Really? Did you pay more or less taxes in relation to your total income this year compared to say 4 or 5 years ago? I'm betting less. So yeah. Those "tiny" tax cuts did help you. Maybe not a lot, but they did.
I don't want to get into the wall of **** here, besides it's other people's turn to kick the mental cripple, but I have one question.
Sure... I'll give you the econ 101 answers.
Assuming you're right, and the middle class paid less total taxes, who's going to pay for the $7 Trillion National Debit?
Ok. First off. Let's pick what we're gonna **** about. Are we going off about taxes on the middle class? Or are we **** about the national debt? Pick one. Don't switch from one to the other as it suits you for the argument.
Guess what? It's money. You take it from one part of the economy and put it somewhere else. If you decrease taxes, you must do some combination of decreasing spending, or increasing debt. If you're going to state that you care about one thing (tax rates), then worry about tax rates. Don't sidestep the fact that you're paying less taxes today then 5 years ago with "but the deficit is increasing!".
The answer will depend on how taxes/spending are adjusted in the future. In the same way as above, you can pay off the debt by either increasing taxes or decreasing spending. Seems simple. So it could be taxpayers that bear the burden. It could be "the poor" in the form of cuts to entitlement programs. It could be the military in the form of cuts to spending there. The question itself is not silly, but kinda pointless. Kinda like taking out a loan and then saying: "but who's going to pay off the loan?". duh...
I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "cut taxes, increase spending" economic policy in play. Can you explain to me how the billion dollar a day defecit that causes get's paid for again? Is it voodoo?
Sure. Have you ever taken out a loan? Say when interest rates are really low? Why do people do that? Why do business do that? Find that answer, and you'll understand what deficit spending is all about. It's the government correlary to taking out a business loan. The assumption is that by borrowing money today, you'll increase your revenue generation down the line by a degree that you'll have more money left over after payments on the loan then you would have had if you hadn't borrowed the money. It's done all the time. Talk to anyone who buys and sells real estate for a living. It's not even that complicated of a process.
Say you borrow half a trillion dollars when the interest is really low (oh. Like right now). So you have to pay say 5% interest on it (which is about 25B a year). But you put that 500B dollars into the form of tax cuts for big businesses, intended to make R&D more profitable for them (or whatever forms of business you've decided will increase growth the most). As a result, you increase the GNP rate by say 1% a year. Depending on the size of the GNP (about 20T), and your overall tax rate on GNP (about 17% right now), then you'd have increased your tax revenues from 3.4T dollars to 3.74T dollars. Simple subtraction says that we've just increased our taxible revenue by 34B dollars. Subtract the 25B you are paying in interest on the loan you took out, and you're ahead by 9B dollars.
Need more? Or is that a simple enough explanation of how deficit spending works. The conditions need to be right. You need to have a slow economy in need of an injection of currency to spur it on. You need to have a very low interest rate (which is usually the result of a slow economy). That's exactly what as happening in 2001-2003, so that's exactly what Bush has been doing. It's smart economics folks. Nothing more...