[quote]
Originally posted by adamzion
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagnabit
I didn't realize how much Bush's tax cut was for. Now that I've seen it I think it is awesome.
Well, it's huge. And it's also huge. Did I mention that it's also huge? We've seen this before: Reagan's first tax cut. The end result of that, you may or may not recall, was a decade during which we ran up roughly $5 trillion of national debt. It took 8 years under the "tax and spend liberal" Bill Clinton to fix the damage done by 12 years of rule by the "fiscally responsible" administrations of Reagan and Bush Sr.
Should taxes be cut? Yes, but in a way which is more progressive than the one proposed by Bush, et al. The idea of progressive taxation, for those who have forgotten it, is that the more money someone makes the higher a percentage of that money s/he should pay to the government in taxes. The '80s and '90s saw gradual regressiveness creep into the US tax code, and that would seem to run contrary to simple fairness.
Of course, I'm fighting a nasty cold right now, so I could be wrong,
Z
|
Yow! Now just what was the makeup of the house and Senate under Reagan? (Here's a hint: Democratic!) Did the House and Senate then approve a spending spree of a nearly unprecented nature (Yes!). Simply noting that Reagan presided over a tax cut and this was followed by a program of deficit spending does the facts no true justice!
Also, what was the makeup of Clinton's house and senate, the very same one that (finally) passed a balanced budget program (Hint: Republican!).
Therefore a simplistic look at the "tax cut to deficit spending" theory you propose just does not hold much water!