Would you vote for someone who is going to raise taxes . Or someone who is going to max out national debt .?

Answer 1

Neither

Answer 2

Well, the reality is Bush increased the National Debt by 3 1/2 Trillion, and that doesn't include the war!

We owe interest on that money whether we pay a penny on the actual debt or not. Fifty percent of our taxes go to pay off the debt and the military!

Bush ran on fiscal conservatism, but turned out to be the biggest spender even if you combined all the presidents before him!

Do you honestly thing we can increase the deficit, and the interest that is due every year, forever? I am not that interested in maintaining the amount of money corporate welfare gets every year at my expense!

I don't. Pretty soon it will be your grand children's grandchildren lives you have mortgaged!

And wolf, why didn't Clinton do it then? And he didn't run up a 3 1/2 Trillion Deficit like Bush!

I would take Clintons $586 billion in deficit over Bush's 3 1/2 Trillion, not including the war, anyday!

Answer 3

There might be a situation where I would vote for someone to raise taxes but it would be hard to imagine.

If you raise taxes it locks money up, less of it changes hands and hence the tax revenue goes down. California cut taxes about three years ago and the tax revenue went up Six Billion (with a B) dollars the first year.

A 3% increase in economic activity will add more to the cauffers than a 20% increase in taxes.

The only thing a tax increase is good for is Social Engineering. Soaking the rich is a fools game, one that people like John Kerry love to engage in. Their constituants think he is punishing people that make money. The fact is he is punishing the very people who hold him in such high regard. All of that tax runs down hill until it gets to the final consumer who pays 100% of all taxes in this country. BTW it makes no difference if the tax is overt of covert the consumer pays it. Food is not taxed, correct? Don't kid yourself. It has every cent of tax rolled into the price. Taxes on the land, the seed, the planters, the water, the reepers, the transportation and the list goes on. Maybe only .1% per item but there are hundreds and hundreds of items. Rest assured, the guy on top is not paying the tax he is being assessed, the consumer is paying it. It is called, "The cost of doing business".

Answer 4

Yes in the first case and no in the second. As with all liberal thought and policies you have assumed a falsehood in your question. Lowering taxes does not increase debt.

Here's why: If you take a dollar away from me by increasing taxes, I cannot spend it, If you lower my taxes a dollar, I can spend it. When I spend that dollar, did the dollar vanish? No someone else has it. It's called gross income. He is taxed on the dollar. When he spends it, did the dollar vanish? No. The next person has it. He is taxed on it. this goes on and on each person who gets the dollar spends it and each person is taxed on it when they get it. As it turns out, after some pretty heavy calculus. For each "dollar increase in the money supply," (read tax cut) there is a 6 dollar increase in the GDP (Gross Domestic Product.) If each dollar is taxed at 19% (average tax rate) the government takes in $1.14 (6 x .19=1.14. This has held true with every major tax cut since Kennedy cut taxes. The next year Federal revenue increased. Do not try to look up federal debt for the years after a tax cut. Democrats increased spending $1.25 for every extra dollar the tax cut brought in. The magic number seems to be lowering taxes to an average tax rate of 17%. At this rate the Government will take in $1.02 for every dollar it cuts taxes.

In short Cutting taxes helps the Government rake in more money off the top because it stimulates the economy. Oh and by the way, when the economy improves like it is doing now, less people are out of work and less people need Government assistance. There becomes less of a demand for government spending to help the poor. There is simply less poor people to spend the available dollars on. Those who need it can get more.

Answer 5

Anyone who thinks we are going to be able to pay off our national debt, pay for the stinking war and still fund the things we need everyday without raising taxes is an ostrich.

I will vote for the person who has a sensible and comprehensive plan to do these things...and one who has a sensible and comprehensive plan to fix our broken health care system, one who has the best interest of the American people in the forefront at all times, one who has integrity, who doesn't lie, who has experience.

I will vote for the person who is honest and tells it like it is. We have lived in never-never land with Bushie and the boys for so long and they have ruined us.... We are going to need a leader that lays it out to us....what we need, what we need to do as a nation to fix Bush's broken nation.

No more lies, no more war, healthcare, education funding, a serious immigration policy, a serious plan for tightening ALL of our borders including airports and ports.

Address the stupid "prescription" plan for our seniors.....which is the biggest moneymaker in years for the Pharaceutical companies...thanks to Bushie and the Boys and those in Congress who sleep with them.

Address Social Security. It's not broken yet, but it will be if they don't keep their hands off the funds.....

Outsourcing jobs, too many imports, not enough good paying jobs here and not enough skilled people to do the high tech jobs.

Too many high school dropouts.

There are many, many issues I will be listening for.

Answer 6

Are we talking about candidates for congress here? That is the only branch allowed to levy taxes. My answer to that is a resounding no to both. I'll look for a candidate that will fight for both lower taxes and reductions in government spending. By the way. What does it mean to "max out national debt?" is there a maximum national debt?

Answer 7

I'd be more likely to vote for someone who is going to max out the national debt than to vote for someone who is going to raise my taxes. I don't think any bank would call in the loans, but having to pay even more taxes for so little really bothers me and affects my family tremendously.

Answer 8

I would vote for Bush, someone who will cut taxes on the wealthy and max out the national debt!

Answer 9

First off to Alex114 The key to your ramble is "White House estimates" = fantasy land

Tax cuts are a good thing but I think the tax cuts should go only to Business that make a commitment to keep Jobs in the USA

The republicans keep saying the tax cuts create jobs yeah no kidding they made a lot of jobs in China.

Answer 10

hmmm let me see:

Deficit Falls to $205 Billion

Jul 11 08:52 AM US/Eastern



WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's budget deficit will drop to $205 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September, less than half of what it was at its peak in 2004, according to new White House estimates.
President Bush planned to discuss the figures in an afternoon appearance.

The new figure is considerably smaller than original estimates. In February, the White House predicted that this year's deficit would be $244 billion because of stronger-than-expected revenue collections. The deficit hit a peak of $413 billion in 2004 and was $248 billion last year.

It looks like the tax cuts work... Hmmm when people bring home more money they ue more money and it increases revenue.

yes we have a debt, but guess what we have been at war since 2001 stemming from a massive attack that we had to spend millions cleaning up. And we also had to give millions to fraudelent people because they didn't see the weather.

but good try

Answer 11

Neither. You can't choose;
BECAUSE Any Democrat will Raise Taxes, AND Max out the National Debt with their new Socialist Programs.

"Pull up your socks,
And grab your kocks.
Because the Democrats
are a-coming".

"Back under the porch, boys and girls.
Same Game".