Replies

Wait a minute! I am confused. I keep thinking about all the time Demoncrats in the 2000 election kept saying that Clinton's tax increase in 1993 led to the economic boom of the 1990's. Doesn't that mean that Lieberman needs to be calling for a tax increase to get the economy moving?

"What I'm really asking for is that we take the next phase of the Bush tax cuts that haven't gone into effect yet," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., "and take those tax cuts, which will effect the top two percent of the country, and recycle them; redirect them and bring them forward into business tax cuts."

snip...

"The president didn't cause the economic problems but he's not given the leadership to get us out of them," Lieberman told WABC. "And he's contributed to them with a tax cut last year that he pushed through that was just larger than we can afford."

Let's get this straight now. We need to take the Bush tax cuts, that are too large to "afford," and rework them around to be tax cuts that Lieberman likes. But if they are too large to be afforded, how can we give the cuts to someone else? At least Lieberman recognizes that we are overtaxed, he just disagrees with who gets the cut. At least Bush's plan goes to every individual in proportion to how much tax they already pay.

I think we should have Lieberman's tax cut ON TOP OF the cut already provided. The interesting thing is that, since I am married, one earner, with no children and no capital intensive business, the only benefit I get directly is from the 10% rate introduced by the Bush tax cut. But, unlike most of the people addressed by the Demoncrats, I am not interested in what I can get directly - I want a booming economy that will provide opportunities for me and all other Americans.