Why We Must Raise Taxes On The Rich:

[MikeK]

[...]

We are, I suspect, approaching the end game of a set of policies (that look suspeicviously like a 40 year long conspiracy to me, but not one that is much of a secret) that were DESIGNED to bankrupt the middle class and ITS governments.

This becomes more and more obvious.

Basically Atlas isn't merely shrugging, Atlas is leaving our national home and taking the FAMILY heirlooms with him as he goes.

As we stand impotently aside and watch it go, afraid to face the reality that nothing short of revolution will put a stop to it.

 

[MikeK]

Obama doubled down on Bush's spending....yet all you mention is Bush's spending.

And what is ironic...when Bush was spending, the deficit was not front page news qand something discussed daily....when Obama doubled down on the spending, he was IGNORING it as front page news and a growing concern....

So....your obvious partisanship sort of makes your post completely irrelevant.

Are you aware that Bush did not include much of his profligate spending, including the cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation, in his annual budgets? If not you need to educate yourself to that important fact.

The reason it appears that Obama has "doubled down" on Bush's spending is because Obama showed Bush's spending in his (Obama's) budgets.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obama doubled down on Bush's spending....yet all you mention is Bush's spending.

And what is ironic...when Bush was spending, the deficit was not front page news qand something discussed daily....when Obama doubled down on the spending, he was IGNORING it as front page news and a growing concern....

So....your obvious partisanship sort of makes your post completely irrelevant.

Are you aware that Bush did not include much of his profligate spending, including the cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation, in his annual budgets? If not you need to educate yourself to that important fact.

Important? You mean irrelevant.
All of the wartime supplemental spending is included in CBO end-of-year numbers.
That these were supplemenal spending bills rather than included in the budget is meaningless.

 

[hortysir]

Thanks M14

Hey - were you on Iowa?
I was there - April 19 shipmate.

85-88, brother

Turret 2 powder mag was my GQ station until I got qualified on the helm.
I got out almost 1 yr to the day before the explosion.
Still knew alot of the guys

My flag will fly at 1/2 staff Tuesday

 

[slukasiewski]

Thanks M14

Hey - were you on Iowa?
I was there - April 19 shipmate.

85-88, brother

Turret 2 powder mag was my GQ station until I got qualified on the helm.
I got out almost 1 yr to the day before the explosion.
Still knew alot of the guys

My flag will fly at 1/2 staff Tuesday

SCPO Ziggy was one of my best buds aboard Iowa. We had breakfast together that morning...

Remember the 47 shipmate.

A day I will never forget

 

[Spoonman]

Obama doubled down on Bush's spending....yet all you mention is Bush's spending.

And what is ironic...when Bush was spending, the deficit was not front page news qand something discussed daily....when Obama doubled down on the spending, he was IGNORING it as front page news and a growing concern....

So....your obvious partisanship sort of makes your post completely irrelevant.

Are you aware that Bush did not include much of his profligate spending, including the cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation, in his annual budgets? If not you need to educate yourself to that important fact.

The reason it appears that Obama has "doubled down" on Bush's spending is because Obama showed Bush's spending in his (Obama's) budgets.

uhm dude, so what? it still added to the deficit numbers. In the budget or not the fact is obama has far outspent bush and far increase the deficit. Why do you frigging libs always argue non issues and smoke screens? Besides the fact you have no real argument.

 

[georgephillip]

What if there's no difference between Bush and Obama?

"For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the effective federal income tax rate—what they actually pay—fell from almost 30 percent in 1995 to just under 17 percent in 2007, according to the IRS.

"And for the approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29 percent to 23 percent in 2008.

"It may seem too fantastic to be true, but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or so. "

Bush and Obama serve the same base.

How to Pay No Taxes - BusinessWeek

 

[MikeK]

[Important? You mean irrelevant.
All of the wartime supplemental spending is included in CBO end-of-year numbers.
That these were supplemenal spending bills rather than included in the budget is meaningless.

Excerpt:

[...]

According to John Irons, Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress, “For the past seven years, the Bush administration’s budget choices have reflected an economic policy that has benefited the few at the expense of the broader economy and our fiscal future. This latest budget proposal does little to address long-term budget imbalances, while continuing to promote policies that benefit wealthy individuals. According to the president’s own numbers, the proposed tax policies would add $600 billion to deficits over the next five years, and $1.9 trillion over the next ten. Once other costs are included—such as needed reform to the Alternative Minimum Tax and ongoing expenditures for Iraq—the deficit totals would be much higher. The president’s claim that his plan will balance the budget by 2012 is simply not credible.”

In the past, the Center for American Progress has been critical of President Bush’s proposed budgets, believing that many of his stated intentions—such as tax cuts that predominately benefited the wealthiest—represented the wrong priorities for the nation.[1] Moreover, on some of the more promising goals and intentions that President Bush expressed in advance of the budget release (for example, reducing dependence on foreign oil), he has repeatedly neglected to follow up with appropriate funding or administrative focus. Likewise, we do not believe that the current document merits serious consideration.

Specifically:

The president’s claim of balancing the budget by 2012 relies on budgetary gimmicks and unrealistic assumptions, for example:

* The budget projections do not include the cost of extending changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax beyond 2008.

* The budget does not include full 5-year costs for Iraq.

[...]

Read the entire article here: Statement on President Bush?s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2008

 

[editec]

We must raise taxes on the rich (assuming we want to remain solvent...I suspect our masters do not want that to happen) because those are the people with the money.

We could cut every social program down to nothing, and we'd still need to raise taxes.

 

[mudwhistle]

We must raise taxes on the rich (assuming we want to remain solvent...I suspect our masters do not want that to happen) because those are the people with the money.

We could cut every social program down to nothing, and we'd still need to raise taxes.

Thanks to Obama raising taxes is the only solution.

Perhaps that was the plan all along.

 

[editec]

We must raise taxes on the rich (assuming we want to remain solvent...I suspect our masters do not want that to happen) because those are the people with the money.

We could cut every social program down to nothing, and we'd still need to raise taxes.

Thanks to Obama raising taxes is the only solution.

Perhaps that was the plan all along.

So your story is that the entire macro-economic mess falls upon the back of Obama?

I mean do you really think that, or are you just trolling?

No, I'm serious, do you REALLY think that?

 

[mudwhistle]

We must raise taxes on the rich (assuming we want to remain solvent...I suspect our masters do not want that to happen) because those are the people with the money.

We could cut every social program down to nothing, and we'd still need to raise taxes.

Thanks to Obama raising taxes is the only solution.

Perhaps that was the plan all along.

So your story is that the entire macro-economic mess falls upon the back of Obama?

I mean do you really think that, or are you just trolling?

No, I'm serious, do you REALLY think that?

Nope.
Obama signs the bills so it's up to him.

Now are you gonna try to tell me it's not his problem anymore?

Btw, I was paying attention when Obama said during the Dem primary debates that he would raise taxes even if it lowered revenue.

In other words his goal has always been to punish those who have been successful in this country.
Try wrapping your tiny mind around that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We must raise taxes on the rich (assuming we want to remain solvent...I suspect our masters do not want that to happen) because those are the people with the money.

If you took every dollar of income from every person that makes >150k, you'd still have a deficit of >$635B
Its impossible to raise taxes enough to reduce the deficit to GWB-era levels, say nothing of eliminating it.

We could cut every social program down to nothing, and we'd still need to raise taxes.

Abso-LUTELY false.
FY2009, spending for SocSec, Medicare and Medicade, alone, exceeds $1.4T - there's another ~$875B of social-spending entitlements AFTER that.

 

[peach174]

Yep, that's a real smart move. What is the incentive to keep them here?
They are rich, they will move to Taiwan or where ever else they want to.
How about doing something to bring in more of the rich from around the world, which will bring in more revenue.

 

[sinister59]

lets kill them and just take all their money .

 

[Antiderivative]

Yep, that's a real smart move. What is the incentive to keep them here?
They are rich, they will move to Taiwan or where ever else they want to.
How about doing something to bring in more of the rich from around the world, which will bring in more revenue.

Good. Let them move, especially the bankers.

 

[editec]

We must raise taxes on the rich (assuming we want to remain solvent...I suspect our masters do not want that to happen) because those are the people with the money.

We could cut every social program down to nothing, and we'd still need to raise taxes.

Thanks to Obama raising taxes is the only solution.

Perhaps that was the plan all along.

Its been "the plan" for nearly 40 years far as I can fathom, MW.

The liberals spend foolishly on social programs (that seldom are worth it) and the GOP spends foolishly on military programs (that seldom are worth it)

It is the GOOD COP/BAD COP game played out on a nation scale.

The people you're expected to think are the good cops, I'm expected to think are the bad ones and vice versa.

Let me tell ya after studying politics and policies seriously for nearly 40 years I'm convinced they're ALL bad cops and that this emerging bankriptsy of the American governments and the American people is not merely an accident resulting from bad planning, either.

Only a FOOL or a KNAVE could have imaged that FREE TRADE (as practiced) would be good for this nation's economy in the long run.

But FREE TRADE (again, as practiced) certainly did make a very select group of investors, bankers and industrialists EXTREMELY wealthy.

And who are those guys?

The guys who BOUGHT our government a long long time ago.

And the smae people who are moving their wealth out of USD and instruments valued in USD, and into FOREIGN investments , gold, silver, commodities futures etc.

ATlas is Shrugging and has been at least since REAGAN, and I think for way longer than that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yep, that's a real smart move. What is the incentive to keep them here?
They are rich, they will move to Taiwan or where ever else they want to.
How about doing something to bring in more of the rich from around the world, which will bring in more revenue.

Good. Let them move, especially the bankers.

May I suggest that if your ideal is to live in a country full of nothing but poor people, you haul your obviously worthless, unproductive, ignorant ass off to sub-Saharan Africa to live, rather than destroying wealthy, productive countries that OTHER people in the world are smart enough to appreciate?

 

[chikenwing]

What needs to be done,is stop already with the class warfare,and kick the liven crap out of DC until the start working for us not themselves and special interests.

 

[JimH52]

The deficit has been decades in the making. Every President and every Congress during that period must share some blame. Cutting will not do it. Thereis going to need to be some "revenue incentives." Remember that one?