All we ever hear from the Democrats is that the economy did well under Clinton when tax rates on the rich were higher. Then, too, so were all the other tax rates; from the top to, oh yes, the bottom. With the Democrats arguing that we need more tax revenues to fix our debt problems, then why not raise all the taxes again? Obviously, the Clinton-Era proved that higher tax rates only helped the economy.
So what if the average family will lose a couple thousand dollars to new taxes? That should only be a short term problem. After all, when the economy starts roaring again -- like in those good ole days of Bill Clinton -- all those middle classers should be able to offset those increases by getting newer and higher paying jobs. Right?
I just think that if you are going to make an argument that high tax rates on the rich didn't hurt the economy or, better yet, actually helped the economy, you should also be able to explain why higher taxes on everyone didn't hurt the economy of the Clinton 90's. For years, the Democrats have lied that the Bush tax cuts have only benefited the rich. Yet, now, because of their need to argue for higher taxes on the rich, they are being forced to expose the fact that the poor and middle-class would be hit hardest of "all" if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire.
The fact is that this "raising taxes on the rich" has nothing to do with the economy or deficits. Its just the proliferation of an old left-wing, ideological belief that the rich, somehow, should be punished for their wealth. It has socialism, if not pure communism, written all over it.