We have to RAISE taxes!!

The only thing that would happen if we paid more taxes is that the government would spend more money. They need to learn how to control spending. We pay too much in taxes as it is.

Originally posted by Blueracer
The only thing that would happen if we paid more taxes is that the government would spend more money. They need to learn how to control spending. We pay too much in taxes as it is.

I agree with you.

If it was up to me, I would cut taxes and slash government in half but I'm not President.

We have to deal with the reality of the situation until we can change the system.

The reality is, a Republican President had a Republican House and Senate and spending went through the roof and we borrowed the money that was spent so now we are in a 10 trillion dollar hole.

So now we have to pay our bills and there's no more free lunch.

The politicians are giving us 2 choices:

1. Tax and Spend
2. Borrow and Spend

I rather do option 1 for the sake of my kids and grandkids.

We can't keep borrowing money and charging it to our childrens future work.

Hopefully, we will get a President that knows how to control spending.

Bush has ruined the Republican party because he spent like there was no tomorrow and he borrowed the money he spent so nothing was paid for.

Bush had a great opportunity. He cut taxes which increased revenues and grew the economy.

He ate up any benefits from the tax cut by spending money and growing government.

Now we are in a hole and taxes have to be raised.

McCain will not pay for anything because he wants to look like a conservative but in actuality he will have to borrow us into oblivion.

To stay in Iraq alone will cost us 10 billion a month and this is not including all of his other programs.

So again, I would rather tax and spend then borrow and spend.

reply to post by Wise Dome


First it was Bush and a Republican led Congress for the first six years. A lot of Dems went on along for the ride on those spending sprees including authorizing a war that they knew would cost money. Second the last two years has been a dem led Congress. So I guess you can blame them for approving almost a one trillion dollar bail out. In addition go back and they had already approved about 1 trillion for the secretary of Treasury under a housing bill. Despite the fact that the dems led Congress and spent 2 trillion I prefer to blame both parties. Once again, because both parties went along for the ride.

To stay in Iraq alone will cost us 10 billion a month and this is not including all of his other programs.

The same quote above can be applied to Obama as well. He will have troops in Iraq, close to Iraq and escalate the war in Afghanistan. And don't forget Biden saying that they might set up a no fly zone in Darfur which could lead to military escalation their. Sounds like we are still going to be borrowing no matter who is President.

As long as we are spending we will be borrowing no matter how much tax we increase. Remember that report a few months back that said whoever is President would start off 500billion in the hole. That was before any housing or bailout bill. Financially, we are in a big mess. And the biggest bomb, social security, has yet to go off.

I think the debt should be paid by the people who are making fortunes off all the crap policies that our taxes are paying for. The folks who made vast sums off of the war in Iraq, the economic boondoggle, un-balanced trade policies, etc. should have more then enough to pay it down, and as they are the ones who wanted all that crap in the first place it just makes sense that they pay for it.

Of course, that's not going to happen...

raise taxes? not the only answer... we need to be more successful, and we need to stop sending our bussinessess overseas. raising taxes now would prevent our ability to pay off the debt, as it would generate mass jobless crowds etc etc we need to become PRODUCERS and not CONSUMERS. that will solve the problem. also we need to get rid of credit cards and learn to save duh.

reply to post by Wise Dome


The top 5% also pay 60% of all taxes.

Its beyond fair at the moment, its punitive. To increase it any further would just result in a flight of wealth to tax havens (pretty much what is happening in the UK).

That what Ive been saying. Either candidate that claims they will not raise taxes, is saying it for votes...not honesty.
I noticed you called Bush a pseudo-conservative. Hes actually a Neocon. Neocons are different from the conservatives and Republicans your parents were so fond of.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


That a bull# statistic too.

I agree that we need to raise taxes also BUT like many have said we also need to cut wasteful government spending.

Sen. Obama tax policies have less to do about cutting government spending but much to do with stimulating the economy. That's part of Sen. Obama approach to a type of keynesian economics that would be the core of his economic plan.

It kills me when people call Obama's plan socialist, that just shows how ignorant some people are as to what economics principles are out there and how different they are from each other and the different results they can bring.

On top of that is also the timing and the implementation of such policies that can determine the result of those policies. For example, when Clinton took over we where coming of a financial deblace and through his tax policies that where even harsher than what Obama is proposing we had an economic boom.

Then, came the Bush years and we had tax cuts, after tax cuts, after tax cuts all of which didn't contrubuted one bit to our economy like they predicted. And I'm not talking about the current crisis this crisis is a different thing altogether that has not much to do with Bush tax policies. Bush policies of trickle-down economics where a fallacy at worst or ill-timed at best and with no condition imposed for these companies as far as to keeping jobs here in the U.S. they used that money they got from the tax cuts and started to build plants and rellocate their assets to cheaper places. So in essence, it didn't trickle down, it just stay at the top.

These are the two difference with Obama's economic approach and McCain economic approach, I think the timing is on Obama's side because the middle class and lower income sector of our country are those who tend to spend more and often.

Keynesians believe that fiscal policy should be directed towards the lower-income segment of the population, because that segment is more likely to spend the money, contributing to demand, than to save it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sen. McCain economic plan, specially when talking about his tax policies are basically the same policies that Bush has persued for 8 years and has brought ZERO benefits to the middle and low income sectors of this country and had expanded the balance sheet and bank accounts of the top 5% of earners in this country.

Not only that, he is for letting the Bush tax cuts stick and cut taxes EVEN MORE for corporations, to what benefit? I dont know. But on top of that, he dares to say he is going to balance the budget in ONLY 4 YEARS! and then he proposes to give 300 BILLION away to buy mortgages from WALL ST FIRMS!!!

Thats how out of touch and uneducated is McCain when it comes to the economy.



[edit on 19-10-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Bunch]

Hey everyone.....I found the money to get us all out of this!!!
Since we are ending this war and all....

The federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009 is[3]:
Operations and maintenance $179.8 Bil. +9.5%
Military Personnel $125.2 Bil. +7.5%
Procurement $104.2 Bil. +5.3%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation
$79.6 Bil. +4.1%
Military Construction $21.2 Bil. +19.1%
Family Housing $3.2 Bil. +10.3%
Resolving and Management Funds
$2.2 Bil. -18.5%
Total Base Spending $515.4 Bil. +5.7%

The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined [6] and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. (Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is adjusted for purchasing power parity.) The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority). In 2007, US military spending was above 1/4 of combined industrial and agricultural production in the USA. Military discretionary spending accounts for more than half of the U.S. federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. federal government budget that is not appropriated for mandatory spending.[7] In 2003, the United States spent about 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Someone please rationalize this to me. Who exactly are we afraid of?!?!!?

If we make cuts here and use diplomacy.....imaging the surplus we would be having in 10 years. Why........do they really need this much money????

reply to post by Grafilthy


Now, let's see. What do you want to cut? The soldiers' pay? How about not letting them eat? Maybe they could live in tents, instead of barracks?
Why not get rid of the entire military? I'm sure Russian, Iran and North Korea will freely get rid of their military also. I just bet Al Qaeda would be willing to stop trying to attack us.

reply to post by Grafilthy


When it comes to military spending I like to look at it from a historic perspective.

At 4 percent of GDP, defense spending is 1.5 percentage points of GDP below the 45-year historical average and well below Cold War and Vietnam War levels.

www.heritage.org...

Basically, is not our defense spending that is balloning our national debt, is BAD POLICIES persued by the current administration that have put us in this hole.

And is those bad policies you can include the Iraq War which has cost almost a trillion dollars already and is funded in additional spending bills that don't come are not accounted in the Federal Budget, but are accounted into the National Debt.

Does that make sense?

While the Op is correct in his assessments of the realities facing this nation

We must understand that eventually taxes will be increased as the catastrophic national debt with the new bail out for the rich will keep increasing beyond control.

Second, our lenders are having national problems of their own thanks to the greed of America financial systems their lending power will pretty much is what is keeping the US afloat, but that may be hindered due to the financial situation around the world.

Third, if taxes are increased the biggest problems is that America no longer have a middle class that can support with taxable income the increases in taxes as the wealth base of America has been out sourced

Americans can not longer afford to invest in America through consumerism as we are nothing more than consumers now full of credit debt.

And we can not afford the increase in taxes that can come alone the way.

All I can think about is how our own politicians has fail us the American people and had allowed under their watch for America to be in the situation that is right now.

May God have mercy of Americans and America's souls.



[edit on 19-10-2008 by marg6043]

It's all about making the tax system fair.

In Britain the National Insurance scheme is very unfair - very rich pay as much as the very poor.

I own a small business, corporate tax for small business was raised last year but the same tax for large business was lowered.

I wonder why ????!!! (votes from big business perhaps ??)

The VAT system is also unfair in Britain.

I run a restaurant and I have to pay 17.5 % VAT on all sales but I cannot reclaim that on my food purchases, unlike other trades.

If the VAT was lowered, I would be able to pay my staff more, who would spend more and pay more taxes - benefiting the economy.

So higher taxes in some areas and lower them in areas where they are simply un fair.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by NeoSocialist]

reply to post by marg6043


I agree with you!

First, I think though that the American people would learn how hard is going to become to get loans and live beyond their means. All signs point to leanding getting more strict and that would be a reality check for many of those who relay on debt to afford those unnecessary things that brings them "happiness".

At the end this would be a plus and combined with some good economic policies we might found ourselves out if this mess hopefully in less than 10 years, granted I been awfully optimistic here.

Surely money can be saved by not bombing the crap out of other countries because they may contain extremists, oil or just because we dont like the way they run their countries.

Wasteful is the only way to describe government spending. What should basically be a simple infrastructure used to keep society ticking over at the consent of its people has become a monstrosity which no one trusts that seems to be in the back pockets of the major bank and media owners. Our governments do as they please regardless of what its bosses ( the people ) want, the only time they care for an opinion is when its time to vote and even then its 2 sides of the same coin. I dont mind paying more taxes if they go straight into improving standards but not when the cash is used to fight wars no one wants and bail out banks who would leave people homeless if the shoe was on the other foot. To say im personally disillusioned by politics is an understatement, I dont trust my government and that is a disgrace.

Thought i should add im from the uk and though we live under different flags its still all the same. Im fortunate to be from a country that has power and clean running water there are people far worse off and the sad thing is our countries have the power to improve the world for everyone, but we are greedy, what a species we really are. So raise taxes sure mr banker needs a new ferrari and somewhere in the middle east is a family waiting to have a bomb dropped on it. Sad times

reply to post by Wise Dome


There is a second alternative. Cut spending. Taxes hurt the economy, cutting spending helps it. Seems simple enough.

Start with the sheep facility in Idaho that researches Homosexuality in Sheep and proceed from there.

reply to post by marg6043


yup, good post marge.

Didn't have the... attention span, to read the whole thread.

But I don't think Obama has it right either. He needs taxes raised for all his social programs, not for getting us out of debt. Neither candidate wants to deal with debt. They both got their own programs and wars that need special funding.

Perhaps the true answer is not raising taxes on any group of citizens. Instead, be smarter about how the taxes already coming in, are spent. Stop wasting.
Get rid of the WAR ON DRUGS. Get rid of ALL the WARS. Stop giving illegals free food stamps and welfare.