Friday, March 25, 2011

Issue #1

   Republican leaders in Congress have advocated legislation to make the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 permanent, high deficit and national debt projections raised concerns about whether those tax reductions should continue indefinitely.
Making tax cuts permanent, supporters say, will leave citizens and businesses with more money to spend and they will spend it more wisely than the federal government. Proponents argue that per­manent tax cuts will spur sustained economic growth, which will in turn lead to budget surpluses. people who are agianst making the tax cuts permanent argue that those cuts are leading to major bud­get deficits that will eventually kill the economy. obviously horrible for the economy and no need for long-term tax cuts it will only worsen the situation.
   Not only is tax cuts going to lead to major budget problems but  on the other side of the spectrum it may lead to more productive spending and it should leave more spending money to smaller business and more citizens that don't have the quality spending money one deserves or would pursue, leading to more and better quality federal government spending. therefore I'm for making taxs cuts and budgeting surpluses. "reaganomics" is Ronald Reagan's way or term of cutting taxes in the way i believe they should be promoted. "He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared" found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
"Tax the rich"

No comments:

Post a Comment