| akuma587 said: Changing consumer culture is not the government's job. Not to mention you are thinking way too highly of the American people if you think they will magically change their ways if you just throw money at them. And if you are just concerned with cutting down debt, shouldn't the government just hold onto the money? So if 'throwing money their way' won't change things, then why are we preparing to spend another $800 billion in a bailout? The last thing we need is more tax cuts. Our government is running deeper and deeper into the red. Sure, everybody likes tax cuts, but what about when you need to raise taxes? That's not exactly something everybody wants to get behind. Of course no one likes raising taxes. Problem is, we already have brutal taxes as-is. If taxes are lowered, and need to be raised again, it'd be at least better to have the positive effect of lower taxes for as long as possible. Supply side economics has run its course, and it ran things pretty poorly while it was in the driver's seat. As soon as Reagan entered offices, deficits started to soar like nobody's business. It took a Democrat to run a surplus. Our corporations in the financial sector just single-handedly ran our economy into the ground. Why should we be running to cut corporate tax rates again? I guess if you want to give executives even higher bonuses that is a good strategy. You assume 2 things: 1) The benefit of tax cuts is immediate. It does take time for the cuts to see effects. 2) Regan's budget issues rose and fell on the tax cuts. As mentioned, military spending increased strongly to force the USSR to crash. Why should we cut our corporate tax rates? Probably because it'd encourage more businesses to be established in the US. Whine about bonuses all you want, but if there is more money to go around, there will be more competitiveness among businesses, as they have more money for R&D, benefits, and other things. You assume that when a company is profitable, it only goes to the CEOs. It does not. Here is a good link from House.gov concerning the effect Reagan's tax cut had on decreasing the tax burden on both lower and middle class families. You know what the funniest thing is. That people making over $200,000 voted more for Obama than they did for McCain! And he ran on a campaign of raising their taxes! Are you suggesting that we should give the rich something they didn't vote for? That's anti-democratic! I won't stand for it! Those that made over $200,000 voted for Obama in the same skewing the rest of the country did. Also, if you didn't know, America is not a democracy. It's a federal republic ;) |
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
