needtoknow,it seems that you are trying to blame the Senate for what you call a tax cut for the 'rich'.I think you are doing so because Republicans have the majority in the Senate.However,when you breakdown the numbers in the Senate you will find that the Republican majority is at most,2.
This is the 108th Congressional breakdown.
House of Rep. 228 Republicans,210 Democrats(including 5 delegates),one independent who is aligned with the Democrats and one vacancy.
The Senate has 51 Republicans,48 Democrats and one independent,who is aligned with the Democrats.Link to the preceding information.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21379.pdf
Below are excerpts from the link you provided in your post.
"
The Senate ...."
The Senate has almost as many Democrats as it does Republicans.I don't think that the Republicans are entirely responsible for the tax cuts.Democrats seem to have went along too.What is wrong is that the tax cuts helped to stimulate the economy and now the Democrats are worried.They are now bashing the tax cuts and trying to bring up the class warfare bit that they are so good at.
The writer in one post writes:
"
Instead, give reductions to those who both need and will spend the money gained. Enact a Social Security tax "holiday" or give a flat-sum rebate to people with low incomes. Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets ."
He continues by saying:
"
When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays ."
In the above quote,the writer,which you seem to agree with,contradicts himself.He says:
"
Instead, give reductions to those who both need and will spend the money gained. Enact a Social Security tax "holiday" or give a flat-sum rebate to people with low incomes ".
He then turns around and says:
"
remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties ."
Now,I may not be an economist but I do have enough education to realize that the writer is saying that it is bad to give tax breaks while at the same time he is saying give rebates to people.Now,if a rebate or whatever someone wants to call it is given,regardless of whether it is a tax reduction or a rebate,will it not have to be paid for somewhere?
I know that some will say that a rebate is a one time thing and would not cost as much,however, a tax cut is much more beneficial than a 'one' time rebate.
With a tax cut,people have more money to spend the way they see fit.They have this money each week,not just one time.In turn,when people have more money,the more they spend,this is common knowledge.
I may be wrong but isn't the idea of giving rebates similar to giving a tax break?
If you are going to have to as the writer says:
"
giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties ."
Then why not just give people a tax break and let them spend the income they earn the way they see fit? If it is going to have to be paid back to begin with,at least let those that have worked and paid taxes get a tax break and do with their money as they want.
As I said,the more money that a person has,the more they spend.
The more a person spends,the more jobs that are created.The more jobs that are created,the larger the tax base.The larger the tax base,the more income the government has.
As I said,I am not an economist but this is plain old common sense.
If we go back to the Carter years,we can see that high taxes
Do Not help the economy.Since we can see that high taxes
Did Not help then,why do some think they will help
Now ?
It just doesn't make any sense.
[ July 28, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
