Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The reason for the 10 year sunset was to keep the net cost projection artificially low in an effort to gain support...that's the white elephant in the room...the Bush tax cuts were with borrowed money in an effort to create long-term growth. Instead we got two wars and a credit bubble.
-spence
|
Right, "in an effort to gain support." The Democrats were vehemently opposed to the tax cuts. They have apparently changed their minds. The Repubs, in spite of the sunset provision wanted the cuts to be permanent and avoided the "Byrd rule" by sunsetting them. They assumed that nobody would have the courage to let them expire when the sunset provision came due. It appears they were right. But politics, being the game that it is, allows the Dems to get "credit" for making them permanent on 99.4% of the tax paying public. But those are the ones who pay the bulk of the taxes, so the revenue impact by raising the taxes on the "rich" is insignificant. But it makes the Dems look like Robin Hood in the eyes of the half-blind public.
But wow, Spence. Are we blaming the "two wars and a credit bubble" on the Bush tax cuts? If the cuts were responsible for those events, what horrors can we expect now that they have been made permanent?
Threaded Mode