Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
It's interesting how the GOP mantra is for lower taxes, lower taxes and more lower taxes like it's some magical fix. Historically taxes under Clinton weren't that terrible and since Bush and Obama have been at historic lows...yet, there doesn't seem to be any discernible relation to the low tax rates and economic performance.
The reality is that dramatic cuts in government spending are going to hammer the poor and middle class. While a longer-term objective of less reliance on Federal assistance might be a good thing, to do so in haste would likely cause economic instability...not to mention the ethical implications.
To do so simply so the wealthy don't suffer doesn't seem like a prudent move, unless you can show that Reaganomics do indeed work in the real world and not in a college debate.
I think there's a reason why the bi-partisan debt commission and many economists argue that both tax increases on the wealthy along with deep cuts are the best approach.
It's called common sense.
-spence
|
Define wealthy.............................
a familiy with young kids making $250K a year isn't wealthy..........they may not be hurting, but they are not wealthy. Toss in the alternative minimum tax scam and they can't write anything off.
Ethical implications?? It's not ethical to make the few pay for the many.