Will borrowing $700 billion from the Chinese to pay for tax cuts to the rich be our path to prosperity?

There is no 'cost' to extending the tax cuts. Somehow liberals just do not understand this concept so let me see if you can understand this. Lets say that you own an apartment building and you have been telling your tenants that you are going to raise their rents starting January 1st 2011.

You suddenly realize that times are tough for everyone so make a decision to leave the rents as they are. How much did it cost you to leave the rents at the same rate they had been? You might say it cost me what I would have had if the rents had been increased but the reality is that it did not cost you one damn thing, you will have the same rental income the next year as you did the previous year.

It is often said that the poor do not create jobs, I have found this to be untrue. The poor and the lazy create an even larger demand for social programs that require more people to handle welfare case loads, dole out the food stamps and find them suitable housing. The RICH (top 5%) pay almost 60% of all of these costs yet you seem to think that they should pay even more.

How about we let all of the tax cuts expire so that those in the lower 95% can begin to pay their fair share. As it is 50% of the people in this country only pay a total of 2.7% of all the taxes and are living of the backs of the other 50%. Is it true that Republicans frequently complain about the deficit?

Someone has to complain about the outlandish spending of the democrats. Prior to the republicans gaining control in 1994 democrats had held control for 40 years so it would be unfair to compare the spending habits based on all of history. In the six years that the democrats have controlled congress ( 2 during Clinton and the last 4 years) they have added a total of $5.403 trillion to the national debt.

This is an annual average of $801 billion each year (accurate up to yesterday) Republicans controlled congress for 12 years and they have added a total of $4.034 trillion to the national debt. This is an annual average of $336 billion each year, of which we were spending approximately $120 billion per year on the Iraq/Afghanistan War. Bush did not start with a surplus, this is another LIE told by liberals.

When George Bush entered office the national debt stood at $5.807 trillion. I will assume that you are touting the 'Budget Surplus' that Clinton had. You do realize that Clinton had 4 consecutive budget surpluses don't you?

Each of these surpluses came with the republicans controlling the purse strings. Even with the so called surpluses the national debt increased each and every year by the following amounts. $113 billion.

There was NO SURPLUS when Bush took office. There was record LOW unemployment during Bush's administration...and this was AFTER his administration helped to end the recession he inherited from the Clinton administration. What jobs do poor people create?

How does a tax break result in a "cost"? It's SPENDING that results in costs, and the libs are spinning it because they won't have that extra funding from the rich to pay for their wreckless SPENDING.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.