House Democrats are throwing a hissy fit over the extension of the Bush tax cuts that they had excoriated for so long as only benefiting the wealthy. But their rhetoric is running smack dab into reality with the coming expiration. When that happens, the middle class is going to be creamed in a way that they will understand what the real effect is of those tax cuts.
But the Looney Left would rather see the rates rise on the Middle Class than to extend them to the so called "wealthy," Think about that for a minute. The Democrats would deny an extension of unemployment benefits to people out of work in order to punish their nemesis "the rich." Hatred of this sort is honestly refreshing, in that they are no longer even pretending to be on the side of the "little guy," Nope, this is all about social engineering..
But I do have one question that I just have not seen answered, and I really wish someone could explain it to me. Why is it that the extension of the middle class tax cuts is supposed to be stimulative, but they claim research shows that tax cuts for the wealthy is not? Is the money of the rich marked differently than that of the middle class? Does the size of the cut matter if you have enough to go to McDonalds one more night a month than before, versus somebody who buys a car and all the workers that helped manufacture the care?
The absolute dishonesty of the Democrats is only matched by the Republicans who think that the agreement with the President is a good deal. What in the world do wind subsidies or money for ethanol or Nascar have to do with tax cuts? The fact that they couldn't keep those out show the Republicans are either not serious, or they are easily rolled.
5 comments:
I think the only reason you haven't seen an answer about why tax cuts have more stimulative value for the middle class is because you haven't looked. Try Google. I hear it provides information with just some typing and a few clicks.
I also wonder how the Right can maintain that the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy, given the evidence of the past 8 years. What did they do exactly?
Thanks for your little help Pogie. The problem with google is that it reinforces errors, just like you have made. I don't rely on talking points to answer questions.
As to the last 8 years? I think you actually have to go back to 2003 when the last Bust tax cut was put in place and then look at January 2008 when the Democrats had both houses of Congress. Yep, I would trade those days for these right away.
But that is a cheap shot, in that I relied on the same argument that you made. The economy is way too complicated to hang on just one item. But tax cuts stimulate the economy, and deficit spending hinders it. You can't argue that the reverse is true with a straight face.
Actually, I (and a lot of economists) can. When your economics education is at the Limbaugh School of Logical Fallacies, you might argue otherwise.
So, given the limitless ability of tax cuts to stimulate the economy, how low should we go? 8% 2%?
Historically, tax cuts have led to enormous deficits, under both Reagan and Bush. You can't just pretend that revenue will increase enough to cover those kind of irresponsible cuts.
Pogie, your economics education is so brilliant, you missed the point that it wasn't the tax cuts that cause the deficits, it was the spending. But the point is that if you cut rates but raise more in revenue, how is that a bad thing, unless your ultimate end is to punish the rich?
Oh, and I forgot to mention that it's been shown the most effective tax rate for maximum revenue is 18%. Set the rate at 19% with no deductions, and you could even rebate the lowest income earners and still have money.
Post a Comment