Do You think Tax Cuts Proposed By Either Party Will Change Your Quality of Life? If not, why should it be an important election issue?

[Ferocious]

The interest on the national debt is the third largest expenditure by the Fed. Government (after SS and Defense....bigger than Medicare!).

 

[DanStp]

jjm

You don't understand do you? Bush is for more freedom, not less. Freedom to kill babies is not freedom, and abortion will not be outlawed anyhow. The freedom you will lose is the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS the most important freedom of all. WIthout that......every right you have goes away........quickly. Right now the Clinton/Gore/Reno "justice" department is in Federal court trying to take that freedom away..........THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO STOPPED.

 

[etech]

Back to taxes for a minute.

National Taxpayers Union

<<In addition, like CBO and OMB, NTUF does not define tax cuts as spending programs, unless they would literally more than &quot;zero out&quot; some Americans' tax bills. History has shown, most recently in the 1960s with President Kennedy and in the 1980s with President Reagan, that large, across-the-board tax cuts have actually resulted in substantial revenue feedback for the government and booming economies. As Cato Institute's Bruce Bartlett points out in his analysis of tax rates, after Kennedy's tax cut plan passed Congress in 1964 &quot;Subsequent analysis strongly indicates that, as Kennedy believed it would, the tax cut led to an increase in federal revenue, especially from the rich, and a significant increase in economic growth.&quot;2 William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore of Cato further expounded on how large tax cuts are good for the economy in their analysis of Reaganomics. They found that Ronald Reagan's 25 percent across-the-board tax cut led to &quot;years of economic progress, not
decline. Real GDP grew by about one-third in the 1980s. The economic gains were widely distributed among income groups, with every income
quintile, from the richest fifth to the poorest fifth, gaining ground in the Reagan years. The Reagan tax cuts were not a primary cause of the eruption of the deficit in the 1980s. The main two causes were an unexpectedly sharp reduction in inflation in the early 1980s that led to large real increases in federal spending, and a nearly $1 trillion military build-up during the last phase of the cold war.&quot;3 It is only when huge increases in pending are introduced that recessions occurred. ....
When the original study was released, it was Al Gore's promise at the Democratic Convention to double medical research costs that propelled
him &quot;over the top&quot;in the race to consume the entire on-budget surplus.6 It appears since then that Gore's fiscal appetite has grown and he is now eyeing the Social Security surplus as well. As Table 2 illustrates Gore now proposes annual spending increases of 319.5 billion, almost four times the amount his opponent proposes. Gore's ten-year spending estimate now totals $3.195 trillion, over $1 trillion more than the CBO projected surplus of $2.173 trillion >>

 

[Tominator]

My reason for supporting tax relief is very simple....Government attempts to control you and I by how they spend collected revenues. Less money to spend, less control. Simple enough concept?


And hopefully poor grad students end up wealthy! Then I'll bet you vote Republican!

ANY tax cut is a good tax cut!