I won't vote for Kerry. But I'm really not sure I want to vote for Bush. My primary gripe - the totally out of wack budget. I understand we're at war, but then why the tax cuts in the middle of a war? Don't get me wrong, I like the tax cuts (even though I benefited little from it) but I don't see why it couldn't wait if we're "at war". Or at the very least, why it couldn't have been scaled down some.
Having said all that, I may end up voting for Bush anyway. I do like a lot he's done. Kyoto, Afghanistan, Iraq - are what come to mind right now. I may sit out too, since I live in NJ and what with the whole Electoral College system, a vote for Bush might be wasted. I'd vote for him anyway if I was enthusiastic about him, but at this point in time I am not. We'll see what happens between now and November.
To get the economy moving.
You're wrong and you benefited from the tax cuts.
Very simple, tax cuts remove money from the leviathan and leave the money with those that earned it. That money is more efficiently used in the hands of the private sector.
In this case, the tax cuts were necessary to rectify the recessionary economy left to Bush by the tax increaser Clinton.
Tax Curtis can in the short term lead to deficits but in the long term they have an limiting effect on government.
The ideal world is tax cuts and reductions in spending. Bush is currently making an effort at part 2.
Finally, I would say this. I think you're on the wrong board.
Your problem is that you are focusing on the budget deficit. The deficit in and of itself does not really matter. What matters is the overall level of spening. That we are borrowing to pay for it rather than being taxed to pay for it is not a critical issue. That being said, W is of course perhaps the worst president when it comes to spending in modern times.
The tax cuts are what has spured the economy so far, with out them I shudder to think how deep this recession would have been.
Think about the Reagan years. If we didn't have a dem congress with out of control spending on social programs, imagine what could have been accomplished.
The president isn't solely responsible for spending as many here think. It's a joint effort. Our founding fathers created it so one man could not become dictator. The way many of you think, you want a dictator. Be careful for what you wish for, because if Bush can wave a magic wand and correct the ills of the past, so too could a democrat president.
The Bush administration protected this country from more terrorist attacks after only having been in office 9 months. Do you think a dem (gore) could have done better? We'd be kowtowing to the Islamic radicals as we speak, oh wait, we wouldn't be speaking. We would have lost our ability to post on FR. Don't think the dems wouldn't love to shut FR and others like us down. They're trying their damnedest with Rush.
Bush is cutting taxes to increase the revenues. Also, remember, we have only had 2 years of a republican controlled house and presidency. Check out the 75th congress. We've come a long way, we have a longer road ahead. We can not expect one man to change the course of a nation when so many have been manipulated into thinking the socialist way is the right way.
Tax cuts do not create federal deficits; greater government spending does. That is the message tax-cut supporters must hammer home, according to political analysts and economists. Otherwise this truth will be drowned out in the media in a deluge of confusion.
Politicians are expected to repeat the mantra, "Reagan tax cuts were responsible for declining revenues and soaring deficits in the 1980s," but no such thing occurred, according to budget analysts.
* Receipts from individual income taxes rose to $446 billion in fiscal 1989 -- President Reagan's last budget -- from $286 billion in fiscal 1981, the year Reagan began to slash personal tax rates -- a 56 percent increase.
* Annualized, tax receipts grew faster than that period's 4 percent inflation.
* During the same period, federal spending rose from $678 billion to $1.143 trillion -- a 69 percent increase.
From 1981 to 1983, personal income tax receipts rose 1 percent -- while spending surged 19 percent. This was during a bad recession. After the recession, the Reagan tax cuts worked and revenues soared.
* From 1984 to 1989, growth in personal tax receipts outstripped growth in spending, 50 percent to 34 percent.
* And the deficit fell from 5 percent of gross domestic product to 2.9 percent.
* After 1989, the deficit ballooned again as revenues dried up following an increase in tax rates.
* From 1989 to 1993, personal tax receipts rose just 14 percent, while spending rose 23 percent
Then there is the evidence of the beneficial economic effects of President Kennedy's tax cuts.
* In 1964, the economy grew by 5.8 percent -- followed by 6.4 percent growth the following two years.
* The increasing tax revenues following from the surging economy led to a balanced budget by 1969 -- the last time that the government was able to balance its books.
But either sloppy thinking or purposeful confusion perpetuates the myth that tax cuts produce higher federal deficits.
Source: Editorial, "The Supply-Side Deficit Myth," Investor's Business Daily; and Donald Lambro, "Unstrung Tax-Cut Lamenters," Washington Times, August 12, 1996.
Because that's what he said he would do, and because had he NOT delivered on the campaign promise, the "real conservatives" would have equated his broken campaign pledge to Bush I's "read my lips" fiasco, and voted against him anyway.
You just can't win with some people.
That means you would just as soon have Kerry for president. Go back to DU.
I think you need to rethink your view on tax cuts! You think like a democrat.