Really, the number of problems with your post is almost unreal.
Tax cuts do not always stimulate the economy. In some cases they do, but in other cases they just stagnate the economy because the government is not as effective.
Again, your'e making statement which you are then NOT SUPPORTING. You're just spouting off opinions. You're also speaking vaguely (intentionally, IMO) to avoid being pinned down on specifics. So let's cut that out right now: Tax cuts, in general stimulate the economy. They stimulated the economy under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43.
Secondly, you are assuming
something that you cannot, that being "government is less effective when taxes are cut." Not only is that very hard to prove, if not impossible, you're ignoring that tax cuts raise revenue
it. So your assertion is not only impossible to prove, it's also based on a patently false premise.
For instance, when the very wealthy are receiving the majority of the tax cuts and the average middle class worker is not receiving barely any of that tax cut, there is no increased spending.
First, the "wealthy" will always receive more of the tax cut in real dollars because they are the ones paying
the taxes. Secondly, the "wealthy", in the government's opinion, are those making over 154,000 a year, combined household income. Then the "super rich" are those in the 6th and highest bracket (which is a "paltry" 35%!), who are making 336,000 or more (I've rounded the numbers...the actual table is found here: http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...50856,00.html)
Now let's look at that fifth bracket, the one for plain old "rich" people. 154,000 a year sounds like a lot of money. However, consider that two teachers in their 15th year might be making 78,000 a year with a Masters degree. That's right...the government, and apparently YOU, think that two school teachers raising teenagers and saving for college are RICH. I guess instead of paying the progessive rate of 33% on their top bracketable income, they should have payed the pre-Bush tax rate of 38% (disclaimer: I will have to look that up, but I think it's right).
The "rich" deserve to keep their money like the rest of us do, though they of course don't. They pay much more than we peons do, but you want them to pay more. Guess the two teachers from our example are only going to be able to afford a State school for their children, hmm?
But let's put that little real world example aside: You implication that only the rich benefited is ludicrous. I have stated many times that I am a middle income person. I currently make about $58,000 a year as an educator. The Bush tax cuts and changes in the tax code itself have saved well over $2,000 a year, in some cases $3,000 a year. I'm not even talking about case studies like me...Im talking about ME. So the middle class have benefited. You're stuck repeating an anti-Bush liberal myth.
The rich will continue to spend and invest the same...
, that's an unsupportable statement. You literally just made it up because it fits your beliefs
about fiscal policy. If anything, history has shown that the rich DO invest more into the economy, because we've seen the economic gains happen as a result of tax cuts. No offense, but wrong again.
Also, let's talk about the way the government has been using our money. The Iraq war has cost the US over $325 billion dollars in raw costs, and each year it costs us more.
Well, that's sort of a half truth. $300 billion plus has been appropriated
. We'd have to look up what's actually be spent
War taxes the economy as well.
What? Who says? War often acts as an economic stimulous
. You can't just make stuff up and hope that's it's true.
And when it comes down to it, we are spending US tax dollars and big bucks at that to fix someone else's problems.
True, but I can argue that a stable and democratic Iraq is
in our interests, and the interests of the world. Whatever..at least it's an issue worthy of debate.
And that means we are spending less money on the US which would could be spending on health care, stimulating the economy, and the environment.
There you go again. You posted that for one reason: It sounded good in your head. It's not just unsupportable, it's also...again...patently false. Discretionary, non-defense spending has skyrocketed
under Bush and the Republican controlled Congress. It's gone up faster than under the more liberal Clinton Administration. I assume you're going to accept that as fact (because, well, it is) and not make me find a link. But, I will if you won't take my word for it.
As an aside, how exactly would the government spend
money to stimulate the economy? Please tell me you're not going to say we should "spend" it on tax cuts for the lower and middle class. Please.
And it's not just Iraq's problem, it's George Bush's problem because he wants Oil and an easy access portal to the Middle East. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism; the administration lied about that. All it had to do with was big business and geopolitics.
Wow, you're kind of an Abstract Random, aren't you? "...because he wants Oil...."
LOL. Anyway, if you have some evidence that we went to war for oil, then please post it. We already buy billions of barrels of oil from the Middle East, so I really don't see why we'd have to invade to get it.
As for the Admin lying, well there is simply no evidence of that. And Saddam did, demonstrably
support terrorism. At the very least he paid $25,000 cash payments to Palestinian suicide bombers. He also at least openly tolerated
terrorism operations from within his own country. That much we know...it's not even up for debate.
And speaking of oil, the current price of addiction to foreign oil is: $3,442,122,401,117.59
What is that number and how is the "price" of addiction to foreign oil???
Clinton was able to balance the national budget, reduce crime and poverty, and under his presidency, there was one of the greatest economies of US history.
You're not listening. I asked you for three examples of specific actions and policies
that Clinton ordered or was directly responsible for
that caused that stellar economy to develop.
Your links are POINTLESS because I'm not arguing that the economy was better in the 1980s. Clearly you feel the need to try and make this case because...
1) You can't defend your other, indefensible statements
2) It is a case that fits with your pro-Democrat. anti-conservative ideology
To give bush SOME credit, the real-estate market boomed during his presidency. The flipside of that is, that its crashing now, and the real-esate market is often good during times of recession.
Your claim about Real Estate and recession is questionable, but I'll let you have that one for now. That said, I want to show you some intellecutal honesty by asking this question: What did Bush do to cause the Real Estate market to be so good?
I can't think of anything in particular. The point is you're not only making utterly false claims, you're attributing things to Clinton and Bush and are unable to demonstrate why
they should be attributed.
I really don't mean to offend you. I do ask that you answer my questions and either prove your assertions or concede my points about them.