Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich.
Certainly there's the well worn argument that tax cuts benefit "mostly" the rich, which may be interpreted as "tax cuts for the rich" in a class warfare context. I think we'd all agree that the top 10% pay a good share of the taxes already.
But, not the same thing.
The issue we should be discussing is this. As the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire, renewing them "in full" will have a significant impact on deficit spending. Which elected officials are willing to offer up realistic spending cuts that will offset the decreased revenues?
Aside from some fantasy, I've yet to hear a real proposal that makes much sense.
-spence
|
Spence -
"I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich."
I have a million times. We all know it's not true.
"As the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire, renewing them "in full" will have a significant impact on deficit spending."
You're ignoring the stimulative nature of tax cuts, and the contractive nature of tax increases, aren't you?
"Which elected officials are willing to offer up realistic spending cuts that will offset the decreased revenues?"
That's easy...REPUBLICANS. The GOP wants to get rid of the fat, the Democrats want to add more fat. I agree with you 100 percent that we need to identify things that can be cut. When the GOP talks about cuts, the Democrats accuse them of not caring about poor people. That's the problem.