From the Econ major:
Quote:
|
Can you can explain why JFK and Reagan tax cut increased revenues.
|
I think it seems pretty logical that to spend money, you need to make money right? Therefore, it seems to also make sense that if the government's going to spend money, it needs to make money right? It doesn't make sense that Bush wants to DECREASE the amount the government brings in, yet spend MORE, drastically more. How are we going to pay for the military, homeland security AND the tax cuts, if the government makes less? RS, that's pretty simple logic, but I can explain more. I don't have a problem with spending less and cutting revenue, but spending more and cutting revenue just messes with interest rates. That's not even text book econ, that just makes sense. I guess you think that cutting taxes and borrowing a whole $hit load of money is a gamble that the economy will pick up and we'll be able to pay everything back. That's a hell of a gamble don't you think? And he's giving the money back to the wrong people. The tax cuts that he is proposing won't create consumer demand, only investment potential, which there already is. Without consumer demand, that is, empowering the consumers (the middle class, those who spend everything they earn), there's no reason to invest.
Does anyone really think that he can sharply cut the federal revenue and still fund all those projects he promises AND pay for our activities in the Middle East? That's fiscally irresponsible.
Oh, and brilliant argument calling what I have to say prattle and then not substantiating it. bravo. if you're going to make the claim that I'm wrong, offer up a better theory or argument.
Alex