The two step avoidance question...Are the Bush Tax cuts paid for or NOT??? (party affiliation, Congress)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is this question hard to answer, I mean seriously? Its easy to say the Health Care bill add's to the deficit, the bailouts add's to the deficit. But Why is this question hard to answer?
Why is this question hard to answer, I mean seriously? Its easy to say the Health Care bill add's to the deficit, the bailouts add's to the deficit. But Why is this question hard to answer?
I am not reading a biased Newsweek article but the answer was/is obviously not.
The Bush administration and Congress at the time were derranged in their spending habits.
This administration and Congress have taken deranged and made it look almost sane.
You may feel Newsweek is baised, the bottom line is, in less than 30 seconds you answered a question that someone who is PAID to keep his eye on the ball would not....hence the two step avoidance.
Why is this question hard to answer, I mean seriously? Its easy to say the Health Care bill add's to the deficit, the bailouts add's to the deficit. But Why is this question hard to answer?
the way i see it is the Kennedy Reagan and Bush tax cuts were accompanied by increased spending that out paced the revenue the tax cuts brought in. Conservatives lost their way by not supporting reduced spending during tax cuts.
Democratic answer is to tax more and increase spending at a faster rate which out paces the tax increases. One group failed to control spending while the other group taxes us more and thinks they can spend more. Until someone can get the spending under control neither tax cuts or increased taxes will stop the death spiral we are in
You may feel Newsweek is baised, the bottom line is, in less than 30 seconds you answered a question that someone who is PAID to keep his eye on the ball would not....hence the two step avoidance.
I do not think there was any avoidance. I said they were not paid for.
Like most political questions, there are spin answers, and no real ones.
Tax cuts aren't something thats "paid for" because its not something that has to be done in the first place. Its like not adding money to your savings account, its not smart, but people do it.
The problem comes in when you've got two wars on, medicare expenses that were raised by a Republican President, bailouts that were started by a Republican President, and then the continuance of those policies under a Democratic President.
So you can't really "pay for" tax cuts. You can cut your spending, so the tax cuts can continue, without enduring excess interest charges for the things you are spending money on.
On the other hand, how does the government pay for the programs 70% of Americans enjoy, and the wars, and all of the other things we've grown accustomed to? Well, they tax, thats how.
On the flip side of that argument is "well, if they aren't taxed as much, they'll spend more, create more jobs", and fix the economy that way. On the opposite side of that argument is, well, if the wealthiest Americans get tax cuts, they don't spend the money, they save it.
So which side of the coin do you fall on? The trickle down side, or the spend responsibly side.
Why is this question hard to answer, I mean seriously? Its easy to say the Health Care bill add's to the deficit, the bailouts add's to the deficit. But Why is this question hard to answer?
Tax cuts are not an expenditure, so they are not "paid for."
But I would argue that during a time of war, which is supposed to be a "necessary expense" that tax cuts aren't paid for at that point. Taxes should remain at the level they are, or go higher during a period of war.
George Bush was the first President in the history of the Union to lower taxes during wartime.
I do not think there was any avoidance. I said they were not paid for.
The accusation of avoidance wasn't against you, it was against Boehner and his inability to be honest. Again, I stated this is a Politician trait no matter the party affiliation.
The accusation of avoidance wasn't against you, it was against Boehner and his inability to be honest. Again, I stated this is a Politician trait no matter the party affiliation.
Ok, I understand what you were getting at now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
