Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567
Results 121 to 138 of 138
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    If we're talking Martha, she got a $30,000 fine.



    http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/16/news...ncing/?cnn=yes
    That's what I had thought.
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    If we're talking Martha, she got a $30,000 fine.



    http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/16/news...ncing/?cnn=yes

    She was worth NORTH of a billion when the indictments came down ---

    south of 300 million at the low --

    (not googling -- off top of head )
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/24/2005 at 10:21 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    She was worth NORTH of a billion when the indictments came down ---

    south of 300 million at the low --

    (not googling -- off top of head )
    ...off top of head = lazy journalism
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The SEC has a whole gamut of uncomfortable CIVIL sanctions -- NON CRIMINAL)

    A broker could lose their license, a Corporate officer could be forced off the board, made to resign their position, fines, etc.

    the company could be delisted --- big -- but non-criminal stuff...

    but I'm at a disadvantage here talking about your american laws --

    I know much more the French -- I wrote them, after all ....
    So are you implying by this that when the SEC brought insider trading charges against her that, at the time, they didn't know that she wasn't an employee, executive, board member, or relative of any of those, and dropped the charges later when they found out otherwise???

    As I said before, prosecutors will go after what they think they can get a conviction on, not necessarily what they believe happened. If they believed that she was guilty of insider trading but knew that they would have a hard time making the charges stick, they aren't under any obligation to pursue those charges. And a lot of times they'll go after something they know they can make stick just to get the 'W'.

    It's just like Al Capone going to tax evasion, not murder or racketeering.

    I don't think so.

    If the SEC felt they had probable cause to bring insider trading charges against her, then they knew the score BEFORE they brought up the charges, not guessed wrong and then dropped them.
    I'm back!
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    So are you implying by this that when the SEC brought insider trading charges against her that, at the time, they didn't know that she wasn't an employee, executive, board member, or relative of any of those, and dropped the charges later when they found out otherwise???

    As I said before, prosecutors will go after what they think they can get a conviction on, not necessarily what they believe happened. If they believed that she was guilty of insider trading but knew that they would have a hard time making the charges stick, they aren't under any obligation to pursue those charges. And a lot of times they'll go after something they know they can make stick just to get the 'W'.

    It's just like Al Capone going to tax evasion, not murder or racketeering.

    I don't think so.

    If the SEC felt they had probable cause to bring insider trading charges against her, then they knew the score BEFORE they brought up the charges, not guessed wrong and then dropped them.
    not completely sure I understand your question -- there are 2 seperate enforcement mechanisms -- US Attorney handles the criminal -- SEC has prime responsibility for civil.

    The Civil "bar" is much lower than the criminal.

    Had the SEC sanctioned her for what she: a CEO of a major publicly traded billion+ dollar company, and former stock broker -- did, I would have said:

    "you got what ya deserved".

    They could have made her pay a massive fine, suspended her from corporate positions for a time. They CAN even delist companies when they do stuff sufficiently egregious. (hers was a personal, not corporate misdeed.)

    What she did was attempt to hide something embarrassing, stupid, and wrong. She knew better -- and tried to hide it.

    But it was all too reflective of what went down (as it were) on Bill Clinton -- using a negligible harm -- and inflating and arousing it into the crime of the century -- for the purpose of having THE TABLOID SHOW TRIAL OF THE CENTURY.

    The agenda behind the Martha persecution was to use this uppity Btch to divert the strutting around free, of junior's best friends.

    The Clinton witch hunt was to undermine his presidency -- and reenforce the christian right's power.

    It did not matter a wit to them, that this weakened his hand in his dealing with terrorism, Osama Bin Laden etc -- though he did a real good job despite them.


    disclaimer:

    my law don't apply here --- except for Louisiana
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #126  
    I have searched and finally found a picture of Barye. He's in a park...maybe with his daughter or niece....














































    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I have searched and finally found a picture of Barye...

    I've been running -- for the the last few hours I've running -- this is the first chance I've had a chance to write -- I'msorry -- I'msorry --- I'moutofbreath outof breath...

    holdon hold on --

    you thought you'd get me didn't you -- didn't you !?!!

    I smelled them just as they started knocking down the door --

    I got out, I got away -- I'm not going to tell you how...

    Who sold me out ?? where did you get that picture ??

    that's from 2 years ago -- that 2 yr old picture --- I look nothing like that now !!

    in case you're wondering -- I've been working out -- I've lost a lot of weight. And my friends from the Monkey Protection Program gave me a new colour, a new flavour -- I look and taste nothing like I used to --

    and that chick in that picture -- part of my security detail. Or she was...

    That stupid disguise -- she's in her 30's divorced... Let me ask you -- you're locked up seeing the same faces every day -- you're islolated ...

    Those phone calls -- she called me -- those were HER fantasies -- Heck -- I don't even know what a "Loofa" is ...

    She's the one who sold me out wasn't it !! That's where you got my picture !!

    Well you missed again Monkey Man --

    Munk YOU !!!



    (my woeful tale ...)
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/25/2005 at 01:01 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I've been running -- for the the last few hours I've running -- this is the first chance I've had a chance to write -- I'msorry -- I'msorry --- I'moutofbreath outof breath...

    holdon hold on --

    you thought you'd get me didn't you -- didn't you !?!!

    I smelled them just as they started knocking down the door --

    I got out, I got away -- I'm not going to tell you how...

    Who sold me out ?? where did you get that picture ??

    that's from 2 years ago -- that 2 yr old picture --- I look nothing like that now !!

    in case you're wondering -- I've been working out -- I've lost a lot of weight. And my friends from the Monkey Protection Program gave me a new colour, a new flavour -- I look and taste nothing like I used to --

    and that chick in that picture -- part of my security detail. Or she was...

    That stupid disguise -- she's in her 30's divorced... Let me ask you -- you're locked up seeing the same faces every day -- you're islolated ...

    Those phone calls -- she called me -- those were HER fantasies -- Heck -- I don't even know what a "Loofa" is ...

    She's the one who sold me out wasn't it !! That's where you got my picture !!

    Well you missed again Monkey Man --

    Munk YOU !!!



    (my woeful tale ...)
    Morning
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Morning

    I, I -- I might need a change of clothes -- a place -- some place safe -- I just need to lay low for a few days --

    do you know anything -- I left my money -- -- have like ten dollars -- I got like nothin ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The last 25 years have seen a dramatic inversion of this democratic idea.

    At about the time of reagan '79, the top 5 percent on average had 11 times the average income of the bottom 20 percent. By the year 2000, that ratio increased to 19 times.

    In '98 the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.
    It is interesting to note that the time period you quote is the exact time period of a brand new economic industry unlike the history of the world has ever seen.....the Computer / Electronics age economy. If you took all the Computer related wealthy people out of those stats ( i.e. all of the execs from Microsoft, IBM, .Coms, etc...) I wonder if the ratio would be more in line with the historical growth of that ratio. In other words there is no other time in history to compare this unique time from when the PC was first introduced in 1980 to the present.

    If you have not taken these factors with no history to compare it to, then I think your point you are trying to make with these figures to blame Reagan and Rep are flawed.

    One of our society's mechanisms for sharing its burdens, and dampening the multi generational leverage that inherited wealth confers -- was the Estate Tax.

    It in no way made the children poor -- but it was a means of lessening their advantage and the weight the middle class citizens bore for taxation.
    I think I would have to disagree. I am by no means wealthy. But I have been smart. Just my value from insurance alone, let alone my personal investments, savings, etc...., would put me at risk at paying up to 50% of what I have planned to give to my family in the unfortunate event of my untimely death. In fact I have been forced to plan for the welfare of my family with full expectation of them losing that right off the top, which makes it SOOOO much more challenging for a person of average means like myself to not feel the crunch any death tax in any form by any name.

    I need help with the statistical support -- but the essence of the repugs program since regean has been to simultaneously remove both Capital Gains and Estate Taxes -- while seeking to enact what they call the "consumption" tax.

    The concentration of wealth, power, and influence that has resulted is irrefutable. The rise to power and influence of the repugnican right has followed.
    This has been a fueled debate for decades and has been getting hotter recently with actually half serious talk of flat tax, eliminating Capital Gains, etc.... It does seem to bare true that a (smartly targetted and with limits) reduction in taxes can and has give the economy a boost as more money is put back into it....which seems to give diehard Dems the worst case of the hives if that thought even crossed their minds. A train of thought is how many more people would invest more (or even start for the first time) if there was no Capital Gains tax. There is no doubt I would significantly. That then gives companies more money to research, grow, expand, hire more people, etc... The loss of Capital Gains tax can then be made up from the increase of payroll taxes, production, sales, ect....
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    again my major focus is on how it distorts the political process --- how when one side has disproportionate resources to buy the justice or outcome they desire, the country becomes less egalitarian, less democratic.

    When one side is able to buy press, buy politicians, and buy tax code changes -- that itself gives them the resources to buy more influence to make more money, to then lobby on behalf of social issues (like banning the choice of an abortion) by buying the best talking point SCREAMING HEADS that money can buy ...

    it matters -- its insidiously corrosive -- and incredibly revealing that most of you don't perceive it ...
    You do realize that the Left, with much aid from Hollywood types, historically do have more money than those causes on the Right? I means 10 times or more money, depending on the cause. For example (and I am quoting from a top of the hour radio CNN news I heard on the radio) in preparation for the next Supreme Court appoinment battle the Left had nearly 15 time more money to fight against a conservative nominee than the Right had to fight for him.
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It is interesting to note the the time period you quote is the exact time period of a brand new economic industry unlike the history of the world has ever seen.....the Computer / Eltronics age economy. If you took out all the Computer related wealth people out of those states ( i.e. all of the execs from Microsoft, IBM, .Coms, etc...) I wonder if the ratio would be more in line with the historical growth of that ratio. In other words there is no other time in history to compare this unique time from when the PC was first introduced in 1980 to the present.

    If you have not taken this factors with no history to compare it to, then I think your point you are trying to make with this figures to blame Reagan and Rep are flawed.

    I think I would have to disagree. I am by no means wealthy. But I have been smart. Just my value from insurance alone, let alone my personal investments, savings, etc...., would put me at risk at paying up to 50% of what I have planned to give to my family in the unfortunate event of my untimely death. In fact I have been forced to plan for the welfare of my family with full expectation of them losing that right off the top, which makes is SOOOO much more challenging for a person of average means to not feel the crunch any death tax in any form by any name.

    This has been a fueled debate for decades and has been getting hotter recently with actually half serious talk of flat tax, eliminating Capital Gains, etc.... It does seem to bare true that a (smartly targetted and with limits) reduction in taxes can and has give the economy a boost as more money is put back into it. A train of thought is how many more people would invest more (or even start for the first time) if there was no Capital Gains tax. There is no doubt I would significantly. That then gives companies more money to research, grow, expand, hire more people, etc... The loss of Capital Gains tax can then be made up from the increase of payroll taxes, production, sales, ect....

    you've been missing !!

    I confess I haven't had the time or the skilz to successfully google the statistics that I remember having read -- statistics that are more current and more dramatic as to the proportion of the national wealth being tilted toward a smaller and smaller part of our society.

    junior's tax cuts have surely accelerated that trend.

    Any tax plan that increases the burden on payroll and sales (consumption) taxes is INHERENTLY regressive -- INHERENTLY benefitting those with the most wealth, hurting those with the least.

    It is unimaginable that a flat VALUE ADDED tax (which many repugs are advocating) would do anything but further protect the wealthy while impoverishing those least able to afford it.

    Most middle class people barely afford what they have. They need 2 paychecks to get through the month -- and they are usually one layoff, one sick wife or child -- from disaster.

    Capital gains taxes have been reduced incredibly over the last 25 years, as have inheritance taxes, and taxes on home sales.

    Social Security and wage taxes for the middle class have instead creeped up (partially because of indexing distortions), middle class pensions have been bankrupted, and worker benefits have been slashed.

    Even those working for large profitable companies have had to pay larger and larger percentages of their INFLATING heath care expenses.

    Virtually all the repugs benefits are unaffordable to these people.

    CLinton RAISED TAXES modestly on the rich -- balanced the budget -- and brought about the most prosperous period in our nation's history. (one where the rich benefitted fanatastically as well.)

    Interest rates then fell -- because of low national borrowing and resulting lessened need to sell bonds.

    junior's economic genius has been to effectively invert that model. He's lowered taxes on the most wealthy, and MASSIVELY increased our indebtedness -- while allowing an unfettered flow of cheap imports which has hugely increased our international indebtedness, while devasting coountless old american companies.

    But the cheap imports and sluggish economy have brilliantly combined to cowe american workers apirations for wage gains. As companmies close and layoff increase, workers gratefully take any available job at often a fraction of their old wages. The low inflation that has resulted has enabled the FED to keep interest rates low for the immediate short term. (but in this case by being the byproduct of a unhealthy bad economy).

    It will be "interesting" to observe the effects that the new Chinese/ARAB GAS TAX has on the economy, inflation, and interest rates.
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/25/2005 at 04:21 AM. Reason: editing and clarification
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    You do realize that the Left, with much aid from Hollywood types, historically do have more money than those causes on the Right? I means 10 times or more money, depending on the cause. For example (and I am quoting from a top of the hour radio CNN news I heard on the radio) in preparation for the next Supreme Court appoinment battle the Left had nearly 15 time more money to fight against a conservative nominee than the Right had to fight for him.

    The left may have thought to raise that amount because it knew that it would be at best a Quixotic fight to prevent a conservative court changing nominee -- it was always the longest of long shots -- the presidency, congress, and the cable/radio SHOUT shows are all right wing ciruses.

    junior has not released all of Robert's reagan era papers -- and there's no story in the press or on the SHOUTING heads.

    Please be objective -- acknowledge the disproportionate influence that the conservative christian right has in the realm of our national policy and debates ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/25/2005 at 03:37 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The left may have thought to raise that amount because it knew that it would be at best a Quixotic fight to prevent a conservative court changing nominee -- it was always the longest of long shots -- the presidency, congress, and the cable/radio SHOUT shows are all right wing ciruses.

    junior has not released all of Robert's reagan era papers -- and there's no story in the press or on the SHOUTING heads.

    Please be objective -- acknowledge the disproportionate influence that the conservative christian right has in the realm of our national policy and debates ...
    You can say Conservative Christians, or Christian right, but Conservative Christian right is certainly redundant. FYI
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Please be objective -- acknowledge the disproportionate influence that the conservative christian right has in the realm of our national policy and debates ...
    Influence...let's see, abortion. Legal. Ten Commandments in a court house...not allowed. Are kids praying in public school? Not that I know of...

    How has the Christian Right influenced anything? Obviously they have very little influence over anything, considering the mocking they get from people on the Left, and in these very forums.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  16. #136  
    Eighty-four percent of Americans identify with a Christian religion. What could that mean??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    you've been missing !!
    Thanks for missing me! Been busy with work and family.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I confess I haven't had the time or the skilz to successfully google the statistics that I remember having read -- statistics that are more current and more dramatic as to the proportion of the national wealth being tilted toward a smaller and smaller part of our society.

    junior's tax cuts have surely accelerated that trend.

    Any tax plan that increases the burden on payroll and sales (consumption) taxes is INHERENTLY regressive -- INHERENTLY benefitting those with the most wealth, hurting those with the least.
    No you missed the point. When more money is given back to the people and businesss to spend, they spend more which generates more tax revenues. Think of more like if you sell a product. Is it smarter to put a high price tag on it and sell less, or put a lower price tag to lower your profits, but then you are able to sell it to the masses which collectively gives you more profit.

    In other words there are three big examples showing that lower taxes meant additional tax revenue......This held true during the tax cuts in the 1920s, with the Kennedy Tax Cuts, and the Reagan tax cuts.

    1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

    The tax cuts of the 1920s
    Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of virtually no inflation).


    The Kennedy tax cuts
    Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).


    The Reagan tax cuts
    Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1086.cfm

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    CLinton RAISED TAXES modestly on the rich -- balanced the budget -- and brought about the most prosperous period in our nation's history. (one where the rich benefitted fanatastically as well.)
    You mean the Clinton prosperous period that started the recession 4 months before GWB took office? Here are some interesting stats between Reagans "prosperous period" and Clinton's "prosperous period" (Source: Cato Institute calculations based on Bureau of the Census; U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1996 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html ):



    • The economy grew by more than one-third in size following the Reagan Tax Cuts. Growth was so high in the 1980s that grouchy leftists were forced to resort to ridiculing the Reagan years as the "decade of greed."
    • In 1982 the Dow Jones hit a low point of 792. When Reagan left office, the market had more than tripled in value. Then in tripled again over the next 10 years. In other words, after the Reagan tax cuts, the stock market soared from a low of 800 to well over 10,000 today.
    • Under Reagans Tax Cuts the real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989
    • The tax rate increases imposed under George Bush and Bill Clinton, are associated with the slowest growing economy in 50 years and a decline of more than $2,000 in the Real median family income, the best measure of living standards for the average American.


    The principle that a targetted and smartly thought out lowering of taxes can increase tax revenue has been shown with the Laffer curve:

    Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve


    Between 1980 and 1990 the federal tax collections doubled from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Tax rates went down, but tax payments went up, because a prosperous economy always produces an overflow of tax payments, just as a stagnant economy never generates sufficient tax revenues to pay the bills. This is just as Reagan had predicted. I have always believed that so many in the media and in academia have such a visceral hatred of the Gipper is that he had this wonderful talent of proving them wrong.

    Reagan used to take great joy in noting that when the economy roared back to life in 1983 and 1984, "no one calls it Reaganomics anymore." That's because Reaganomics was supposed to be a failure according to the models of Harvard and other Ivy League Keynesian economists. How frustrating it must have been for someone trained in economics at tiny Eureka College to blow their decrepit theories away.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/balanc...ce081701.shtml
    Barye, you have already made it VERY clear earlier in the Iraq thread that if it has the name Reagan, Bush, Rep, ect....than it is inherently flawed and should not be taken serious.....please note that Kennedy also proved this to be at least a valid point to ponder.

    Further sources:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1086.cfm
    http://www.nationalreview.com/balanc...ce081701.shtml
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cut
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/25/2005 at 08:59 AM.
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Any tax plan that increases the burden on payroll and sales (consumption) taxes is INHERENTLY regressive -- INHERENTLY benefitting those with the most wealth, hurting those with the least.

    It is unimaginable that a flat VALUE ADDED tax (which many repugs are advocating) would do anything but further protect the wealthy while impoverishing those least able to afford it.
    Again, simply looking at history proves to shine an interesting light on who pays more taxes, the rich or the poor, with tax cuts. Looking at the three periods of tax cuts mentioned above, here are the stats of what the Rich paid:

    The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

    The tax cuts of the 1920s
    The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.11


    The Kennedy tax cuts
    Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.12


    The Reagan tax cuts
    The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.13

    On the flip side the middle class suffer more when the tax rates are higher:

    Perhaps more than any other decade, however, the 1990s make the best argument against higher tax rates. In both 1990 and 1993, the economy was subjected to record tax increases, the ostensible purpose of which was to raise revenue to reduce the budget deficit. As Chart 12 illustrates, however, these increases backfired. Total tax revenue, as a percent of economic output, is expected to be lower this year than it was when Reagan left office.14

    The dismal budget numbers, however, tell only part of the story. The economy has been the real victim of higher tax rates. As Chart 13 shows, the post-Reagan era has seen the slowest growth of any seven-year period since the end of World War II. As discussed earlier, this slow growth has left people with more than $2,000 less income when inflation is taken into account. The biggest losers have been the poor. As Chart 14 illustrates, income for the bottom 20 percent has fallen the most during the Bush/Clinton era. The politicians who imposed the higher taxes, needless to say, argued that the rich would be the ones to suffer.



    Significantly, the modest decline in revenues relative to gross domestic product (GDP) is due to the slower growth in personal income tax revenues. As shown in Chart 12, individual income tax revenues totaled 8.6 percent of economic output in 1989. By 1996 -- two large tax increases later -- individual income tax revenues had fallen to 8.5 percent of economic output. In other words, the tax that was increased the most accounts for the drop in tax revenue as a share of national output.

    High tax rates are bad for the economy. High tax rates that increase the deficit by reducing the growth of tax revenue are even worse. What makes recent history especially tragic is that the economic and budgetary losses could have been avoided if Bush and Clinton had simply kept Reagan's policies in place. In 1989, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the budget deficit, which then was $152 billion, would continue to fall for the next five years assuming no change in Reagan's policies. As of 1995 -- again, two large tax increases later -- the budget deficit had risen to $164 billion, and it is projected by the CBO to reach more than $400 billion by 2006 if Clinton's policies are left in place.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567

Posting Permissions