Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks
this is the key point in all of this.
you think raising taxes gets "our fiscal house in order" it doesn't. cutting spending is the only answer. The reagan and bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves (look it up)
what it didn't pay for was the obscene spending spree congress has been on for decades.
so yeah, lets elect the guy who wants to spend more money because, well if we just raise taxes on the rich, everything will be ok.
I'm often embarrassed that I've accomplished so little in a country where most of the people are dumb enough to believe Obama's fairy tale.
|
I have looked it up, and they don't pay for themselves.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...in_higher.html
http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=cp0603
http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/0...or-themselves/
Sure tax revenues eventually increase, but that's because our population and tax base grow every year. Revenues would have been substantially higher had those tax cuts not been enacted.
Tax revenues went up substantially more under Clinton than they did under Reagan, or under Bush.
I agree with the spending....so let's start by not spending $10 billion a month in Iraq anymore.
Most of the "spending' Obama is proposing are on things that will save us money in the long term.
Investing in renewable energy sources so that we're not dependent on foreign oil. Not having to pay $4 a gallon for gas would be a boon to the economy.
Fixing the health care system and getting everyone coverage, because it will be cheaper for all of us when the uninsured stop going to emergency rooms for free treatment.
When it comes to politics you come off as an ideologue, but as a successful businessman I'm sure you're also a pragmatist. As a pragmatist I'm sure you would have to agree that some things you disagree with from an idealogical standpoint are still the right and practical thing to do.