It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Many economists estimate that tax cuts replace about 40% of the revenues lost. The Reagan administration may have recouped, say, 45% (more than expected) but that still wouldn't pay for them.
The Reagan and Bush, Jr. tax cuts were/are paid for with borrowed money. It's not just the stimulus package that put the country into debt.
Right now the middle class is shouldering a higher tax rate than either of the other two. Obama's plan would relieve the middle class somewhat and raise taxes on the upper 1% of the income distribution. That could be called a "bottom up" or at least a "middle up" plan. None of that would require the U.S. to borrow more money.
A strong, healthy and growing middle class is what is needed.
Your plan for easing some burdens on small businesses sounds like a good one.
As far as cutting spending, there's a lot of pork as we all know and that certainly can be cut. Then of course there's the war, that's costing 12B a month. What many people usually mean by cutting spending is ending programs for the poor. In reality, more of the budget goes to the so-called "middle-class entitlements"--social security, medicare, social security disability, veterans' benefits, etc.--than goes to the bottom of the income scale. I'm not sure people would be in such a hurry to cut those.
Originally posted by vor78
It always makes people feel better to punish the rich, but ultimately, its counterproductive. Economics is a lot like physics. For every action, there is an equal, but opposite reaction. If you raise taxes on the rich, thereby cutting into their profits, they will seek methods of recouping those profits. How will they do it? They'll either raise prices on the products they sell you or they'll reduce employment and expect fewer employees to do the same amount of work.
In the end, it'll just make matters worse.