Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j8ear
Oh and one more thing. Bush proposed and CONGRESS passed tax cuts FOR EVERYONE. FOR EVERYONE. Not the wealthy, not the middle class, not the poor. EVERYONE. That is a much more honest way to characterize it.
|
Sure. As long as we ignore the fact that the Upper Class received the lion share of those tax cuts.
The basic explanation for the upper class and business targetted tax cuts was that if the upper class didn't have to pay as much in taxes, they would invest it, which would lead to businesses expanding, which would lead to job creation. Businesses have expanded. Jobs have not been created. The trickle-down theory failed again. Benefit: exclusive to the upper class.
The other option, focusing the tax cuts on the middle class would have allowed the middle class to have some relief from the economic difficulties the country is going through. It would have allowed the middle class to spend more money, which would allow businesses to grow (increasing the value of upper class investments), which would allow jobs to be created. Benefit: even without job creation is encompasses both the upper and middle classes.
Either method would result in the same outcome: more cash in the private sector. There is no economic excuse for focusing the tax cuts on the upper class. And the fact that jobs have not been created is nothing more than evidence that tax cuts are not and should not be considered the end-all-be-all of economic recovery.