Romney: Tax cuts of 20% across the board will stimulate the economy. Reagan knew the benefits of tax cuts....(Insert conservative monologue).
Obama: Reagan also knew of compromise and raised taxes in 1982, ultimately taking back about half of his 1981 tax cut. This was the largest tax increase in four decades. Reagan chose tax increases rather than spending cuts, but apparently Governor Romney, while frequently boasting and romanticizing his policies and his legacy, refuses to consider the actual policies Reagan himself implemented. Those policies would make Reagan an extremist in the Republican party of today, based on the Ryan budget plan that Governor Romney has endorsed. Bush Sr. acknowledged tax cuts should be raised from the Reagan economy. He used the term "voodoo economics" to describe excessive supply-side, tax-cut for the rich based policies. The Clinton years provides ample evidence there is room to raise taxes on those benefiting the most from the economic recovery. Since there is little evidence that the higher incomes currently being received by individuals and corporations, the highest profit to GDP ratio in 50 years and the lowest tax to GDP ratio in 50 years, is creating jobs, the public sector DOES need to step up, and at least ensure employment levels are at least maintained, but preferably increased in roughly equal proportion to GDP growth, at least until the private sector shows at least a modest correlation between profits and job creation.
It is frequently said that any tax increase on the 1% is a tax increase on job creators. Only 3% of Americans reporting business income even report any income in excess of $250,000, yet Mr. Romney wants the American people to believe that raising the top tax brackets less than 5%, only on income exceeding $250,000 a year, will severely stifle job creation when businesses are making record profits, income disparity is at 40 year highs, and there is absolutely zero evidence that anything about that assertion is backed up by any evidence. If it is, Mr. Romney, now is your chance to present that evidence.
Would anyone like to continue the debate?
Obama: Reagan also knew of compromise and raised taxes in 1982, ultimately taking back about half of his 1981 tax cut. This was the largest tax increase in four decades. Reagan chose tax increases rather than spending cuts, but apparently Governor Romney, while frequently boasting and romanticizing his policies and his legacy, refuses to consider the actual policies Reagan himself implemented. Those policies would make Reagan an extremist in the Republican party of today, based on the Ryan budget plan that Governor Romney has endorsed. Bush Sr. acknowledged tax cuts should be raised from the Reagan economy. He used the term "voodoo economics" to describe excessive supply-side, tax-cut for the rich based policies. The Clinton years provides ample evidence there is room to raise taxes on those benefiting the most from the economic recovery. Since there is little evidence that the higher incomes currently being received by individuals and corporations, the highest profit to GDP ratio in 50 years and the lowest tax to GDP ratio in 50 years, is creating jobs, the public sector DOES need to step up, and at least ensure employment levels are at least maintained, but preferably increased in roughly equal proportion to GDP growth, at least until the private sector shows at least a modest correlation between profits and job creation.
It is frequently said that any tax increase on the 1% is a tax increase on job creators. Only 3% of Americans reporting business income even report any income in excess of $250,000, yet Mr. Romney wants the American people to believe that raising the top tax brackets less than 5%, only on income exceeding $250,000 a year, will severely stifle job creation when businesses are making record profits, income disparity is at 40 year highs, and there is absolutely zero evidence that anything about that assertion is backed up by any evidence. If it is, Mr. Romney, now is your chance to present that evidence.
Would anyone like to continue the debate?
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter