Originally Posted by Caleeko
But it looks like 2 sides to the same coin. We can do a stimulous and go in debt, or we can cut taxes and go in debt because they take in less taxes, or we can hope they dont cut stuff like community policing or border patrol funding and education when they cut the taxes. Either one sounds like a coin toss because neither side has said anything past the rhetoric. Stimulous package...ok, then what? Cut taxes...ok, then what?
Come on...it was the Joker in the picture, not Two Face.
The coin analogy would have been PERFECT if it had been Two Face!
But seriously, lowering taxes means people can buy more stuff. If they buy stuff, it increases demand for said products and services. More demand means more jobs to be able to fulfill the demand, which means more people paying taxes which would basically make up for the decrease in percentage of the taxes. Even the head of Obama's financial team (forgot her name, sorry) said that a tax cut would pay back 4x the amount of the cut, while a spending bill would only pay back 1.5x the cost. Of course, she said that before she was part of the Administration.
One of the things that bothers me is the semantics. They said the first TARP bill was a "Rescue" bill but everyone saw through it and called it what it was - a Bailout. The politicians kvetched and moaned about it saying that's not what it was, but there was no two ways about it - spin it all you want it was a bailout. This bill is anything but a "Stimulus" package. The stimulating would be very short term and would not actually stimulate the economy. It's a big spending bill, a big pork bill, and as Bryan said business as usual for Washington. But very few people are calling it that - even on Fox News!
Obama hasn't brought any "change" to Washington so far, except that he talked with the GOP. Talked with, but no actions were taken, nothing in the Bill was changed (so far, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until it gets signed...).