Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - "You Can't Soak the Rich"

aceventura3 · 08-11-2010, 07:49 AM

Krugman presents interesting points of view and is often either wrong or misleading.

It is true, that I for one, supported Bush because of his campaign promises to cut taxes. So yes, the tax cuts played to Bush's base, that is in the - isn't it obvious category. However the reason people like me support tax cuts is because we believe people do a better job of spending their own money than the folks in Washington. So there is much more to the story, that Krugman ignores.

On the impact of the tax cuts - the deficits that followed Bush's tax cuts were due to spending. Tax dollars collected rose while Bush was in office, however spending rose faster. The additional spending was for things like two wars, entitlements, national security and a few other things. No one, even Bush, had the discipline to reduce spending. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have made it worse.

Economic cycles are normal and fit into patterns. There was a recession when Bush took office, and it should not have surprised a real economist that another recession would occur 8 years later. the difference is that Bush cut taxes (across the board, even for the rich) and it minimized the impact of the recession. Obama has not cut taxes (his argument that ~95% got about a $10 cut in their payroll deductions is a joke), and taxes are feared to go up - freezing a lot of potential economic activity.

08-11-2010, 07:49 AM	#280 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Krugman presents interesting points of view and is often either wrong or misleading. It is true, that I for one, supported Bush because of his campaign promises to cut taxes. So yes, the tax cuts played to Bush's base, that is in the - isn't it obvious category. However the reason people like me support tax cuts is because we believe people do a better job of spending their own money than the folks in Washington. So there is much more to the story, that Krugman ignores. On the impact of the tax cuts - the deficits that followed Bush's tax cuts were due to spending. Tax dollars collected rose while Bush was in office, however spending rose faster. The additional spending was for things like two wars, entitlements, national security and a few other things. No one, even Bush, had the discipline to reduce spending. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have made it worse. Economic cycles are normal and fit into patterns. There was a recession when Bush took office, and it should not have surprised a real economist that another recession would occur 8 years later. the difference is that Bush cut taxes (across the board, even for the rich) and it minimized the impact of the recession. Obama has not cut taxes (his argument that ~95% got about a $10 cut in their payroll deductions is a joke), and taxes are feared to go up - freezing a lot of potential economic activity. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 08-11-2010 at 07:52 AM..