Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[Mr. Shaman]

Explain again how taking MORE percentage wise from people that happen to have more then you is A) Justified under the Constitution, B) reasonable behavior for a Government to do, And C) why you think those with more should pay a higher percentage based on some sense of fair play and reasonable conscious.

....'Cause.....

.....it WORK$?!!

*​

AUGUST 9, 1999​

"Suddenly, it seems everyone in Washington is singing the virtues of retiring the national debt. For two decades, as deficits mounted, it was a nonissue. But the prospect of surpluses has economists and policymakers thinking the unthinkable: erasing the $3.8 trillion pile of federal IOUs held by the public.

Bill Clinton would buy down the debt over 15 years, and even has the blessing of Alan Greenspan. On July 22, the Federal Reserve chairman told the House Banking Committee that cutting the federal debt ''is an extraordinarily effective force for good in this economy.'' On the same day, House Republicans joined in. While they still prefer generous tax cuts, they agreed to tie their across-the-board rate cut to declining interest on the debt.

So why the debt-reduction fever? Clinton sees it as a way to shore up the Social Security and Medicare programs, while blocking huge GOP tax cuts. To Greenspan, it's a ticket to lower interest rates. And to Hill fans, it's proof of fiscal prudence. Besides, paying down debt is a neat way out when politicians deadlock over how to spend the surplus."

When St. Bill Ran-The-Show​

September 27, 2000​

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official."

Cleaning-Up, After A Bush:
It's NOT Impossible!!​

Get BACK to the....

....Clinton Rate$!!!!

 

[Claudette]

I have no problem with rich folks.

Wish we had a whole slew more of em.

Since they pay around 60% of the Fed taxes in this country, the more the merrier in my book.

As for fairness, well we have 50% of the folks in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever.

Let let them suck it up and contribute to the cause. Fair is far after all and fair seems to be the word of the day for some folks.

Those are mostly low to moderate income households with children. You want to raise their taxes ONLY.

See what I mean about conservatives?

I don't want to raise anyones taxes.

But fair is fair. If the top earners have to pay more then the bottom earners should have to pay as well.

Fair is the word you throw around like a football.

Whats fair about some payin all and some paying nothing???

 

[georgephillip]

Well, if you DON'T BELIEVE the rich have EARNED all that money, you could call Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and a few others who are the RICHEST Democrat Representatives, AND ASK THEM.
You are showing your Liberal Red my dear.

From the OP:

"The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds..."

There is no shortage of millionaires in the US Congress.
On both sides of the aisle.

My solution is to FLUSH Republicans AND Democrats from DC by the hundreds (starting in the White House) in November of 2012.

What's yours?

And REPLACE them with what? More Communist? you can't get any more Commies than what you already have in the white house and in the DEMOCRAT party. so please stop blowing smoke up our asses about what YOUR solution would be..

How many communists have you counted among Libertarians?

Do you have any idea how clueless you sound when calling Obama a socialist?

How many fucking bankers has he thrown in prison?

 

[georgephillip]

lol, You CALLING others fascist is real hoot. Calling to STEAL MONEY from others (who you DON'T BELIEVE EARNED IT) through TAXATION..Your COMMIE RED is showing my dear..

Speaking of STEALING:

"In his book, Crisis Economics, Nouriel Roubini outlines the insane response to the recession by Republicans and Democrats.

"Because both parties simply threw money at the banks and hedge funds instead of punishing them, a condition of 'moral hazard' was created, meaning, that banks would assume another bailout would come their way if they destroyed the economy again -- too big too fail, remember?

"Roubini explains how the Democrats allowed the 'too big' banks to get even bigger; how Wall Street salaries based on short-term profits went unregulated; how the regulations that were put into place were inadequate and filled with loopholes; how nothing of any significance changed.

"Roubini has also written extensively about how the post-bailout Federal Reserve policies were fueling a commodity bubble that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession.

"Essentially the big banks and rich investors were borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing abroad in commodities with the hopes of higher returns. Roubini states:

“The risk is that we are planting the seeds of the next financial crisis...this asset bubble is totally inconsistent with a weaker recovery of economic and financial fundamentals." (October 27, 2009)."

Your CONSERVATIVE YELLOW is showing ever more brightly.
Dear.

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

ah yes, COMMON (COMMIE DREAMS) again..

Would you care to refute this?

"This investor-created commodity bubble pushed up prices in oil, food, and other basic products, causing further pain for working families and the economy as a whole. This speculative bubble was easily predictable but ignored by both political parties, since they claimed the bubble was a sign of recovery."

Whose recovery, Stephanie?

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

 

[georgephillip]

If its a war, why dont you do the honorable thing and get a gun and take the money you think is yours, instead of being a chickenshit coward and using the government to get it ?

Go to the fucking barracades for it, I dare you.

Guns are for pussies.
Possibly that explains your suggestion?

Why would you think one more gun in a country with more guns than citizens is likely to improve the situation?

It will be the rich who hire killers when enough of their political handmaidens are FLUSHED from government.

Which side will you fight on?

Whatever side your statist totalitarian side isnt on.

Again, you want to use the goverment to take money from people that you believe do not derserve it. Not for any noble purposes, but out of envy, greed and a basic hatred for any person with more than you. All I am asking is that you do it the honorable way, and rob them.

From the dawn of "civilization" all governments have socialized cost and privatized profit.
You've just lived through the greatest transfer of private debt into public debt in history.
I calling for government to return what the rich have stolen.
Are you saying the rich deserve more of what they haven't earned?

 

[martybegan]

Guns are for pussies.
Possibly that explains your suggestion?

Why would you think one more gun in a country with more guns than citizens is likely to improve the situation?

It will be the rich who hire killers when enough of their political handmaidens are FLUSHED from government.

Which side will you fight on?

Whatever side your statist totalitarian side isnt on.

Again, you want to use the goverment to take money from people that you believe do not derserve it. Not for any noble purposes, but out of envy, greed and a basic hatred for any person with more than you. All I am asking is that you do it the honorable way, and rob them.

From the dawn of "civilization" all governments have socialized cost and privatized profit.
You've just lived through the greatest transfer of private debt into public debt in history.
I calling for government to return what the rich have stolen.
Are you saying the rich deserve more of what they haven't earned?

I'm saying that you are probably one of the least qualified people to decide who deserves what. Every time a group of people try to "equalize" everyone economically they end up screwing everyone else over, and enriching themselves.

Your envy and greed are obvious to anyone who isnt a fellow money grabber such as yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the name callers would simply shut up and listen, maybe a rational debate would break out.

Taxation is part of the problem, but the greatest problem in need of solution is ignorance. When a poster screams "communist" as a counterpoint to any idea which challenges her/his world view, threads devolve into name calling spats.

It makes no sense to contiue to pay interest on our debt (how many of you tea party conservatives carry debt on your credit cards?). The US Government needs to reduce debt and the only way to reduce debt is to raise revenue and pay it off.

Borrowing to pay interst is STUPID.

Deficit spending must be reduced. It makes no sense not to borrow to repair/replace the roof which risks the entire house. So, it all comes down to priorites.

Cutting taxes is stupid, it reduces revenue and we continue to pay interest on the debt and not fix the roof.

Hiring the unemployed to repair the roof stimulates the economy. The roofer buys lunch, pays his rent, and maybe goes to a movie on Saturday. The deli which sells him the sandwhich benefits, the landlord too and so does the owner of the movie house and the kid who sells the ticket and the other kid who sells the popcorn.

The vendor who sells the popcorn to the theatre owner benefits too. And so the economy goes.

To borrow a pharase, it really is that simple.

 

[boedicca]

It's inarguable that in order to fix the fiscal mess, sacrifices have to be made.

It's reasonable and sensible that the sacrifice should be shared.

The problem with the conservative consensus is that the wealthy should be exempted from sharing the sacrifice.

Let the conservatives here tell us what the wealthy's share of the necessary sacrifice should be...

...they will either not answer, or claim that the wealthy shouldn't sacrifice anything.

THAT is class warfare.

The Private Sector has made nearly all of the sacrifices during this crisis while the government borrowed ungodly amounts of money to prop up unnecessary and overpaid public employee union jobs.

As for the Wealthy Sacrificing...the truly wealthy can easily move out of the country to a more friendly tax haven (many already have). Want a case study? Look at NYC. All your Pea Green With Envy Class Warfare Rhetoric does is cause a Flight Of Capital, lower growth, and less jobs.

 

[boedicca]

Cutting taxes is stupid, it reduces revenue and we continue to pay interest on the debt and not fix the roof.

You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's SCARY to think we have people in this country who FEEL THIS WAY.

You couldn't get MORE DISGUSTING for calling to STEAL other people's money by TAXATION to use it for your own use.

but then again, this piece of crap posting came from the so called, "PROGRESSIVE (pretty name for COMMIE)" website, common dreams..

common dreams my ass..

They are that stupid. And yes, that is scary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cutting taxes is stupid, it reduces revenue and we continue to pay interest on the debt and not fix the roof.

You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.

That's utterly false. Tax cuts have never been shown to increase revenue. By cause and effect.

Every example that is ever cited by the people who make this claim is nothing more than a fallacious post hoc argument.

It is however the perfect rightwing myth. It fulfills both requirements of the perfect myth.

1. it's exactly what people want to believe

2. it's receptive to convincing, albeit totally fallacious, arguments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have no problem with rich folks.

Wish we had a whole slew more of em.

Since they pay around 60% of the Fed taxes in this country, the more the merrier in my book.

As for fairness, well we have 50% of the folks in this country who pay no Fed taxes whatsoever.

Let let them suck it up and contribute to the cause. Fair is far after all and fair seems to be the word of the day for some folks.

Those are mostly low to moderate income households with children. You want to raise their taxes ONLY.

See what I mean about conservatives?

I don't want to raise anyones taxes.

But fair is fair. If the top earners have to pay more then the bottom earners should have to pay as well.

Fair is the word you throw around like a football.

Whats fair about some payin all and some paying nothing???

First you said you want their taxes raised, now you say you don't. Then you say you do.

Which is it?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's SCARY to think we have people in this country who FEEL THIS WAY.

You couldn't get MORE DISGUSTING for calling to STEAL other people's money by TAXATION to use it for your own use.

Yeah.....that's what it's.....

ALL ABOUT.​

(Once you're old-enough to drive, you'll "get it".)​

 

[NYcarbineer]

The question no one will answer is,

If sacrifice is necessary to fix the fiscal mess, why should the wealthy be exempt?

If fixing the problem is going to cost so and so making 40,000 a year, why shouldn't it cost so and so making 4 million a year?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So why did you conservatives support the Bush tax cuts, which are the main reason 47% of households pay no federal income taxes,

when now you seem to broadly support taxing those people?

Now you support the Ryan plan. Is HE going to start taxing those people? Is that why you like his plan? His plan that lowers the top rate to 25%. Is that how he pays for that massive loss of revenue?

 

[boedicca]

Cutting taxes is stupid, it reduces revenue and we continue to pay interest on the debt and not fix the roof.

You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.

That's utterly false. Tax cuts have never been shown to increase revenue. By cause and effect.

Every example that is ever cited by the people who make this claim is nothing more than a fallacious post hoc argument.

It is however the perfect rightwing myth. It fulfills both requirements of the perfect myth.

1. it's exactly what people want to believe

2. it's receptive to convincing, albeit totally fallacious, arguments.

You are an economic illiterate. How sad.

 

[Claudette]

Those are mostly low to moderate income households with children. You want to raise their taxes ONLY.

See what I mean about conservatives?

I don't want to raise anyones taxes.

But fair is fair. If the top earners have to pay more then the bottom earners should have to pay as well.

Fair is the word you throw around like a football.

Whats fair about some payin all and some paying nothing???

First you said you want their taxes raised, now you say you don't. Then you say you do.

Which is it?

Thought my post was pretty clear. I'll clarify just for you NYC.

If the taxes on the high earners get raised then everyones taxes should be raised. That includes the 50% who pay for nothing. Pretty simple really.

After all. Fair is Fair.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Cutting taxes is stupid, it reduces revenue and we continue to pay interest on the debt and not fix the roof.

You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.

Whew! Are you REALLY that clueless??!!!


​

December 06, 2007​

"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues​

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cutting taxes is stupid, it reduces revenue and we continue to pay interest on the debt and not fix the roof.

You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.

Your use of my quote in part is disingenuous, and in particular my observaton on name calling.

That aside, I suggest you quit your job and use credit cards for all of you purchases. That in this illiterates opinion is what President Bush did. He cut taxes, invaded and occupied Iraq at the same time.

In another post you characterize the "private sector" as homogeneous. That is far from true. Some of the private sector has done very well under the Bush Economy and to suggest the winners 'suffered' is dishonest.

Small business, which the Republican and Democratic Party leaders suggest is the engine of the economy have suffered dearly and too many have failed. Small business survives and thrives when people have money in their pocket to spend. Cutting taxes to millionaires and billionaires does little or nothing to the local deli, dry cleaner, supermarket, ice cream shop, craft store, and mall.

We need pragmatic solutons unencumbered by ideology.

 

[boedicca]

The question no one will answer is,

If sacrifice is necessary to fix the fiscal mess, why should the wealthy be exempt?

If fixing the problem is going to cost so and so making 40,000 a year, why shouldn't it cost so and so making 4 million a year?

Here's why, you nattering nabob of nonsense:

New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.

More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.

"The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said.
getty images/nancyney

What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.

Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found. ...


Tax refugees staging escape from New York - NYPOST.com


If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ~Ronald Reagan