Just don't call it raising taxes.

[freeatlast]

Start with a balanced budget to stop the bleeding. I don't have to show 'real numbers' because the U.S. will always have revenues. It is enough to embark on a couple of decades long process of lowering the debt. Again, the debt doesn't need to be zero, just manageable.



Do you have a link, or can you cite a reference for this 41% number?



"The near future" being how many years? Because foreign countries don't seem too worried about it based on their continued purchases of U.S. debt securities.

The fact is you can't show real numbers because it is impossible to come up with them since we are so far in debt.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/53246

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[Bro. Curtis]

And yet, I never claimed ownership. I never claimed anything at all.

I never said you claimed it.

Nah, that's the fault of the GOP - they brought them there. I will note that the Democrats really didn't do anything to reverse that trend.

That is the silliest thing you have ever said.

Though you make a great point, the GOP was the guilty party in terms of getting us all the items you reference. I am indeed disgusted with the perpetuation; nevertheless, the GOP was in power when all these things were implemented.

Hogwash. And you know it. Clinton & Gore killed a half million Iraqi women & children. Clinton used the then-in-a-drawer patriot act to put John Gotti in jail. And we have had Gitmo open a long time.

I am not affiliated with a particular political party, so there's not much I can do. If anything, I am still on the GOP mailing lists, as I was an active Republican years ago (prior to 2000).

I have to say any thinking person would be leaning towards a conservative libertarioan position. The two parties are ruined.

As for turning on "the rich," are you implying that they shouldn't bear the burden along with everyone else? Should the poor and the working class be the only ones to make sacrifices? The talk is that we should restrict entitlements (and I agree with that), and some would like to break the collective bargaining agreements for unions. Why should these people be the only ones forced to make sacrifices? The so-called Bush tax cuts aren't doing anything to get us out of the recession, so why should they not share in the burden? A point worth noting is that I am referring to the true wealthy - not just those living comfortably who perceive themselves as wealthy.

Oh please. Class warfare at it's finest. I find nothing endearing in people who demand other's give more. End the wars. Make yer guy do what he said he was going to, then talk to me about "the rich".

What about the corporations - who aren't hiring and in some cases aren't paying taxes at all? Manufacturing is gone, and is most likely going to remain gone - at least in our lifetimes. Many who refer to President Obama as a "socialist" are buying products that are made in a communist country that has total control over wages. Many of the products that aren't made in that country are made in a country with a caste system, that has a permanent underclass with NO chance to move up socioeconomically. They aren't bringing those jobs back to us, and undoubtedly never will. Exactly why shouldn't they participate in this as well? Why should those companies who have moved their income offshore be given a lower tax rate (as some have suggested)?

Why not remove some regulations, and break up some greedy unions ? Then maybe we could have the jobs back. You are only looking at corporations because you cannot face the fact that the Bamster has lied to you.

I didn't attack him - go back and read the posts. I never even responded directly to carpro until carpro had to make this personal - as carpro usually does. Carpro is guilty of that which he accuses - follows me and harrasses. It's right there - I can't alter carpro's posts, nor can I alter mine.

Ummm.....you kind of turn this place into Romper Room. Get over it.

According to the Sean Hannity, the grownups are in charge now. Besides, President Obama inherited this economy from former President Bush, much like the recession that Bush inherited from former President Clinton.

I don't care what Hannity says, he's an idiot.



Ugh - read Bike magazine on a flight to New York, and saw the pictures. I would love to go there. Went to Devils Den in Arkansas and found out (the hard way) that there is a BIG difference between trail riding and mountain biking.

Still riding the Cannondale? I now ride a Kona and I love it. Still cannot believe that the Cannondale factory in New Bedford, PA that I got to see is no longer making bikes.....

Regards, hope all is well with you and yours,
BiR[/QUOTE]

Thank you. Yes the Cannondale is still riding, although I broke my back brake cable in Hellgate Canyon the other day. I turned fifty the other day, but I still ride pretty hard.


Take care. BiR.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Simple. Raising taxes ALWAYS results in rises in unemployment. This results in less taxes, overall. Raising taxes actually lowers the total tax revenue, kills jobs, and bombs the economy.

Elderly who are worth more than a million dollars, or who have incomes in excess of 200k, have no business receiving SS checks, or medicare benefits.

History begs to differ. Raising taxes does not always cause additional unemployment.

Higher taxes don't necessarily hurt.

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but don't believe the hype that tax increases on the wealthy will hurt the economy or kill jobs. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt raised marginal tax rates to an astoundingly high 94 percent and yet we still had almost full employment (1.2 percent unemployment), thanks to the war. Taxes fell after the war, but in 1951, Harry Truman raised taxes again (from 84 to 91 percent) and yet unemployment dropped by 50 percent. In fact, from 1947 to 1973, median family income rose 2.7 percent a year, even while the top marginal tax rate was never lower than 70 percent, twice the current rate.

Perhaps the best example of the utility of tax increases comes from recent history. In 1993, Bill Clinton defied every single Republican in the House of Representatives and raised marginal tax rates to almost 40 percent. Despite GOP predictions that businesses would go bankrupt and workers would be laid off, the U.S. enjoyed the longest peacetime economic expansion in history.

http://www.skeptically.org/eds/id13.html

 

[freeatlast]

History begs to differ. Raising taxes does not always cause additional unemployment.

Why raise taxes when it cannot fix the problem. All congress will do is spend more.

 

[mandym]

History begs to differ. Raising taxes does not always cause additional unemployment.

yet we still had almost full employment (1.2 percent unemployment), thanks to the war.

Poor example

 

[mandym]

Why raise taxes when it cannot fix the problem. All congress will do is spend more.

Which is the sole reason they want them raised.

 

[freeatlast]

Which is the sole reason they want them raised.

Yes I agree. The people need to rise up and demand that every congressman and the president's pay, as well as all benefits including retirement, be stopped until they return to zero debt.
.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

No you did not understand me correctly. But with regards to this I misspoke in that I should not have include SS. If that was being handled correctly there would be no need for any changes to it. The truth is it has been used as a general fund and now the funds are weak. Even if we raise taxes on all the "wealthy" it would not cover the need for SS alone. But it would do tremendous damage to the economy.

Thank you for clarifying.
Taxes on the wealthy will not "do tremendous damage to the economy." These are the same people who aren't creating jobs now. The GOP fought to keep the "Bush tax cuts" and yet nothing has really changed.

Again, thank you for clarifying.

Regards,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

A large chunk of SS payments could be cut out, without hurting anyone. Put a cap on it...anyone who has an income of 250k or more, or who has a net worth of more than 1 million dollars, should not get it. Same with Medicare.

Agreed on MediCare, but how do you deny benefits to someone that has paid in all their lives? Someone with a net worth of $1 Million or more isn't necessarily rich these days, and it is most likely someone who was smart enough to save for retirement without the expectation of surviving on Social Security alone, which is how it should work. Of course, we all know it didn't for most.

Regards, hope all is well in Texas,
BiR

 

[mandym]

Thank you for clarifying.

You are welcome

Taxes on the wealthy will not "do tremendous damage to the economy." These are the same people who aren't creating jobs now. The GOP fought to keep the "Bush tax cuts" and yet nothing has really changed.

Which ignores to factor in the housing debacle and the effects of obamacare. Other factors do come into play but it is silly to suggest that the wealthy are not job creators.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

I never said you claimed it.

Okay, then the obvious question would be: what exactly was your intention?

That is the silliest thing you have ever said.

It may be silly, but it's true. It was better known by some as the K Street Project.

Hogwash. And you know it. Clinton & Gore killed a half million Iraqi women & children. Clinton used the then-in-a-drawer patriot act to put John Gotti in jail. And we have had Gitmo open a long time.

A half million? That's a pretty large number, considering that Clinton/Gore never orchestrated a full-scale invasion of Iraq, as did former President Bush. I guess his number must be substantially higher. And with respect to the full-scale invasion, we are now stuck there thanks to former President Bush. We are stuck there, with no end in sight, and it's bleeding us for BILLIONS! I know Obama pledged to get us out, but that was either being naive or willfully ignoring that Bush's war will go for decades.

Perhaps W should have followed his father's lead with respect to Iraq.....

I have to say any thinking person would be leaning towards a conservative libertarioan position. The two parties are ruined.

Agreed.
Fiscally, I am very conservative.
Socially, I am very liberal.
Perhaps I am a combination of a Libertarian and a Green Party member.

Oh please. Class warfare at it's finest. I find nothing endearing in people who demand other's give more. End the wars. Make yer guy do what he said he was going to, then talk to me about "the rich".

It's not class warfare at all. If anything, you are seemingly endorsing an effort to protect the rich.

Again, Bush gave us an endless war in Iraq. There is no way out, and it's going to bleed us for BILLIONS, as it has been doing since 2003.

Why not remove some regulations, and break up some greedy unions ? Then maybe we could have the jobs back. You are only looking at corporations because you cannot face the fact that the Bamster has lied to you.

Are the wealthy who fought so hard for these tax cuts not greedy? Or is being greedy reserved for the working class, the poor and the elderly?

I am looking at corporations because nobody in the GOP seems to think they should share in this hardship, only the "greedy unions" as you put it.

Ummm.....you kind of turn this place into Romper Room. Get over it.

Now this really is the silliest thing you have said. BroCurtis, I am not the one who started this. I didn't post to carpro - I go out of my way to avoid carpro. I personally find carpro to possess an angry faith, and rarely if ever offers anything substantive or gracious. I didn't direct anything at carpro, yet carpro felt compelled to offer the usual personal attack that once again has no merit. My comments were directed at Targus, who apparently has left the discussion. Sad to see that, as I always read Targus's posts.

Again, it's right there in the previous pages.

I don't care what Hannity says, he's an idiot.

Ha! We agree on that point.

Thank you. Yes the Cannondale is still riding, although I broke my back brake cable in Hellgate Canyon the other day. I turned fifty the other day, but I still ride pretty hard.

Same thing happened to me on the Katy Trail (in Missouri). Though this was a trail ride, not a mountain bike ride. There is a bike shop in Defiance that sold me a cable and I was back on the trail in about a half hour.

Happy Birthday, hope you had a great one, and that you have 50 more.

Hope your week is going better than mine,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Which ignores to factor in the housing debacle and the effects of obamacare. Other factors do come into play but it is silly to suggest that the wealthy are not job creators.

The wealthy aren't job creators - at least not in this economy. They haven't been since 2008.

As for the housing debacle, it was most definitely a factor. More specifically, the whole mortgage-backed securities market was a factor. These people were largely unregulated, and in some cases committed crimes. Many of these people are the ones who claim government is the problem.

As for Obamacare, it hasn't even been implemented yet.

Regards - hope all is well with you and yours,
BiR

 

[mandym]

The wealthy aren't job creators - at least not in this economy. They haven't been since 2008.

As for the housing debacle, it was most definitely a factor. More specifically, the whole mortgage-backed securities market was a factor. These people were largely unregulated, and in some cases committed crimes. Many of these people are the ones who claim government is the problem.

As for Obamacare, it hasn't even been implemented yet.

Regards - hope all is well with you and yours,
BiR

Actually giving people loans that they could not afford blew up the economy. Nobody is currently a job creator. Or at least very few. But poor people do not create jobs. Only those with the wealth to own business. The more wealth, the bigger the business, the more employees hired. But just saying the wealthy are not currently job creators does nothing to address the issue. And it is voer reaching to say that the wealthy are not currently job creators.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Okay, then the obvious question would be: what exactly was your intention?

So you DO want to be in charge. I see.

It may be silly, but it's true. It was better known by some as the K Street Project.

Umm, Nope. You may remember about 6 years ago, the dems took the purse strings. It's their bed. You can't twist out of it.

A half million? That's a pretty large number, considering that Clinton/Gore never orchestrated a full-scale invasion of Iraq, as did former President Bush. I guess his number must be substantially higher. And with respect to the full-scale invasion, we are now stuck there thanks to former President Bush. We are stuck there, with no end in sight, and it's bleeding us for BILLIONS! I know Obama pledged to get us out, but that was either being naive or willfully ignoring that Bush's war will go for decades.

Typical of you. If you are not going to be honest about that point, then we cannot talk. Everyone knows the sanctions on Iraq killed those people, and Madeline Albright was fine with it. You apparently are, too. How many dead Iraqi children is OK with you libbies ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

You need to chew on this, and come back when you can actually deal with the reality that it is not just Bush's war. Both parties gave it to us, both will keep it going.


And it's simple. Obama is niether ignorant or naive. He is a liar. Why is it so hard for you to say that ? It seems to come so easy for you to say it about everyone else.

And let me tell the GOP voters this.....Michell Bachman, or Marco Rubio will need that middle class money as much as the Bamster does.