We have to RAISE taxes!!

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


But you can't lead from a position of fear can you?

If the rich want to revolt and don't pay taxes then according to the law they become criminals and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Don't buy into the fear, those who want to cheat on their taxes would always do so no matter how low or high the taxes are, those who want to be law abiding citizens would be so even when the law is somehow unfair.

Companies have been getting the biggest taxes in YEARS, and they still shipping jobs overseas, the rich also have gotten their biggest tax cuts in YEARS and still some of them cheat on their taxes.

I understand your concern, but I think that wont be played out. You are talking about anarchy, and if history serves good taxes has been raise on many ocassions and ther hasn't been a single revolt yet.

You might buy into the fear, I don't, neither the next leader of this country.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by LostNemesis

 

Look, lately these threads have been populated by people that get a "throw-away" sign-on, post ridiculous comments, then disappear. Suggesting that we get rid of our military if someone tries to invade us and instead just use WMD's fits the description of such comments. Although the name changes, the writing styles do not, and it is usually very easy to spot them.

I agree with you on this issue. On BOTH sides their is a lot of drive-by poster who just want to incite people to argue with less than intelligent post.

reply to post by Bunch

Originally posted by Bunch
An example of that is when Bill Clinton rose taxes to a good portion of the middle class and the rich in the 90's...what happen? The biggest boom in the economy EVER and the lowest level in unemployment seen in decades.

Actually, Clinton had very little to do with the boom of the '90's. It was a result of the dot-com boom, an idea whose time had come because of the growth of technology and the internet. Clinton was just a very fortunate beneficiary of the good luck of having been the current president. Alfred E. Neuman could have been president and been unable to stop the boom.

Republicans had control of the Congress at the time and had more to do with nurturing the boom than Clinton did.

Taxes could slow the economy and the government will not get increase revenue if that happens. I have a crazy idea, how about the government reduces spending and stops living beyond it's means? I'm not too particular about what spending is cut but I would start by getting rid of military bases in countries who can defend themselves like Japan, Germany and the UK.

We need LESS taxes and LESS Government.
Our Nation belongs to the people, not to the government.
What makes anyone believe that anyone in government has more common since than we do?
The average age of both houses of congress is 57. How in touch are they? Why not people at their best like 30’s and 40’s not people just looking to pad retirement.
Whatever happened to the spirit of rotation of service?
$150+ million to get elected?? Get real!
TERM LIMITS for Congress AND their Bureaucrats!
Not taxes.

reply to post by jsobecky


You are absolutely wrong about this one!

The economic boome that was experienced during the Clinton prresidency was accross the board and the stats are out there for you to research.

DP

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by jsobecky

 

You are absolutely wrong about this one!

The economic boome that was experienced during the Clinton prresidency was accross the board and the stats are out there for you to research.

Nothing that Clinton did encouraged the boom. He raised taxes.

For people who cry about higher taxes, there not looking at the reality that we are facing.

I want to cut taxes, slash government, get rid of the Fed and more but there's a reality that we are facing right now:

OVER 10 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT!!

The fact is, in the last 8 year Bush and Congress didn't pay for anything.

Bush borrowed and spent us into oblivion and now we have massive debts.

So, we have McCain or Obama.

Obama says we have to start paying are bills and if that means raising taxes on some, it's needed.

This is one reason why are economy is hurting now. It's because the economy is slowing down and they keep tring to jumpstart it by keeping interest rates artificially low.

If Bush would have tried to control spending things would be much better right now. He cut taxes and the economy grew and revenues increased but he did NOTHING to control spending.

He gave out 12 Vetos vs Reagan with 78 and even Clinton with 37.
en.wikipedia.org...

Bush gave out his first Veto, July 19, 2006!!!

Not since the early years of the republic has a president been in office as long as President George W. Bush without vetoing even one bill. But this remarkable record of collaboration between the branches may be at its end with the issue of stem cell research winning favor in Congress.

www.npr.org...

This is how a President controls spending, with the veto pen.

Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).

What makes this all the more frustrating is that Bush, unlike Reagan and Clinton, faces a Congress that is controlled by his own party, which claims to be dedicated to smaller, more efficient government. Yet Bush has shown no leadership on spending reform—and Republicans have rebuffed even the mildest criticisms of their spendthrift ways. It seems incontestable that we should conclude that the country's purse is worse off when Republicans are in power.

www.reason.com...

Bush was out of control with his borrowing and spending.

McCain will be the same way.

He talks about a spending freeze after voting for a 700B dollar bailout.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq which will mean borrowing more money. He will borrow money to pay for his healthcare credits and more.

This is what's wrong with the Republican party today. They borrow money then say we didn't raise taxes. But they are borrowing and spending which will not be good for my children and grandchildren.

We have to start paying the bills!!










[edit on 20-10-2008 by Wise Dome]

reply to post by Wise Dome

Obama says we have to start paying are bills and if that means raising taxes on some, it's needed.

Obama also said he would take public finance and he didn't keep that promise.


I agree with what you say about paying our bills but one can't pay the bills if they omit certain issues. That is the social security issue which is a bigger bomb than this financial crisis. Politicians refuse to address this issue because they are afraid of losing votes.

The first year that payments will exceed income for Social Security will occur in 2017, just nine years from now, reflecting growing demands from the retirement of 78 million baby boomers. Medicare is projected to pay out more than it receives in income starting this year.

source

In addition, I feel that you leave out the Pelosi factor. I just don't see her agenda and Obama's agenda as being the same. Obama may just well have to settle for whatever Pelosi and the Dem led Congress dish out.

FACTBOX-Details of U.S. Speaker Pelosi's agenda for 2009

source

What about the HUGE disparity in states TAKING more Federal tax dollars then they are paying (and the hilarious thing is that the majority of dollars go to red states!!)??!?!?!

Take a look at this....

If you look at the yellow column on the right of the charts.....you will see the amount of dollars SPENT......compared to what that state PAYS.

Notice the states that are paying MORE THAN THEY TAKE???? That is correct.......the red states, are the WELFARE STATES. Why is it then.....that you are scared of "socialism"??

Could it be...that it's not that the money is going to the lower classes........But WHO it would go to?? Don't want those "lib-rhulz" gittin' yer money....??!?!?

• Kentucky...$1.51 per dollar paid.
  
• Mississippi....$2.02...per dollar paid.
  
• New Mexico......$2.03....per dollar paid.
  
• W. Virginia...$1.76....per dollar paid.
  

The question I have...is.....Why is my state paying taxes.....for these states in the "less productive class" ????? (And how does it feel to NEED something?)

No experts that I've read think we'll ever be able to repay the debt, I think its fair to say that we will never pay it off. The interest alone we won't be able to cover in the near future. The best thing we can do is cut spending, and keep taxes at or lower than what it's at imo. The amount that each person has to cover is pretty ridiculous.

reply to post by jsobecky


Wha are you showing is a complete ignorance on how tax policy can affect the economy.

If you look at Hauser's Law it shows that no matter what way taxes go the federal tax revenue of the country GDP will stay the same.

Is the way that tax policies are implemented that have an direct impact on the country's economy.

Good and/or well timed policies would have a positive impact on the economy, for example the Clinton years.

Bad and/or ill-timed policies would have a negative impact on the economy for example the Bush years.

To say that tax policy don't have an impact on the economy is completely disingenous at best or completely ignorant at worst.

reply to post by Bunch


I think both Clinton and the Republicans share glory for the success of Clinton. During this time the true Republicans were very tight on spending and in addition to that they were able to negotiate on many issues to benefit both sides. Don't know what happened to the Reps in the Bush administration.

I have come to the conclusion that for the most part, Congress determines how good or bad a President is based on the legislation it passes or fail to pass.

reply to post by Bunch

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Wha are you showing is a complete ignorance on how tax policy can affect the economy.

If you look at Hauser's Law it shows that no matter what way taxes go the federal tax revenue of the country GDP will stay the same.

This shows that you are totally ignorant on tax issues.

Yoy throw around terms like "Hauser's Law" as if that makes you an expert. I don't think you have any idea what it means, except "something about 19.5%".

Do you realize that tax revenues increase when tax rates are lowered? Now, knowing that, why on earth you would support higher taxes is beyond me.

reply to post by Wise Dome


As a conservative, I whole-heartedly disagree. SPENDING is the number one issue! I think if there were a group of super-smart, super-savvy folks in the white house, with no corruption or ties to financial groups, we'd be out of debt within a few years.

When was the last time any of us saw the literal printout of what our tax dollars, (and I mean EVERY penny of it), was spent on? When was the last time it was made available to the average American, and allowed to be questioned by the public? There's a reason for this. They get quite enough of our tax dollars, but they waste billions and billions and billions every year on things we know nothing about. We keep hearing about "wasteful spending", but I think that's the understatement of the year.

Raising taxes will only compound an already existing problem with people who have exhibited horrendous spending habits.

reply to post by jam321


I dont disagree with you AT ALL on your statement, their was a big deal of check and balances going on during the Clinton years and a lot of smart people sitting in high position in Congress and also as par of the Clinton staff.

Can't disagree with you here....damn it!

The problem with Obama is that he does not intend to use increased taxes to bring down the national debt. He wants to increase spending, and dramatically increase the size of gov't.

Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan

No we DO NOT. If we stop sending our money to every frickin country on earth so their people dont starve or whatever, we could do fine. That and the gov needs to stop this crap of handing out money every few months to 300 million of us idiots. Last, drop US gov owned wells in Iraq and let Blackwater guard them.

reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR


The situation is worst that many even our own government wants us the tax payer to know.

Our government in the last 8 year has been borrowing to a historical debt because that is how our nation now works in order to do business.

We are borrowing ourselves to a situation in wish any of those countries that are our lenders and that we have helped become what they are today can say tomorrow we can not lend anymore and we will become nothing but beggars the mighty US nation will have not means to sustain itself as we are not longer builders of wealth.

Whomever becomes president will perpetuate the easier path set by the Bush presidency of keep borrowing from other nations into oblivion, rater than restructuring the entire government in favor of the nations citizens.

Our nation is in more trouble that many can even dream, and now we have allowed our congress to give a blank check to the treasury and the fed to keep borrowing and scaming the tax payer at will, when these peole finish milking the cow that has become America, they will leave this nation in ruins and move to better fields in the new emerging makets to start milking away again.





[edit on 22-10-2008 by marg6043]