retarded tax cuts appended to bailout
"Also linked to the legislation is a two-year extension of tax breaks that will save individuals and corporations about $149 billion over the next decade, another move popular among House Republicans."
$149 billion dollars more debt, which itself will cost further interest every year, and somehow this is a good thing??
maybe if you hate America and want to see it in ruins like me. but this is coming from an extremely nationalist political party which regularly smears its opponents at any opportunity with accusations of lacking patriotism, as if blind belief that the random place that you were born in is automagically superior to other places was some sort of a virtue.
cutting taxes costs everyone more money in the long run if you're already running a deficit or if you have any national debt. what is the meaning of blindly supporting tax cuts regardless of the level of spending? why do this? any shortfall will cost "the taxpayers" even more money than they gain from less taxes as they have to pay interest on the debt issued to cover the shortfall. this is simple maths. governments should first cut wasteful spending and pay off any national debt they have. only after this is done should they even begin to think about cutting taxes and even then, they should only cut taxes to a level that is still high enough to avoid any budget deficits. then if things really do go bad, there will be a large pool of actual savings with which temporary tax cuts or stimulatory spending (if we must sink to this wasteful level) can be dished out without completely neutralizing the beneficial effects of such actions by having to issue debt in the same amounts and then pay interest on it.
I think the bailout is a good thing, indeed a necessary thing for the american economy, given that Ben Bernanke, a low-keyed most studious scholar of the great depression and a bastion of professionalism and impartiality, has issued such unusually direct support for the proposal and issued grave warnings about the potential collapse of the wider economy should the bailout not be passed.
I furthermore cannot possibly fathom how people who have relentlessly championed reckless tax cuts and excessive spending over the current decade could possibly oppose this measure on the grounds of some sort of warped fiscal discipline. This is the one time in all their years of wasteful spending where spending what the government doesn't have is actually needed. they've had approaching a decade to stop their own irresponsible spending, yet they choose the one time where irresponsible spending actually makes some sort of sense to make their "stand'? and they only back down when given a guarantee that even more debt will be piled up through more reckless tax cuts?
what???
