollars do the deficit by spending more and invading Libya,etc???

[manyworlds]

Here you're just passing off the words of McClatchy's David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall as your own—priceless. Not only are you a wingnut hack, you're also a plagiarist. Not that I disagree with Goldstein and Hall, and in fact I'd go further to say that essentially you just admitted here what you wouldn't at the beginning: that "unregulated players" caused the collapse. Well done.

[manyworlds]

Another myth. Your posts are laden with them. Clinton's 1995 changes were directed at banks; the default record under CRA, while not perfect (as I've said), didn't foster a systemic collapse. Not one corrupt lender has fingered CRA in the numerous private and class-action lawsuits that have been filed since 2008. Independent mortgage companies were *never subject to the law.* Put simply, so you can understand it: CRA didn't make them lend. Profit motive did. You're a troll to believe otherwise.

[William John McCloskey]

My manager at Ameriquest did not even know what RESPA stood for.