How about this: Cut spending and Raise taxes 2-5% on the top 1%

[ClosedCaption]

NOPE
We the people DIDN'T get us into this mess, let the DAMN GUBERMENT who gave us this, dig it's way out. NO MORE DAMN TAXES, WE ARE TAXED ENOUGH.

How should the government do that? And you are not part of the group I am talking about taxing so dont take it so personal.

nothing personal taken dear.
but didn't we used to be a nation of JUSTICE FOR ALL.
like smokers, you all become ok with, taxation FOR SOME.
That bothers me the most about some of you.

No, I'm not adocating some get taxed and other do not, everyone will still be taxed the same way except the 400 ppl at the top will see an increase of 2-5%. I think repubs will have to reconcile with the notion that there shouldn't be any increase in taxes anywhere and that we need to climb out of this hole. Either the deficits and debts dont matter or everything is on the table. makes sense?

 

[Rozman]

50 views and not one repub is for this plan? You still get to cut spending it's just a 2-5% increase. We can break away from China faster if we did it..

Anyone want to get chinas finger out of the US' ass? Anyone?

You might want to ask the Obama and the Democrats-Progressives-Commies that question.

I'm interested if anyone is willing to raise taxes by any amount to get us out of this hole. What say you?

And I say unto you all again......If you Libs feel that we are not taxed enough please feel free to give more of YOUR money to the government and keep YOUR hands out of everyone else's pockets....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

How 'bout we cut spending back to 1990 levels and leave the tax structure as is?

But that won't take care of the deficit. That would just cut spending and leave the deficit where it is now.

Neither will your moronic proposal.

Because they will base their budget on the projected extra revenue the tax increases would allegedly bring. This figure is always grossly bloated, and when the actuals come in it won't be near as much of a largesse as they said, and WHAM! Even BIGGER deficits! Then will be the howls never ending, to raise taxes yet again.

When the PROBLEM actually is, they are not required by law to have a balanced budget. They used to be, it was laws called Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto during the 90s, that gave Bill Clinton his "surplus," but alas, they were thrown out by the courts.

Until we get such instituted again, we will never get out of the debt hole.

You don't actually care about debt and deficits, you just want the feel good thing of higher taxes on the evil rich.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You might want to ask the Obama and the Democrats-Progressives-Commies that question.

I'm interested if anyone is willing to raise taxes by any amount to get us out of this hole. What say you?

And I say unto you all again......If you Libs feel that we are not taxed enough please feel free to give more of YOUR money to the government and keep YOUR hands out of everyone else's pockets....

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

 

[Polk]

How 'bout we cut spending back to 1990 levels and leave the tax structure as is?

I'm glad to see if you've at least gotten rid of the "if we cut spending to 1990 levels, we could get rid of the income tax" crap, not that this is much better.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

Increasing the power and scope of the federal government decreases us all.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How 'bout we cut spending back to 1990 levels and leave the tax structure as is?

But that won't take care of the deficit. That would just cut spending and leave the deficit where it is now.

Neither will your moronic proposal.

Because they will base their budget on the projected extra revenue the tax increases would allegedly bring. This figure is always grossly bloated, and when the actuals come in it won't be near as much of a largesse as they said, and WHAM! Even BIGGER deficits! Then will be the howls never ending, to raise taxes yet again.

When the PROBLEM actually is, they are not required by law to have a balanced budget. They used to be, it was laws called Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto during the 90s, that gave Bill Clinton his "surplus," but alas, they were thrown out by the courts.

Until we get such instituted again, we will never get out of the debt hole.

You don't actually care about debt and deficits, you just want the feel good thing of higher taxes on the evil rich.

You actually made some sense until your last line made you the fool.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

But that won't take care of the deficit. That would just cut spending and leave the deficit where it is now.

Neither will your moronic proposal.

Because they will base their budget on the projected extra revenue the tax increases would allegedly bring. This figure is always grossly bloated, and when the actuals come in it won't be near as much of a largesse as they said, and WHAM! Even BIGGER deficits! Then will be the howls never ending, to raise taxes yet again.

When the PROBLEM actually is, they are not required by law to have a balanced budget. They used to be, it was laws called Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto during the 90s, that gave Bill Clinton his "surplus," but alas, they were thrown out by the courts.

Until we get such instituted again, we will never get out of the debt hole.

You don't actually care about debt and deficits, you just want the feel good thing of higher taxes on the evil rich.

You actually made some sense until your last line made you the fool.

The last line hit the nail right on the head. Thus, you're butthurt over being exposed.

 

[Polk]

How 'bout we cut spending back to 1990 levels and leave the tax structure as is?

But that won't take care of the deficit. That would just cut spending and leave the deficit where it is now.

Neither will your moronic proposal.

Because they will base their budget on the projected extra revenue the tax increases would allegedly bring. This figure is always grossly bloated, and when the actuals come in it won't be near as much of a largesse as they said, and WHAM! Even BIGGER deficits! Then will be the howls never ending, to raise taxes yet again.

When the PROBLEM actually is, they are not required by law to have a balanced budget. They used to be, it was laws called Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto during the 90s, that gave Bill Clinton his "surplus," but alas, they were thrown out by the courts.

Until we get such instituted again, we will never get out of the debt hole.

You don't actually care about debt and deficits, you just want the feel good thing of higher taxes on the evil rich.

There was no law requiring a balanced budget

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

Increasing the power and scope of the federal government decreases us all.

Increasing the debt and deficit decreases us all as well. So you have to choose...

 

[Stephanie]

I'm interested if anyone is willing to raise taxes by any amount to get us out of this hole. What say you?

And I say unto you all again......If you Libs feel that we are not taxed enough please feel free to give more of YOUR money to the government and keep YOUR hands out of everyone else's pockets....

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

good grief, if you don't get it by now, you NEVER will.

 

[Ame®icano]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Would gov't stop there?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

Increasing the power and scope of the federal government decreases us all.

Increasing the debt and deficit decreases us all as well. So you have to choose...

Increasing taxes on the wealthiest won't help at all, it will merely lead to higher deficits when the projected revenue falls short. Without spending controls mandated by law, we are always going to have ballooning deficits.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

But that won't take care of the deficit. That would just cut spending and leave the deficit where it is now.

Neither will your moronic proposal.

Because they will base their budget on the projected extra revenue the tax increases would allegedly bring. This figure is always grossly bloated, and when the actuals come in it won't be near as much of a largesse as they said, and WHAM! Even BIGGER deficits! Then will be the howls never ending, to raise taxes yet again.

When the PROBLEM actually is, they are not required by law to have a balanced budget. They used to be, it was laws called Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto during the 90s, that gave Bill Clinton his "surplus," but alas, they were thrown out by the courts.

Until we get such instituted again, we will never get out of the debt hole.

You don't actually care about debt and deficits, you just want the feel good thing of higher taxes on the evil rich.

There was no law requiring a balanced budget

Gramm-Rudmann. Had automatic cuts to keep the deficit down. It was the law of the land to have a balanced budget.

 

[The Gadfly]

I'm interested if anyone is willing to raise taxes by any amount to get us out of this hole. What say you?

And I say unto you all again......If you Libs feel that we are not taxed enough please feel free to give more of YOUR money to the government and keep YOUR hands out of everyone else's pockets....

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

One, we have NO guarantee you won't extend it to us, too; you party's track record says you will.

Two, those people are paying their share, while your party's favored constituencies pay NOTHING; that's right, zip, zilch, nada, not one red cent!

I tell you what I want, since you DIDN'T ask: I want every American to pay something. I want every American to write 5 checks a year to the United States Treasury, just like I have to. To hell with this "hide it through withholding" garbage, where you can fool people into thinking government is "giving" them something, when it refunds their own money to them. I want them to write those checks, so they know exactly what government is taking from them. I don't care, if it's only fifty bucks a year; I want all to pay, and all to know what exactly they are paying. You want "fairness"? Well, that's as totally fair as it gets, for everyone from the working poor to the mega rich, and if you liberal democrats want to HAVE equality, instead of just prattle about it, that's the way to do it! Now put up, or shut up!

 

[ClosedCaption]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Would gov't stop there?

Yes, will of the people

 

[ClosedCaption]

And I say unto you all again......If you Libs feel that we are not taxed enough please feel free to give more of YOUR money to the government and keep YOUR hands out of everyone else's pockets....

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

One, we have NO guarantee you won't extend it to us, too; you party's track record says you will.

Two, those people are paying their share, while your party's favored constituencies pay NOTHING; that's right, zip, zilch, nada, not one red cent!

I tell you what I want, since you DIDN'T ask: I want every American to pay something. I want every American to write 5 checks a year to the United States Treasury, just like I have to. To hell with this "hide it through withholding" garbage, where you can fool people into thinking government is "giving" them something, when it refunds their own money to them. I want them to write those checks, so they know exactly what government is taking from them. I don't care, if it's only fifty bucks a year; I want all to pay, and all to know what exactly they are paying. You want "fairness"? Well, that's as totally fair as it gets, for everyone from the working poor to the mega rich, and if you liberal democrats want to HAVE equality, instead of just prattle about it, that's the way to do it! Now put up, or shut up!

Everyone pays taxes. And I want a world where I make the rules as well, unfortunatly I know that wont happen and try to look for answers within reality. That world that you describe will never, has never and will never be proposed or accomplished by any lawmaker, so it'a kinda easy to be pro...that

 

[Polk]

Increasing the power and scope of the federal government decreases us all.

Increasing the debt and deficit decreases us all as well. So you have to choose...

Increasing taxes on the wealthiest won't help at all, it will merely lead to higher deficits when the projected revenue falls short. Without spending controls mandated by law, we are always going to have ballooning deficits.

Utter nonsense. While you can't balance the budget entirely with tax hikes, there is no logical reason to believe increasing the rate in top earners will result in reduced revenue.

 

[Charles_Main]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Even Obama has had to admit, by Capitulation that raising taxes right now, on any Bracket. Is a bad Idea.

 

[Charles_Main]

Increasing the debt and deficit decreases us all as well. So you have to choose...

Increasing taxes on the wealthiest won't help at all, it will merely lead to higher deficits when the projected revenue falls short. Without spending controls mandated by law, we are always going to have ballooning deficits.

Utter nonsense. While you can't balance the budget entirely with tax hikes, there is no logical reason to believe increasing the rate in top earners will result in reduced revenue.

There is however ample Evidence in the past. Dating back to JFK, Reagan and Bush, that lowering taxes, Especially on the middle and upper rates. Can in fact Increase Revenue. It is logic then to conclude that the Reverse could in certain Cases be true.

It really is basic Economics. Increased Taxes have a slowing effect on the Economy. A slower Economy means less is being taxed, Less people are working, etc. Now if the slowing off sets the increased Tax Revenue from the Increased %, Could in fact result in a net loss of Revenue.

Even Left leaning Economist, and People in this Administration, Under stand and Admit that increased Taxes run a real danger of Slowing the Recovery(Growth) of the economy. JFK, Reagan, and Bush all understood one thing. The Way to increase Revenues is not to increase taxes. It is to grow the Economy and thereby the Tax Base you are taxing. Bushes Cuts did indeed Increase revenue to the Fed. The only problem was Bush Increased Spending at the same time and built up Debt. However that does not change the fact that his So called Tax cuts for the rich, lead to a growth in Revenue. That is fact. And the same principle was proven true By Reagan and JFK before them.