Bush Tax Cuts Must Be Extended

davidlimbaugh.com ^ | 08/30/08 | david limbaugh

[lancer256]

Democrats have only two arguments left against extending the Bush tax cuts, but recent data affirm that neither is valid. Sadly, though, Democrats will never abandon their claims because they fit so well into their class warfare template.

Even Democrats can't reasonably deny we've experienced sustained economic growth following the Bush tax cuts. Instead, they've resurrected the canard they used to discredit the phenomenal growth of the supply-side Reagan years: Our economic growth has come at the expense of federal solvency.

The growth, they say, is illusory, because it has led to record federal deficits, which means that greedy capitalist Republicans are getting richer on the backs of future generations.

Democrats have added another argument to discourage Americans from believing their lying eyes about the growth spurred by the Bush tax cuts, which also plays into their class warfare methodology. Without refuting that traditional economic indicators reveal strong and steady economic growth, they race to point out that these gains have not been equitably distributed among income groups. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.

Let's see how both claims -- exploding deficits and income inequalities -- stack up against the facts.

Contrary to liberal propaganda, the Reagan tax cuts led to dramatic increases in federal revenues even after adjusting for inflation. Increases in the deficit were due to the spending side, some of the blame for which admittedly should be shared by Republicans.

[RC2]

Keep the tax cuts.............cut the spending. If they don’t have a balanced budget, cut the pay of every congressman/woman 15% every year until they get it under control.

[yldstrk]

I love it...Bush played a smart economic hand and the Democrats are gonna have to face facts.

[Cementjungle]

Even Democrats can't reasonably deny we've experienced sustained economic growth following the Bush tax cuts.

But I thought the economy is the worst it's been in 10,000 years?!?!?

[eraser2005]

Contrary to much propaganda from many people, there was a BIG difference between the Reagan cuts and the Bush cuts.

Reagan’s cuts came with significant changes to simplify the tax code. Top rates were reduced, but so were deductions/credits/loopholes. Bush cut some rates, but also added complexity to the tax code.

Both Reagan and Kennedy’s cuts came with simplification. Both led to growth, without reductions in federal revenues.

Bush’s cuts reduced rates but made the overly complex tax code even worse.... There was still growth, but unlike the Reagan and Kennedy cuts, there was a significant reduction in federal revenues for a period, until economic growth and especially real bracket creep (the stealth tax increase) came into play....

Flame away, but if it were up to me, I’d let the tax cuts expire in favor of a package of reduced rates and reduced complexity.... (in other words, move closer to a flat tax - keep progressive rates, but stop the mindless loopholes, credits, deductions, etc....)

[EvilOverlord]

Keep the tax cuts.............cut the spending. If they don’t have a balanced budget, cut the pay of every congressman/woman 15% every year until they get it under control.

I'm not sure the congress cares much about their salaries. There's plenty of other ways for them to make money.

If elected, I promise to veto any budget that does not reduce spending by 10% every year I'm in office, and cut taxes by 10%, since we not longer need to pay for that spending (taking advantage of liberal logic). It would take 2/3 of congress to agree on a budget that doesn't meet my demands. I will also veto it if defense spending is cut.

But of course, I'm not running, and you cant make me :)