As a side note, 100k/year is NOT a lot of money, like many democrats claim... maybe 20 years ago. I hit that mark as a young stockbroker and never considered myself rich. Here's a question for the board: did anyone ever consider that the real "greedy" people are the ones who sit around and worry that others have "too much money" and therefore it needs to be taken from them. That, to me, is the real envy and greed in today's politics.
How touching. The war is very stimulating, but I don't see the rich lining up for that little venture. The poor risk their asses every day. If we only look at our own personal financial benefit, how can we hope to correct the fundamental problems in the U.S. economy, such as the national debt, or inflation? How do the tax cuts address these problems? They don't. Spare me the supply-side nonsense - it simply doesn't work. The whole idea of a balanced budget, which would certainly be a good start, is that the government is SUPPOSED to "tax and spend", presumably in equal amounts. Yes, reducing government is good - but neither party has a track record of doing that, certainly not the Republicans. It may sound great to cut taxes while simultaneously raising spending, which is the legacy of the Republican party for the past 28 years or so, but it's irresponsible, and frankly, stupid. The Republicans can whine all they want about "tax and spend" like a bunch of schoolchildren, but aren't they much worse for spending irresponsibly with abandon? And if we vote for people who think like that, aren't we just being greedy, or simply stupid enough to buy that nonsense? I just think it's time U.S. Politics got out of the schoolyard. It would help to start educating people about basic economics. It's time American politicians learned that they can no longer buy votes by promising tax cuts that make no sense. Even McCain understood that, at least at one point.
What's your source? Also, how much of those tax cuts were funded out of spending cuts, versus the amount funded by increased borrowing? Tax cuts funded by borrowing are actually net tax increases because they increase the national debt and the nation has to pay interest on that increased amount.
Ummm...I happen to see first hand the demographics of those "risking their asses". There is no draft. That old mantra is dead. Thrill seeking upper middle class. Joey deuschbag who becomes a second rate cook is making more with the hazard duty, combat, and tax exclusions than he ever will in his life. That's why he wants to go back. Do a little homework.
So, you're saying Joey's getting rich? The poor risk their asses every day - whether that's in the war or at home isn't the point. But, with few exceptions, and as you just confirmed, the rich aren't lining up for that risk/reward ratio, now are they? Since you mention homework, let's try some spelling: it's "douche bag". Two words. No 's'. Let's also try talking like polite grown ups, shall we? Thanks.
On January 21, 2001, the national debt was: $5,728,195,796,181.57 Today it is: $9,291,660,518,736.75 So gnome, where does that extra 3.5 trillion fit in your pretty columns above? A DEBT IS A DELAYED TAX. see: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
I ABSOFRICKIN'-LUTELY agree. Bush has done GREAT harm to the US by promoting his PERSONAL agenda at taxpayer expense. By "charging" it to us (increased national debt), most Americans don't see nor fully understand what he's done. However, I wouldn't feel any better if our taxes had been sky-high to pay for the war in Iraq and all the other profligate items Congress spends money on, willy nilly. Nor will I feel better if a DemoCrap President and legislature taxes the crap out of me for their own profligate spending.... even if it leads to a balanced budget.
But...most of that debt came from the spending on the war in Iraq, which has been proven to be a fraud, based on a collection of lies by the Bush administration, and exacerbated by untimely and in appropriate tax cuts for those who needed it the least, purely for political gain? Why, then, should this kind of behavior be accepted? And why is it less impeachable than getting a hummer in the Oval office and denying it?