Why does everybody blame tax cuts for our problems?

I agree. The problem is not that we need to increase govt profit (taxes) but they need to learn how to spend wisely. They need to look at their income and rebudget themselves to cut wasteful spending. the problem with that is they are ALL politicians and try to appease everyone for votes. We need a new congress FOR the people, BY the people, OF the people.

I wish it was a private business so they would have to learn how to spend wisely, then they would just fail with their money.

The problem is career politicians spending billions on pork projects. There is no legislation that leaves congress or the senate without some kind of spending attached. Raising taxes lowers tax receipts and lowers the ability of the private sector grow and create jobs. They just do not get it. The clowns in Washington are separated from reality and should be separated from government. I say vote every incumbent out of office in 2010 to send them this message. This will clear out the house and 1/3 of the senate. These people are supposed to be working for us, not the other way around. If you or I continually did not do what we are supposed to at work, we would be fired. It is time to fire our employees who do not do what we want them to do.

If people blame tax cuts for our problems, they also need to blame the stimulus bills, the bailouts, and an expansionary monetary policy.

Deficit spending has been a major policy of the current administration as well.

FYI: Imagine if the Federal Reserve was audited properly. We would probably balance our budgets just from that alone.

You got it *wrong*.

An increase in taxes doesn't mean an "increase in spending".

If that were the case, Clinton would've spent us into a deeper hole--instead of handing Bush II a surplus at the end of his term and a reduced national debt.

Reagan, Bush I and II *lowered* taxes and spent our country deeper into debt through deficit-spending.

Their approach to cutting taxes meant that the bulk of the tax burden would land squarely on the shoulders, while the rich and the elite would either get a "free ride" or a reduced tax rate and other perks--according to their level of opulent income.

As a result of their lowered tax rates and taxes, most state governments quickly fell into deficits because of negative tax revenue growth by the federal government.

A healthy tax rate would've prevented this and still lowered our national debt. But Bush and Reagan belong to that group of neoconservatives whom don't believe in "budgeting" or retaining a healthy tax rate which would benefit the country as a whole.

Clinton did and that's why we had a booming economy in the 90s and a failed "jobless recovery" economy in the 2000s.

Cutting unnecessary spending wouldn't do anything by itself *either*. You can cut out all the billions in wasted monies by our own government, but you'd still be faced with a mounting twin-deficit problem.

Tax can cut be the if 2 % country has about %80-%90 of the wealth.

I'd like to know why we working stiffs have to pay 41% tax on our overtime pay while the rich get tax breaks? Maybe it's because the government need a few saps to help offset the affluence's tax cuts.

Power Corrupts.

Money is Power.

Taxes take money (power) from you and places it in the hands of individuals who can use that power against what you consider to be in the best interests of you and your family.

Anyone who wants to raise your taxes is a tyrant, or a best an elitist despot.

They don't.

However, the conservatives seem to be stuck in the delusion that tax cuts fix everything.

Borrow and spend should be their mantra.

Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, gave a speech the other day at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. In it, he nicely summarized the federal government’s long-term fiscal problem in one sentence:

“The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services,” he said.

i think i visit objective and take a stab at this question. in spite of the shown fact that I evaluate myself to be conservative, i visit objective and answer this in a deferential and considerate way. a million) In answering this question, you will tend to ask yet another question. this question could be, "Has the working type had a help in the conventional of existence in the previous 40 years? Many could be liable to assert that's has no longer. while it contains those political concerns, you ought to locate data and information to help the two argument. many of the time, it in simple terms relies upon on what you're able to prefer to have faith. Arguments helping that that the conventional of residing has no longer declined could incorporate the fairly unfastened flow of credit (even given the recession commencing in 2008) and the huge availability of inexpensive shopper products. 2) the answer to this question could be such as the 1st. maximum economists, who've a wide know-how of marketplace forces, could disagree with you. If firms and the wealthy alike have been relieved of the countless tax burden, then could have extra capacity to the two hire extra wages an will enhance alike. data to help this argument ought to be recent in taking a seem at between the extra socialist international locations in Europe, Sweden. In reading swedish firms, you're able to observe that no longer a single fortune 500 corporation has been based because of fact the implementation of heavy socialist rules. in addition to, If Sweden develop right into a US state, then its conventional of residing could be in the backside 10. 3) between the excuses that republicans help rules favorable to substantial firms could be that, if we make it too hard to habit corporation in this united states, then they could bypass someplace else. Why could you, as a company, prefer to function in an environment that heavily punishes wealth and unfastened corporation? i do no longer condemn hard paintings unions and minimum salary rules, yet I additionally do no longer think of that a "soak the wealthy" coverage is a brilliant theory. it may be extra suitable to have firms "hoarding up salary", than to stay in a society had in simple terms approximately no employment or corporation risk. i think of the depressed circumstances of The Soviet Union and jap Europe could desire to be good examples for the help of this concept.

Because they are like lab rats. They say what they have been conditioned to say. Tax cuts bad, Tax spending good. **grunt**