Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
Pan, the only thing I disagree with you about is that you think we need to increase taxes to secure a balanced budget. Increasing taxes will do nothing to help the deficit as long as we have politicians that have no regard for a budget.
|
It's all a question of balance. If I'm far in the hole financially, I am certainly not going to go to HR and ask them to reduce my salary. By the same token, if the government is in debt, it should not reduce its tax rates.
Now, let's go over what Republicans always say when someone points out the fact that Clinton improved the economy. You remember that old line don't you? "nonono he didn't! Because see it takes 8 or more years for a president's economic policies to effect the economy!"
OK. Let's draw logical conclusions from that. Bush has been in office for 5 years. 5. Not 8. Not more than 8. Therefore, according to that wonderful republican "logic" Bush and his tax cuts are NOT improving the economy. Clinton's policies are taking effect right about now and are improving the economy.
And now the Republicans will say "well no but we NEVER said 8 + years!" (because this is what they say when you point out that their own words are biting them in the ass - they deny reality by claiming to have never said it in the first place) at which point I will say OK, then Clinton WAS responsible for improving the economy during his administration.
Therefore, no matter what stand you take on how long it takes a president's economic policies to effect the economy, Clintons policies work perfectly. Either they work perfectly long term or they take a few years to work. Either way, it's clear that there is another way to improve the economy than reducing taxes on your rich friends while spending as much as possible.