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.
Yes Bob, why not a plan for All AMericans, instead of a plan for one group?
For one, the government needs money to run. The Bush tax-cuts turned surpluses into deficits.
Second, after 11 years of the Bush tax-cuts it's quite evident that the reasons given for passing them in the first place, namely greater economic activity and more jobs, were scams. They brought no greater economic activity nor job growth.
Third, what was also quite evident over that period is that the incomes of most people, adjusted for inflation, did not rise but the incomes of the wealthy rose wildly. So, if you have to raise taxes, it would seem logical to raise them on the group that made out like bandits and not the group that was stagnant.
But what does Romney's plan do? It lowers taxes on the group that's already done well and raises them on the stagnant group while reducing revenue by $450 billion. At least Obama's plan raises taxes on the higher bracket back to the rates during the Clinton glory years, when there was wide economic prosperity and adds revenue to the Treasury. Although, to raise the money the government needs, those rates should be even higher.
For one, the government needs money to run. The Bush tax-cuts turned surpluses into deficits.
Second, after 11 years of the Bush tax-cuts it's quite evident that the reasons given for passing them in the first place, namely greater economic activity and more jobs, were scams. They brought no greater economic activity nor job growth.
Third, what was also quite evident over that period is that the incomes of most people, adjusted for inflation, did not rise but the incomes of the wealthy rose wildly. So, if you have to raise taxes, it would seem logical to raise them on the group that made out like bandits and not the group that was stagnant.
But what does Romney's plan do? It lowers taxes on the group that's already done well and raises them on the stagnant group while reducing revenue by $450 billion. At least Obama's plan raises taxes on the higher bracket back to the rates during the Clinton glory years, when there was wide economic prosperity. Although, to raise the money the government needs, those rates should be even higher.
Not exactly completely accurate. It is too simplistic to say tax rates are directly correlated with job growth. None the less, if you look at the first 5-6 yrs of the Bush presidency, unemployment was at 5-6%. THat is good economic activity. THe last yr was terrible, but many consider the housing melt down as a contributor. Tax cuts do not mandate jobs, but if you allow the job creaters to keep more of their money, and the Govt creates an environment healthy to business, there is a good chance that many will gorw their business and hire. THe opposite for tax increases, the GOvt spends more and the money is spent, but it doesn't mean lasting jobs.
IF the GOvt wants more revenue, they should raise on all and not one group. I simply disagree with your philosophy. Your saying it doesn't matter who uses a service, but that simply services should be provided, and who ever has the money should pay. I disagree, and say it is ok for some to pay a little more, but to be gouged is another thing. If I had a decrease in income, I would not keep spending, but would minimize my expenses and pay down my debt.
Not exactly completely accurate. It is too simplistic to say tax rates are directly correlated with job growth. None the less, if you look at the first 5-6 yrs of the Bush presidency, unemployment was at 5-6%. THat is good economic activity. THe last yr was terrible, but many consider the housing melt down as a contributor. Tax cuts do not mandate jobs, but if you allow the job creaters to keep more of their money, and the Govt creates an environment healthy to business, there is a good chance that many will gorw their business and hire. THe opposite for tax increases, the GOvt spends more and the money is spent, but it doesn't mean lasting jobs.
IF the GOvt wants more revenue, they should raise on all and not one group. I simply disagree with your philosophy. Your saying it doesn't matter who uses a service, but that simply services should be provided, and who ever has the money should pay. I disagree, and say it is ok for some to pay a little more, but to be gouged is another thing. If I had a decrease in income, I would not keep spending, but would minimize my expenses and pay down my debt.
There is no evidence that cutting upper income rates creates more economic activity -- none.
I guess for the stupid the ad would work but people with brains this is pure comedy. It should say under Obama, "You earn it, he'll take it."
Exactly, what in the ad is "stupid?" It's precisely factual. Is it stupid to believe in facts or is the answer already evident?
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.
