Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
You don't know that companies benefit from government incentives? Why do you think so many USA companies do not produce their products in the USA?
That's the backwards way to look at it. What it really means is that our income was cut (tax cuts were given, so less income flowing to the government), without a resultant cut in our expenditures.
If your income goes to 3/4 what it is now, what do you have to do? Cut your spending, of course. But was excessive spending the cause of your no longer having enough income to pay your bills? No. It was your income cut that caused your financial deficit.
BTW, those tax cuts, when originally enacted, DID cause a huge deficit. Were you angry then? Were you calling for spending cuts then?
That it was a resounding failure, a lie to the people.
Let me ask you a direct question, Joey: if the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250K/year are allowed to expire on schedule, our trillions of dollars of national deficit will be cut by 1/3 very quickly. With no changes to anything else in the budget. Are you for that, or against that? Yes or no?
|
The spending being too high is not the backwards way to look at it. It's the only way. What do you do (or would you do) when your own personal budget is in the red? You can't hit up your employer for more money at will, so you cut spending until you do earn more. You optimize what you spend, eliminating frivolous things and less efficient returns on your money.
What you said in your direct question to me is false. You are assuming that people will work just as hard even though they are taxed more, receiving less profit. That is false. THAT is also the reason that employers move jobs outside the country in the first place. Spending needs to be CUT, like it or not.