Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Next President 2008 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DismalScientist who wrote (2624)	4/11/2008 11:27:55 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 3215

regressive ??? tax cuts ?? were do you people come up with this crap. You think the dems will stop spending ??

To: DismalScientist who wrote (2624)	4/11/2008 11:33:25 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 3215

look at the percentages Taxes under Clinton 1999 ............. ...... .. Taxes under Bush 2008 Single making 30K - tax $8,400 .......... .. . Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 .......... .. . Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 .......... .. . Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 ............ Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 ............ Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $38,750............ Married making 125K - tax $31,250

To: DismalScientist who wrote (2624)	4/11/2008 1:28:35 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 3215

SLick Willie just keeps on givin.....er...I mean taking... Taxpayers fund Bill Clinton spending By KENNETH P. VOGEL Since 2001, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents. The Clintons have made a $100-million fortune since leaving the White House, but a Politico analysis found that hasn’t kept Bill Clinton from taking full advantage of the publicly funded perks offered to ex-presidents. In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined. The price tag for Clinton’s federal retirement allowance from 2001 through the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for George H. W. Bush’s and $4 million for Jimmy Carter’s during the same period. Since 2001, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents — from his pension to his staff’s salaries and benefits to supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a group, they spent $484,000 on telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in the same span. The figures come from congressional reports studying the presidential retirement program and from summaries of annual budget requests by the U.S. General Services Administration, which administers the program, created to allow former presidents to enjoy dignified retirements without having to take jobs that demean or commercialize the presidency. Some of Clinton’s greater spending stems from the fact that he served eight years in office, qualifying him for a federal health insurance plan unavailable to one-term presidents, and that he selected office space in the high-priced Manhattan market. Politico’s analysis comes on the heels of the release last week of seven years' worth of Clinton family tax documents. They showed that the Clintons pulled in $111 million in total income from 2000, their last year in the White House, through 2007. Given Bill Clinton’s earning potential and that of future ex-presidents, “the benefits taxpayers shell out for their care and feeding just don’t make sense anymore,” contended Pete Sepp, spokesman for the fiscally conservative, nonprofit National Taxpayers Union. politico.com

To: DismalScientist who wrote (2624)	4/11/2008 1:42:30 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 3215

If it were not so stupid of libbers, I would laugh every time one of you uses the phrase "burden on our children and grandchildren" . Truth be told, is it not your own wallet you are worried about saving and my wallet you want to empty with your socialized programs designed to keep the hands happy and down on the farm until you need a few votes? Oh...and BTW, would this "unnecessary" war get necessary really fast for you if any of YOUR family were blown up? O'bamma would waltz us out of Iraq.....then what....sing Kumbayah with Abracadabramad? Maybe that is part of his overall plan along with sending the Peanut farmer to talk to the terrorist group, Hamas?