Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Sound logic. It's like, we're already screwed so let's just make the problem worse.
Wasn't an exercise in logic. I asked you three questions. If this is your answer, it sounds as if you prefer to stay screwed. And there is a dispute about whether the tax proposal will "make the problem worse" or make a less of a problem.
Corporations today on average are not over taxed. How about you apply revenue to things that will make the country stronger like infrastructure, research, education and debt reduction.
What standard are you applying? "On average," even if that were true, means that half are overtaxed, or that half the countries tax less. Either is a problem that can be fixed by taxing less.
And how about applying the taxes with which you seem to think are now adequate (or do you want them to be higher?) to pay for those things you listed? How much of the "stimulus" went to infrastructure as was promised? Why is the federal government funding education? When does the federal government, now or ever since Coolidge, apply revenue to debt reduction in a meaningful way except to just pay the interest on the debt?
And doesn't making the private sector "stronger" make the country stronger? Well, no, not in a Progressive structure.
if you're so confident in the tax proposals promoting long-term growth wouldn't you bring the economists before congress to participate in a bi-partisan discussion?
Crickets.
|
Bring your tax proposal before Congress in a bi-partisan discussion? That would be the surest way to trash it. The opposition party, in our time, is diametrically opposed to the other. Each party scrambles to get enough of a majority so that it can ram its agenda through without the squelching charade of a bi-partisan "discussion." Get serious.
Anyway, as it is, the GOP keeps caving, due to partisan pressures, on its initial proposals. I really liked the original idea of a 15% corporate tax rate, or less. Was very disappointed when that figure went up.
Threaded Mode