|Re: Michael Burgess Misleads Constituents at Taxpayer Exp...|
Poster: iSeeker Posted: 2010/9/23 10:21:33
I like how you disparage what you deem "right-wing organizations" that Burgess quotes for his stats but then you hit people over the head with a blog put out by the White House Communications Director. Methinks the White House might have their own political agenda by saying that the republican plan would "double the national deficit in 10 years".
There was a good article in the Dallas Morning News yesterday (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedconte ... ate.Edition1.4596ee6.html) that was put out by an AP writer. Here is what he had to say:
"Making all the tax cuts permanent would add about $3.9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Obama's plan would cost a little more than $3 trillion over the next decade, about $700 billion less than the Republican plan."
So the truth is, the republican view and the democratic view are really not all that different since both sides want to keep most of the tax cuts going.
Thus the real issue then is whether or not you believe that raising taxes in a down economy on those making more than $200k (if single) or $250k (if married) will help or hurt the economy. In a vacuum, the answer is easy: it will help because it will raise revenue and we need that since we are running such a huge deficit. Of course, we don't live in a vacuum. So, the real real question is: can the government do a better job using the taxes to stimulate the economy than leaving the money in the hands of the "high-wage earners"?
I really don't know that answer, but that is how I would frame it. I'm not necessarily against a progressive tax structure, which is what we have already, but intrinsicly I don't like percentage rate tax increases. Since we use %'s, individuals real tax bill already goes up in the good times, and goes down in the bad times. People, even those high wage earners, are making less now, than they did before. I would rather see government tighten its spending, yes, even provide less services, than keep the spending the same when revenues decline. Maybe they should even think about putting dollars away in the good so they have some money when things go bad. Isn't that what we all try to do?