So this is a mix of two thoughts...
The New York Times Blog section reads:
"Bill Clinton, in his budget for fiscal year 1997, which was released in early 1996, projected a federal budget surplus by 2001. It turned out that the tax increases initiated by George H.W. Bush in 1990 and by Mr. Clinton in 1993, which were strenuously opposed by virtually all Republicans, did exactly what they were supposed to do and sharply reduced federal budget deficits."
Jobs creation and tax cuts have been central issues concerning G.O.P candidates this election.
On Tuesday the New York Times released an article on an interview with Rick Perry titled "Perry Plan Would Grant Big Tax Break to Wealthiest".
During last week's debate Herman Cain was accused of the very same thing with his 999 deal. He defended it over and over again but somehow people did not seem to really buy it.
Republicans accuse Democrats for wanting tax increases so that they may spend more money instead of cutting it but the fact is, tax increases aren't harmful and are used to increase revenue.
So if tax cuts just don't work then why is the idea still around? I feel like I rant about this GOP tax issue all the time because it does not make sense and I really think that this issue really shows the sort of people they are protecting.
There is always talk about politicians being puppets for one group or another. I quietly agree with it but this idea has the same sort of vulgar stench as a conspiracy movie and I do not like hearing accusations without proof.
One topic that makes me believe it with full heart however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What does GOP ideology have to do with supporting Israel? Are they all Jewish? To support tax-cuts to 'businesses can have a safe environment to grow' makes sense, but their stand on conflict in the region just does not make sense.
During the debate Ron Paul said he would stop funding because Israel was becoming too dependent and that they needed to start financing their own military. All the other candidates said the opposite.
One said that Israel was the only ally they had in that region, the others said they were in support of Israel and the 3 billion dollar U.S. funding of it (and they want cut out from programs like medicare?!?!).
Gingrich said he was also in opposition of Palestine becoming an observable state because the process by which it was becoming one was incorrect and that it should be just between Israel and Palestine.
Look Newt, the two live side by side in war so obviously the two cannot be trusted to solve this issue. If it was as simple as the two negotiating, this problem would have been solved 60 years ago.
Secondly, what incentive do they all have to stand by Israel? None. The only reason I can see is that they probably have many lobbyists or people with pro-Israel agenda backing up their campaign.
I sound like it is a horrible thing to be in support of Israel, I am not saying there are no reasons, there are plenty. The GOP candidates do not seem genuinely in line with them. They say cut spending over and over again but somehow they send billions of dollars over there.