As the election day comes around, Democrats are scraping to find a way to discredit the Republican candidates, even as every expert, liberal or conservative, predicts an R victory this November.The right you will see a graph of the taxes payed out by "the rich" in the year 2004. I'll explain the graph a little later, as it pertains quite extensively to the subject matter at hand.
A plant sent me an email that is being circulated by those inside the liberal Democrat community telling organizers exactly what to focus on.
I won't release the email directly, since that may, in some small way, reveal the source, however I will deal with the main focal points one by one.
1) The first claim is that Republicans have released a tax plan that would borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans -- and would increase our deficit by $4 trillion. Needless to say, it makes their claims of financial responsibility even less
believable than they were in the first place. (the words of the email, not mine)
My rebuttal? I thought you'd never ask.
Democrats routinely fail to recognize that cutting taxes has, over the decades, actually INCREASED revenue to our national government. However, the reason that the deficit has continued to go up and up and up, is because spending has never been cut. Statistically speaking, and if one cares to he or she may reference the graph, the rich actually pay MORE taxes than if the tax rate is higher. The reason for this? The "rich" are the ones that supply jobs. They own businesses, they manage major accounts...and at the end of the day, if they see they aren't going to be taxed up the wazoo, they either a) hire more people or b) invest more money in different ventures. This creates jobs. Which creates taxpayers. This also creates more revenue for the "rich" man, who makes more money, and pays more taxes than when his tax rate is through the roof. Therefore, the government actually makes MORE money by having lower tax rates over all. The important thing for the government to recognize is that spending, being at the all time high that it is, needs to be cut in order to make those surpluses actually matter.
2) President Obama's plan includes policies that reduce taxes on the
middle class and small businesses, and would extend the Bush tax cuts
only to those making under $250,000 -- not to the wealthiest few.
My rebuttal: this is absolutely true. However, if the wealthiest few are getting the hard end of the bargain on this one, wheres the incentive for them to continue to hire more of those "middle class" people? In all different aspects of economics, there are a couple of things that economists universally agree on. One of the biggest aspects is incentives. Incentives are everything. The economy is not doing that great. There isn't much incentive to hire people. In order to at least try and get the unemployment rate down, the wealthiest HAVE to be included in this. No matter what your ideology, no matter what your thoughts or feelings regarding the rich, they have to be given a reason to hire people. Period.
3) Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's tax plan would
nearly double our country's projected deficit by adding $4 trillion in
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans over the next ten years.
Republicans are pretending they would pay for those tax cuts by
freezing spending -- but they haven't said what they would freeze or
cut, and their freeze generally would save only $300 billion over the
next decade.
My rebuttal.
Hell, see the top couple of paragraphs. This is ludicrous!
Re-pass the Bush tax cuts all the way, from the lowest income to the highest. It worked to get us out of the recession of the early 2,000's, and it is needed to keep us from the edge of a depression as we near 2011.
And yes, some spending should be frozen or at least cut. It's what a responsible country does when they are in over their heads in debt. What, exactly? I don't know, exactly. What would I do? Form a bi-partisan committee (TRULY bipartisan, with an even number of R's and D's) and go through the books one by one. Look for mess ups. Look for wasted funds. If at the end of the day it isn't that much of a success, at least it can be said that it was attempted.
4) Despite Republicans' rhetoric about deficits and spending,
Senator McConnell's tax plan would grow America's deficit without
growing our economy, creating jobs, or boosting America's middle
class. Instead, the Republican plan would return us to the same failed
economic policies that led to the economic crisis: cutting taxes for
the wealthy few, cutting regulations on special interests and big
business, and cutting middle class families loose to fend for
themselves.
Don't cut regulations at all. I agree. The rules are there for a reason. However, I have to be the voice of dissent on most everything else. Special interests are pretty level across the liberal/conservative board, and middle class families are only middle class because they can hold onto a job that is (SURPRISE!) provided by the so called "rich".
I don't hate the rich. I recognize that they are the ones that actually supply jobs in this country, and that they have to be given some kind of reason to keep supplying jobs, even in this catastrophic economical climate. However, the Democrats are doing their damnedest to keep up the typical "rich vs. poor" schematic that has won them so many elections in the past.
Don't fall for it this time, please.
Don't let "hope and change", which is about as useful as a pocket full of rainbows and unicorns, be your calling card. How about we use "hard work and perseverance", and work towards rebuilding this country as best we can and making the unemployment rate go back down?
But you're not going to make that happen by screwing the rich.
