Practically all the candidates in the past who have barn stormed about cutting taxes, and won the election have cut taxes as promised for a select few, but this only increased our national debt. This in turn caused the interest we paid out to increase. We could operate on credit for awhile, but eventually taxes would need to be increased even higher. Let's take a look at the Bush Tax cuts for the big boys and of course a few crumbs for you and me. The national debt has increased to 8.7 trillion with 406 billion being paid out for interest on that borrowed money. Sound good??
2007-03-21 08:25:38 · 14 answers · asked by sparks 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Many people apparently did. It's because they think they'll see a personal benefit, and they don't care about the collateral damage or the fact that the total National Debt has almost doubled the the past 6 years. 220+ years to get to 4.4 trillion, and 6 years to add another 4.4 trillion.
2007-03-21 08:29:33 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cutting taxes does not increase the national debt. Cutting taxes is a long-term solution that brings more tax revenues into the nation's coffers. Pick up The Wall Street Journal sometime or a business magazine and do some reading. Tax cuts are why the economy is doing so well.
Spending is what causes deficits and increases in national debt. What color is the Koolaid you are drinking?
How soon do you take the Senior Contemporary Issues class in your high school?
2007-03-21 15:47:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, but I would take a long look at a candidate who promised to cut spending and only sign budgets with a surplus and pay down the national debt instead of hunting up new boondoggles to suck down taxpayer money.
2007-03-21 16:29:07 · answer #3 · answered by S1 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That isn't true at all. Tax cuts have invariably resulted in greater income to the government as the result of an invigorated economy. Despite the cost of a war our economy now is stronger than it was at any time during the Clinton or Carter administrations. Clinton's creative bookkeeping is what got us where we are. Were it not for his juggling and phony claims you would have been able to see the issues long before he left office. As it was, Clinton left office with the economy spiraling into recession.
I'd cheerfully vote to cut taxes and government both. We have way too much government and need to be rid of at least half of it.
2007-03-21 15:38:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The National Debt went up under Clinton and his HUGE tax increase.
The problem is SPENDING.
Cut the Damned Spending,pay down the debt !
2007-03-21 15:57:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Personally me it is more than the taxes, I vote for the candidate who's issues are what I firmly believe in.
2007-03-21 22:43:25 · answer #6 · answered by Marla D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, there are more issues than taxes that are important.......and somewhere in the term of the next pres the whole tax thing will be out the window b/c there will something of importance, security, etc..........that will raise our taxes, such as the growing and growing national debt
2007-03-21 15:32:57 · answer #7 · answered by alex grant 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cutting taxes without cutting programs is a big warm bowl of steaming bull crap. anyone that buys into it is doing so at the expense of the future generations.
2007-03-21 15:32:00 · answer #8 · answered by Alan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm pretty sure you a candidate needs more then one policy espically since we're at war you need a foreign.
2007-03-21 15:34:06 · answer #9 · answered by Erica 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I want everyone to pay less tax. The problem lies in spending. These people should not be spending more than they take in.
2007-03-21 15:42:48 · answer #10 · answered by Matt 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋