Well, considering that part of the reason that they won is to address the issues they want the senate to focus on, I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that its obstructionist.
The Republicans who won didn't get elected because the people wanted them to address certain issues, they won because they weren't Democrats. If we had a system that allowed a viable third party, I doubt the Republicans would have gained any seats at all in the Senate, and few in the House; incumbents of both parties would have been toppled in favor of a real alternative.
A large reason was that Democrats were disgusted and stayed home. There wasn't actually any shift toward Republicans, there was just a disgust with Democrats.
Unfortunately, once voters get disgusted with Republicans, which I wouldn't be surprised happens in two years, there will be no option but to vote back in the other set of trash.
Tax cuts don't result in budget deficits, overspending does. Tax cuts, given the chance to work, result in more money to the treasury. Today's news media chatter actually confirms this, since they're all bellyaching about unemployment checks ending soon, and all the businesses that will suffer. Does money in the hands of the people spur the economy, or not?
In a limited set of circumstances, tax cuts benefit the economy. One of the limitations is that they only work for the lower end of the taxpayers -- tax cuts for the upper end accomplish nothing at all (the flip side is that taxes on the upper end can be raised to a third of their income before negative effects on the economy are seen).
So if you're interested in helping the economy, do it this way (since it isn't cutting rates so much as leaving more money in the pockets of people at the bottom): leave the tax rates as they are, and raise the individual exemption to $25,000.
And at the same time, raise the tax rate on the top 2% to 33.33%.
When you've got a giant deficit, you do NOT want to reduce revenue -- which cutting taxes will do. Your media chatter shows that the common wisdom is that money in the hands of consumers spurs economic activity; it isn't addressing the rich in the least -- so in order to get money to consumers... see above.
GIVING wealthy people money?? This is the problem, it's not giving them money, it's letting everyone who works KEEP more of what they EARN, and Uncle Sam learning to cut back.
First, the debt. The rich have benefited immensely from its expansion, and having a greater share of the wealth gives them greater responsibility -- time for them to pay the piper.
that has never worked.
It is a lie.
A tax cut takes revenue out of the coffers of the gov't and you can't ballance the budget without raising taxes.
We are at a 60 year low right now and we cannot afford it. Do you want to personaly give up your social security?
how about we get rid of the military?
just where are we going to get the cash to pay the bills?
cutting spending can't ballance the budget. It just cant. BOTH have to happen.
Cutting taxes does NOT raise revenue or reduce the deficit.
Actually cutting taxes does increase revenue -- under limited circumstances. Dealing with a stuffed head right now, the figures are escaping me, but I know one thing, and that's that we aren't in a place where cutting taxes on the wealthy is going to benefit us in the least.
At this point, cutting at the bottom probably won't increase revenue, but it would help keep things from getting worse. But I find no evidence anywhere that raising rates on the top will hurt anything.
Except that our tax structure allows all sorts of dodges to make income untaxable.
](/images/smilies/bang.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
