Liberals live in abject denial, the world revolves around excuses....can't you hear the pitiful little creatures now?
2006-10-04 06:18:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by battle-ax 6
·
0⤊
7⤋
George Bush is not Reagan and his other policies have put a strain on our economy so cutting taxes wont mean Shi* because you and I will be paying for in 10 to 20 years so lets see how happy you are then, but I'm pretty sure you will find a way to blame someone else for it. That what you guys are best at.
2006-10-04 06:19:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by DEEJay 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Doesn't it amaze you that the lack of Fiscal Restraint by this administration has created the largest deficit in history? Yes, Reagan cut taxes, but GHW immediately had to raise them (even though he claimed, "No New Taxes.").
But the thing is, Tax Cuts only work if you restrain spending. This administration has not restrained spending, and yet continues to push the idea of permanent tax cuts down our throats. Essentially, they're spending money we do not have.
How is this something to be proud of?
2006-10-05 02:11:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by spire2000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A tax cut and a tax rebate are not the same, my friend. Reagan actually cut taxes that actually did help the majority of the country (at the expense of the lower classes) and it worked.
Bush gave tax rebates (on money already collected from taxes and money needed to fund government programs) to the rich at the expense of the middle and lower class.
It's not the same thing, dude!
2006-10-04 06:22:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Doc Watson 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
So under that theory, would you also agree that Clinton's economic policies also were beneficial to the country?
Regan tax cuts were a good thing for the economy but a terrible thing for our deficit. He and congress racked up the largest deficit to that date-- Bush II topped that one.
Monetary policy during Regan years also helped spur the economy.
2006-10-04 06:17:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by dapixelator 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
To: The Black Gunman
The U.S. can find capital generally in two ways. Taxes (income) or borrow. Mostly, they are not correlated. When taxes go up, borrowing (debt) goes down. When borrowing goes up, taxes have gone down.
Interestingly, republicans spout lower taxes with no understanding of the monetary policy in the country. (because it sounds good to voters probably) Why isn't the tax rate flat at 5%? Well, the country could not sustain with income that low without massive borrowing. We need to find the delicate balance between tax rates and borrowing in times of need such as recession and pay off debt in economy booms. It's the only we we can survive.
Secondly, and more of a personal note. I think its important to quit looking at this country as dollar signs. How much can I save in taxes this year? How much are immigrants worth? etc.
When we can stop doing this, we will find more wealth and social gains in the country. We need to raise taxes to fund our education system, to help those who have fallen on bad times, widows, war veterans, etc. Not lower taxes so we can buy $1,000 more dollars of dumb crap we don't need that we thinks makes us happy.
Sorry, got on a rant, well you get the point.
2006-10-04 06:41:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I wonder what the source of this "crusade" is that right-wingers are on about "liberals", unless it's part of the same "crusade" as waging unprovoked war against foreigners while trampling on the freedoms of American citizens. Or perhaps the Right Wing is just carrying on with business as usual, which is to turn the United States into one great big extremist born again ultraconservative plantation full of obedient slaves of all colors.
2006-10-04 06:21:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by backinbowl 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
I don't make enough to get a tax cut. Irony?
Regan was a nightmare. I can remember sitting in line for
over an hour waiting to get gas - on the even days, that is.
Me & many of my friends had move back in with our parents.
After he was out of office, things greatly improved.
2006-10-04 06:22:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I would agree that Reagan's tax cuts were needed, however, the Bush cuts amount to almost zero taxation of corporations and the uber rich. If you think that these entities should be able to utilize the services and protections of the government free of charge, then you are a fool in a pimp hat.
2006-10-04 06:14:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
young man did you live in the 80's reagan gave company tax break for shutting their factory,workers were taking big pay cuts,homeless roses to an all time high,he cut money for school in ohio our state taxes had to go up ,because of all his cuts,you can said blah,blah,blah because you don't want to know the truth,My the lord have mercy on your soul
2006-10-04 06:17:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Well we've had years of Bush's tax cut how are we doing.
Massive debt that our great great grand kids will still be trying to pay off.
Also what worked 25 years ago may not work again things really are different. And I use the word "worked" just to be nice.
2006-10-04 06:17:27
·
answer #11
·
answered by madjer21755 5
·
4⤊
0⤋