Studies Say Tax Cuts Now Will Bring Bigger Bill Later

[Chuckiechan]

If what you say is true, then the more you raise taxes the better the economy does?

It seems that the government will soak up every dollar you give it. Just where dose this study suggest it stop? It dosen't!

I would like to see some other studies. This labor financed group wouldn't be biased, would it?

[osprey4]

MTAtech, I think you'd better recharge the memory banks.

When did you file your first tax return?

[MTAtech]

When did you file your first tax return?

1976

then the more you raise taxes the better the economy does?

That's twisting my words. Just as it isn't true that the lower the taxes the better the economy does, nor is the opposite true. There must be a middle ground. What is that middle ground? Well, there is a conservative principal that says that a person (or a government) should pay its bills. To be able to pay bills we must have taxes.

One can't have the most mighty military force that ever existed and expect not to pay for it; or, have federally funded roads; or be secure in your old age; or have guaranteed college loans, etc., etc.

The country's desire to have low taxes while also funding a government has built a huge debt that also is a drag on the economy and must be paid for by future generations.

At some point we are going to come to the realization that the tax cuts must be rolled back to pay for government expenditures.

It seems that the government will soak up every dollar you give it.

That sounds nice but it just isn't true. If it were true there would never be budget surpluses. Yet, under Bill Clinton there were surplus - times when the government spent less than it received. (e.g. not soaking up every dollar we gave it.)

[SiliconJon]

No, a cut in the military budget is very much needed. Our Pentagon is out of hand, being unable to account for the money it spends. It's become like a child with an absurd allowance, buying more than it needs, not even taking time to learn about what it has bought, and how to better spend for it's future needs. It's just "GIVE, GIVE, GIVE ME". I think a military cut would get them to tighten that belt. Our military can be much more effective with much less money. I believe this to be true...but the arguments against me are by those who truely do know more, yet they refuse to speak truthfully because that huge pocket book provides more than just a massive military...

[MTAtech]

If we want to have a military that can fight muti-region wars, occupy countries, etc., we need to pay the price. This administration's answer is to give tax cuts to the wealthy and borrow to pay for the government, leaving the burden to our kids.

If we don't want to pay the price, we need to use the military wisely and decide what policy will make us the most safe. Certainly, invading a country that wasn't a threat while leaving other more dangerous situations was not wise.

IMO, the most cost effective use of money that will buy security is buying up foreign stockpiles of nuclear material.

[pickel]

Things will all change when Hillary takes over.

[MTAtech]

I guess they were right:

WASHINGTON — The White House predicted Monday [July 28, 2008] that President Bush would leave a record $482 billion deficit to his successor, a sobering turnabout in the nation’s fiscal condition from 2001, when Mr. Bush took office after three consecutive years of budget surpluses.

[nickslick74]

And to think, Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative...

[jokostel]

Originally Posted by nickslick74

And to think, Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative...

Republicans are the new Democrats, and the old school Democrats are turning into the Socialsts...




With this election, no matter who gets in, we are all gonna have to take a giant bite out of a shit sandwich.

[nickslick74]

Yuck, I really don' want a shit sandwich.