People will either work more or get by with less after tax income, those are the two options.


Lets use your logic on spending though. If you cut spending you are cutting someones income and/or cutting someones goods or services. The affected party can either respond by doing without the income/services, or by getting a second job to make up the difference.


You are also arguing that tax cuts cause people to work less and therefore lead to less economic growth. This is not a real good argument for you.





There was nothing fiscally responsible about the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts.


This kind of 'no you go first!' brinksmanship is silly. Anyone that says 'we cannot cut military and healthcare spending until capital gains taxes are raised and you earn my trust' is being equally silly.

It's funny how libtards maintain their denial that Obama and the Democrats are 100% responsible for the current tax rates.

 

-----signature-----

The problem from the standpoint of progressives is that they have a choice between the Democrats who say the right thing and the Republicans that say the wrong things. The issue of competency doesn't even come up when there are only 2 choices and only one of the two is even pretending to be on your side.


In terms of the budget, realistically any proposal is likely going to have to include a tax increase but when bargaining if you fighting for a tax increases you are not going to have much say in what is cut. Of course the Republicans say they don't want a tax cut, it would be bad bargaining if they didn't. Heck they even take it a step further and try and argue about how much they are going to cut the taxes of the rich. The key is to make it so the conversation is a win win scenario for Republicans. Democrats have been bad about doing that.

 

-----signature-----