Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Republicans are fiscally austere toward middle-class, but not wealthy

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Amanda Terkel. "Cantor Admits Extending Bush Tax Cuts Would ‘Dig The Hole Deeper’ On The Deficit — But He Doesn’t Care." Think Progress. August 2nd, 2010: "Cantor is acknowledging that raising taxes on wealthy Americans would significantly contribute to his professed desire to cut the federal deficit, but he doesn’t care; he’d rather cut programs (like unemployment benefits) that benefit the middle class."


Julie Edwards, campaign spokeswoman for Murray, said Rossi was favoring the wealthy over the working class: "It's ironic that on the day the Senate will vote on extending benefits to unemployed Washington state workers - a bill Rossi opposes - he is coming out boldly in favor of deficit busting tax cuts for his rich friends. Extending the Bush tax cuts to the top two percent wealthiest Americans will cost our nation $700 billion. Does Rossi have a plan to pay for that? Of course not. But he would punish workers hurt by the Wall Street recession by denying them UI benefits. Here are some questions for Dino Rossi: how high does unemployment have to get before he considers it to be an emergency? And does he know that the Bush tax cuts for the rich are one of the biggest contributors to the deficit?"[1]


"GOP has no problem extending tax cuts for the rich." Washington Post Editorial. July 14th, 2010: "SENATE REPUBLICANS, committed as they are to preventing the debt from mounting further, can't approve an extension of unemployment benefits because it would cost $35 billion. But they are untroubled by the notion of digging the hole $678 billion deeper by extending President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.