while repugs are held in back seat car by teabaggers car goes over cliff

[squeeze berry]

there is no way to balance the budget using one approach

1. raise taxes on the rich slightly

2. make sure everyone pays some taxes

3. cut spending judiciously

4. reform entitlements

5. get the fuck out of the sandbox

 

[alan1]

What's the point of raising taxes on the wealthy? Has that been explained?

So you are saying we don't need to increase revenue to get out of this mess? We can assign blame anywhere and everywhere we want but the fact of the matter is we are here and now and action is required. There is perfectly good reasons the government might be able to operate at under whatever it currently spends but action must be taken and taken quickly. The American people seem to agree with the President's proposal some people, cough(teabaggers), seem to be under someone other than the American people's control.

Looks to me like CrusaderFrank asked you two question and wasn't "saying" what you just attributed to him.
Do you understand what a question mark(?) means? <------Hint, that's a question.

 

[clevergirl]

One of the biggest sticking points of a deal with the level at which taxes will go up. The level the President is sticking to is $250K while the republicans think that is too low.

Here's a math question for those who think the $250 limit is going to make the wealthy go broke.

I don't give a fuck whether or not they go broke. The government takes in more than $2 trillion a year. That is more than enough to run this country. Neither they nor you deserve any more of anyone else's money, you parasitic leach.

Yes, but moronic liberals LOVE to use other peoples money to give to the poor, the lazy, or the criminal... The ultra wealthy merely take their money elsewhere. This means that the people who are actually harmed are the small business community who provide the most employment and ultimately keep our economic engine going. They are getting hammered by this administration.

 

[Stephanie]

What's the point of raising taxes on the wealthy? Has that been explained?

So you are saying we don't need to increase revenue to get out of this mess? We can assign blame anywhere and everywhere we want but the fact of the matter is we are here and now and action is required. There is perfectly good reasons the government might be able to operate at under whatever it currently spends but action must be taken and taken quickly. The American people seem to agree with the President's proposal some people, cough(teabaggers), seem to be under someone other than the American people's control.

Don't worry your wee head off over, ACTION is coming your way in the form of New TAXES (ObamaTaxcare), regulations that will be driving up the cost for everything you need and then when Obama can't get enough of the revenue he thinks he needs from those rich you all love to dump on, he will be coming after you little people fools who voted for him..

but of course you have to have a scapegoat to blame things on, you master say it's the Tea party and here you spew

 

[emptystep]

You know would make a really great political party? <- question mark

If Occupy and the Tea Party joined forces.

 

[emptystep]

there is no way to balance the budget using one approach

1. raise taxes on the rich slightly

2. make sure everyone pays some taxes

3. cut spending judiciously

4. reform entitlements

5. get the fuck out of the sandbox

So we work out the nuances, type it up, and, voila, we have a budget. Works for me.

 

[emptystep]

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Financial (Non-Home) Wealth


2010
Top 1 percent --- 42.1%
Next 19 percent --- 53.5%
Bottom 80 percent --- 4.7%

So what percent of taxes would you like the bottom 80% to pay. Some one structured this country so it burns through $3.6 billion a year and you would like to put that burden where?

hell son, we burn through 4 billion a day what the hell are ewe talking about?

The "revenues" gained from stealing it from the evil rich would run the govt for about a week and a half.

It's a way to patronize the know nothing idiots that voted for the libtards. Nothing more

Yeah, very nice wording. You got a link on that claim?

 

[PredFan]

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Financial (Non-Home) Wealth


2010
Top 1 percent --- 42.1%
Next 19 percent --- 53.5%
Bottom 80 percent --- 4.7%

So what percent of taxes would you like the bottom 80% to pay. Some one structured this country so it burns through $3.6 billion a year and you would like to put that burden where?

hell son, we burn through 4 billion a day what the hell are ewe talking about?

The "revenues" gained from stealing it from the evil rich would run the govt for about a week and a half.

It's a way to patronize the know nothing idiots that voted for the libtards. Nothing more

Exactly.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

One of the biggest sticking points of a deal with the level at which taxes will go up. The level the President is sticking to is $250K while the republicans think that is too low.

Here's a math question for those who think the $250 limit is going to make the wealthy go broke.

If for up to a dollar I pay 5% tax and I make $1 for the year at the end of the year I would own $0.05 tax.
If for anything above $1 I owe 10% tax and I make $2 for the year, how much tax do I owe at the end of the year?

It is just so hard to bring those guys out of the back seat.

What on Earth are you fucking babbling about now? Who is saying the wealthy are going to go broke?

For Chrissakes.. lay off the meth you loser.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

hell son, we burn through 4 billion a day what the hell are ewe talking about?

The "revenues" gained from stealing it from the evil rich would run the govt for about a week and a half.

It's a way to patronize the know nothing idiots that voted for the libtards. Nothing more

Yeah, very nice wording. You got a link on that claim?

An analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that estimated that raising rates on families with income above $250,000 would net $68 billion more for the federal government in 2013.

Divide that amount by the $3.8 trillion in spending projected for the 2013 budget, and you end up with a tax hike that covers 0.18 percent of the budget. Multiply that by 365 days, and you get a little less than seven days. (We should note that the actual White House proposal included some other provisions aimed at upper-income Americans that it estimated would have yielded a total of $85 billion &#8212; or a little more than eight days of government &#8212; in 2013.)

 

[Si modo]

The "revenues" gained from stealing it from the evil rich would run the govt for about a week and a half.

It's a way to patronize the know nothing idiots that voted for the libtards. Nothing more

Yeah, very nice wording. You got a link on that claim?

An analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that estimated that raising rates on families with income above $250,000 would net $68 billion more for the federal government in 2013.

Divide that amount by the $3.8 trillion in spending projected for the 2013 budget, and you end up with a tax hike that covers 0.18 percent of the budget. Multiply that by 365 days, and you get a little less than seven days. (We should note that the actual White House proposal included some other provisions aimed at upper-income Americans that it estimated would have yielded a total of $85 billion — or a little more than eight days of government — in 2013.)

Exactly. Drop in the bucket. It's like Obama has tossed a spool of thread to the country to "save it" from going over the cliff.

 

[emptystep]

What's the point of raising taxes on the wealthy? Has that been explained?

So you are saying we don't need to increase revenue to get out of this mess? We can assign blame anywhere and everywhere we want but the fact of the matter is we are here and now and action is required. There is perfectly good reasons the government might be able to operate at under whatever it currently spends but action must be taken and taken quickly. The American people seem to agree with the President's proposal some people, cough(teabaggers), seem to be under someone other than the American people's control.

Looks to me like CrusaderFrank asked you two question and wasn't "saying" what you just attributed to him.
Do you understand what a question mark(?) means? <------Hint, that's a question.

I kind of took his second question was rhetorical as the answer to the first would address the second. My answer to his question was address only in my first sentence, which in turn was a question. The rest was meant more as a preemptive attempt to ward off a very winded back and forth over who is to blame, which has not seemed to happen much yet in this thread.

This gets me to the root point of this reply which is to answer whether or not I answered CrusaderFranks's question. (Which by now no one probably gives a fuck about anyway.) CF's question was, 'What's the point of raising taxes on the wealthy?' To which I replied, 'So you are saying we don't need to increase revenue to get out of this mess?' I believe it is kind of obvious that raising taxes is to raise revenue. One could argue raising taxes for the sole reason of punishing people with money. If CF was asking that question then my reply could be seen as a blatant attempt to avoid the true reason for the tax increase. If CF was asking about why raise revenue then he would seem to saying that he saw a reason we do not need to raise revenue. Therein lays the brunt of my question asking for clarification of his apparent questioning the need to raise revenue. There was the possibility that CF understood a different possible reason for raising taxes other than punishing people with money or to gather more revenue in which case my question would have been short sighted in that while I might have seen such a possibility I did not address such issue and jumped to conclusions in a question about revenue.

This is a question mark here -> ? <-. Does that answer your question or would you like me to elaborate?

 

[emptystep]

The "revenues" gained from stealing it from the evil rich would run the govt for about a week and a half.

It's a way to patronize the know nothing idiots that voted for the libtards. Nothing more

Yeah, very nice wording. You got a link on that claim?

An analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that estimated that raising rates on families with income above $250,000 would net $68 billion more for the federal government in 2013.

Divide that amount by the $3.8 trillion in spending projected for the 2013 budget, and you end up with a tax hike that covers 0.18 percent of the budget. Multiply that by 365 days, and you get a little less than seven days. (We should note that the actual White House proposal included some other provisions aimed at upper-income Americans that it estimated would have yielded a total of $85 billion — or a little more than eight days of government — in 2013.)

You can reference a report but not link to it?

 

[emptystep]

One of the biggest sticking points of a deal with the level at which taxes will go up. The level the President is sticking to is $250K while the republicans think that is too low.

Here's a math question for those who think the $250 limit is going to make the wealthy go broke.

If for up to a dollar I pay 5% tax and I make $1 for the year at the end of the year I would own $0.05 tax.
If for anything above $1 I owe 10% tax and I make $2 for the year, how much tax do I owe at the end of the year?

It is just so hard to bring those guys out of the back seat.

What on Earth are you fucking babbling about now? Who is saying the wealthy are going to go broke?

For Chrissakes.. lay off the meth you loser.

Well as soon as I see something to back up these multiple claims that a tax increase is an insignificant piece of the budget discussion I will tell you what I am babbling about.

 

[Missourian]

If "returning taxes to their prior levels" was a good thing, why not return EVERYONE to their prior levels?

I am for that as are a couple math-saavy economists. The only caveat being that the econ must gain more steam first then, eliminate them all

Using that logic...we should wait and raise them all at the same time...and in the mean time, we can work on cutting spending...as THAT is the real problem.

 

[Missourian]

Here we go. I was actually trying to find the income totals since that is more to the point.

Income
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
2006 21.3% 40.1% 38.6%

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

What does this have to do with revenues or government spending?

Some people earn more (we are talking about income tax...not folks who inherit money).

Some worked harder, some worked smarter, some made sacrifices, some just got lucky.

Do you want the government to take theirs and give it to you "because they don't NEED that much"?

Show me in the Constitution where the powers of the federal government include income redistribution...I'll wait.

P.S. - I'm simply humoring you with this discussion. Don't misconstrue the fact that we are discussing it as a tacit indication that your argument has any bearing on taxation...it does not.

 

[emptystep]

Here we go. I was actually trying to find the income totals since that is more to the point.

Income
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
2006 21.3% 40.1% 38.6%

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

What does this have to do with revenues or government spending?

Some people earn more (we are talking about income tax...not folks who inherit money).

Some worked harder, some worked smarter, some made sacrifices, some just got lucky.

Do you want the government to take theirs and give it to you "because they don't NEED that much"?

Show me in the Constitution where the powers of the federal government include income redistribution...I'll wait.

P.S. - I'm simply humoring you with this discussion. Don't misconstrue the fact that we are discussing it as a tacit indication that your argument has any bearing on taxation...it does not.

I realize you are just humoring me. Otherwise you would put some thought into your replies.

This is the land of opportunity. Not the land of screw over the system because you have the wealth and the power to do so.

 

[Dot Com]

If "returning taxes to their prior levels" was a good thing, why not return EVERYONE to their prior levels?

I am for that as are a couple math-saavy economists. The only caveat being that the econ must gain more steam first then, eliminate them all

Using that logic...we should wait and raise them all at the same time...and in the mean time, we can work on cutting spending...as THAT is the real problem.

The wealthy have never had it so good aside from the former Gilded Age. The wealth disparities are only surpassed by those of the aforementioned Gilded Age
Plutocracy reborn

 

[Missourian]

Here we go. I was actually trying to find the income totals since that is more to the point.

Income
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
2006 21.3% 40.1% 38.6%

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

What does this have to do with revenues or government spending?

Some people earn more (we are talking about income tax...not folks who inherit money).

Some worked harder, some worked smarter, some made sacrifices, some just got lucky.

Do you want the government to take theirs and give it to you "because they don't NEED that much"?

Show me in the Constitution where the powers of the federal government include income redistribution...I'll wait.

P.S. - I'm simply humoring you with this discussion. Don't misconstrue the fact that we are discussing it as a tacit indication that your argument has any bearing on taxation...it does not.

I realize you are just humoring me. Otherwise you would put some thought into your replies.

This is the land of opportunity. Not the land of screw over the system because you have the wealth and the power to do so.

Only in irrational liberal-land is paying over a third of ones income to the government "screwing over the system".

Your liberal masters whispered that line in your ear and you regurgitated on cue likes one of Pavlov's dogs.

What does that mean exactly?

How are they "screwing over the system" by paying 35% income tax?

In your own words please...exercise those brain cells for a change.

 

[emptystep]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

What does this have to do with revenues or government spending?

Some people earn more (we are talking about income tax...not folks who inherit money).

Some worked harder, some worked smarter, some made sacrifices, some just got lucky.

Do you want the government to take theirs and give it to you "because they don't NEED that much"?

Show me in the Constitution where the powers of the federal government include income redistribution...I'll wait.

P.S. - I'm simply humoring you with this discussion. Don't misconstrue the fact that we are discussing it as a tacit indication that your argument has any bearing on taxation...it does not.

I realize you are just humoring me. Otherwise you would put some thought into your replies.

This is the land of opportunity. Not the land of screw over the system because you have the wealth and the power to do so.

Only in irrational liberal-land is paid over a third of ones income to the government "screwing over the system".

Your liberal masters whispered that line in your ear and you regurgitated on cue likes one of Pavlov's dogs.

What does that mean exactly?

How are they "screwing over the system" by paying 35% income tax?

In your own words please...exercise those brain cells for a change.

See my posts #46 and #48 on 'Liberals Forced to Eat their Poop' which I believe makes my point sufficiently.