And on what basis do you make that statement?
That revenue increased?
That it increased faster than it was projected to increase without the tax cut?
That the rate of revenue increase was higher than the rate of inflation?
2007-10-02
03:32:35
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
dstr his problem with Bush is the spending, and that's an opinion I share with Greenspan.
2007-10-02
03:39:52 ·
update #1
http://www.accf.org/publications/reports/sr-capgainstaxes1999.html
2007-10-02
03:50:15 ·
update #2
Jacob there are parts of the pro-free-market agenda that was passed in the 1990s that your assessment is more accurate about.
If Clinton opposed the tax cuts in 1997 he could have easily grandstanded on the notion of no tax cuts for billionaires etc.... like his wife does. He had already won re-election. Also, Robert Rubin had his ear. Lastly, Clinton took the 1997 tax act and went much further than Congress had asked him to in terms of creating loopholes for the largest US-based multinationals - everyone in '97 agreed on tax cuts for business and investment.
And they were right!
The problem is, NOW, after all the evidence is in and nobody can deny that it WORKED, WHY do some lefties still oppose tax cuts?
2007-10-02
04:12:23 ·
update #3