Taxing the rich - what is the cutoff?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

The important takeaway according to the study was that tax cuts have to be affordable (which means cutting programs). That would support the opposite conclusion of tax cuts increasing revenue.

I think this goes without saying, and my one real problem with the Bush Administration (I'm not and never was real anti-war, and I think good point are made on both sides) was a general disregard for a balanced budget.

Tax cuts are generally a good idea, and the thought process that they would stimulate the economy a generally solid one, but I totally agree with you that they dropped the ball by not making up the difference by cutting spending.

Smaller government, by definition, requires the government to cut its spending. Not only GW, but the entire administration sort of got off on the right foot (cut taxes), and then decided that they could push off balancing the budget for about eight years (creating an impressive deficit).

I'm not going to pile on with the whole war expenses; they obviously did not see that coming when they took office in 2001, but they certainly did not adapt by cutting spending, and now the government is pretty helpless from a financial standpoint.

Perhaps that will actually be a good thing. Even if it's Obama gets elected, he'll be forced to cut spending, which is something that needed to be done about 15 years ago. Problem is, there will be time to be spent digging out of the deficit as opposed to solving real problems like the impending energy crisis and potential food crisis that will follow.

So while I think the decision to go to war can be debated, and the decision to stay can be debated, I really don't think the lack of a solid economic plan to support said war can be defended.