Tax the Rich?

[BuckyBadger]

Can someone define "rich" to me in this circumstance, please?

[Scanner]

I AM NOT SAYING WE DON"T NEED TO MAKE BUDGET CUTS!!!

Arrrrrgghhhhhh!!!!!

I am saying we need to do both. Why is the Righties frame this that just because we at least want a symbolic increase on the wealthy, even though it may do very little (it's debatable), to balance the budget, that we don't want to cut the budget? We had explosive growth under Eisenhower with tax rates on the wealthy approaching 90%. 90%!!! I have not heard one Democrat say, "I refuse to cut the budget."

I have heard ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS say, "We won't raise one penny of tax on the rich."

Yes, we have had budget cuts before, successfully under the Clinton Administration. It has happened and can be done again. Obama at one time put a 10 trillion dollar deficit reduction on the table during negotiations.

You know why the REpublicans refused it?

Because there was a small tax increase on the wealthy.

As I have learned with my ex-wife, you can't reason with unreasonable. . .if you vote for a Republican, you are simply voting for unreasonable, I have come to learn and appreciate.

I used to evaluate a candidate based on them alone. . .now I must admit, I feel forced to vote against Republican. And I actually like Chris Christie and think he's doing a good job. I just feel the Republicans need to be sent a message from the Moderates.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Actually i sort of feel it's more the tea party holding the republican party hostage. Militant extremists who refuse to compromise.

Hence why in the debates the fact not one republican would take the 10:1 tax cuts to tax raised on rich deal is RIDICULOUS. Stupidity in the extreme. Someone should have stood up and said it makes sense and I'd take it. They'd probably be the leading candidate because most moderate conservatives would love them.

I'm a liberal and I'd have listened if one of them had stood up and said that. But instead they came off as being for the RICH, instead of the middle class average joe. Ugh.

[GREENBACK]

I honestly think the "rich" would be okay with paying more if there was a worthy goal. So far all they get are more of the same old tired ideas. For the last decade we've watched two incompetent presidents throw money at every little problem like someone throwing water on a fire.

I don't see the rich as being against the middle class. They need a strong middle class to remain rich after all. They just realize that they pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes in this country and our goverment only squanders it. Why agree to pay more?

The concept of fiscal responsibilty seems completely lost nowadays in Washington and that is the biggest problem in my opinion.

[Scanner]

Greenback,

I don't know. . .I may sound like a Barack Obama apologist, but I don't see this administration as being "fiscally irresponsible." Maybe "fiscally liberal". . .but the irresponsibility happened under George Bush.

George Bush was handed a balanced budget and he passed Medicare Part D (socialized healthcare for people who aren't contributing to the economy - no offense to seniors and disabled, but it's true) and got us involved in 2 wars. By the end of his administration, we were teetering on a banking and economic collapse.

Now. . .Obama has spent more. . .and you may not buy his justification, but I see no evidence that he's just doing it "willy nilly." He's trying to stimulate the collapsed economy and get it going. Maybe all for naught, but I can at least see his reasoning/justification. His healthcare package, unlike Medicare Part D, was aimed at protecting the people who are contributing to the economy, not just being a net negative for the economy. I think that was something that needed to happen for a long time.

Why the REpublicans opposed this Middle Class bill and villified it. . .who only knows. As far as I could tell, they liked Socialized Healthcare for the Elderly and Disabled (Medicare Part D), but hated it for the Working Middle Class and Upper Middle Class.

At least he has reasoning. (even if you disagree with it or think it poor)

George Bush had none. He just borrowed because he could and I saw no concerted effort on his part to push for fiscal disipline that at least Obama is pushing for.

Again, I am not acting as an Obama apologist. . .but at least I can see his reasoning. In retrospect, maybe we spent too much; maybe not enough. Who knows? But why we had to go to Iraq was beyond me at the time and continues to this day.

At least Obama is bringing our troops home - a positive effect on our bottom line (but a problem for continued unemployment) and fiscally responsible as we can go afford to go kick someone's butt every time we get a hankering to. . .

[Snodog]

Deleted

[Mjenn]

Well put Scanner.... I agree on pretty much everything except for maybe Chris Christie who I think has chopped off yet another limb from the already suffering NJ public school system and which he won't be held accountable for because the effects won't be truly realized for another decade. But that is another issue.

Budget cuts are necessary and I don't think anyone is interested in not including them, but bringing tax increases to the high end earners will still keep them historically low and will increase tax revenue with the least harm.

The wealthy are not going to throw up their hands and go 'Never mind! Let me just collect my welfare check. Enough of this working nonsense' Mostly because their living standard would deteriorate exponentially.

I just don't see it happening. Despite the fact that we now have to pay 50% tax on the small amount of income we earn over a certain level, my DH enjoys his new position and wouldn't want to say 'No thanks, I think I'll just stay down here.' nor would I give up my business just so that we wouldn't give the government a couple extra thousand dollars. Not when it means we get to keep a couple extra thousand as well.

Not to mention that when you take into account all of the tax deductions we file, the actual extra money the government gets is rather small.

Now yes, we live in Europe, but seriously, people still do go to work here (OK, maybe not so much in Greece, but in Northern Europe anyways)

[GREENBACK]

Scanner,

I agree that Bush started this slide but I also believe that Obama has continued it. I know there are many issues involved and it's always easy to go back and say it was Bush's fault but continuing to blow through money is more of the same old thing. It just seems to me that the Obama administration's answer to get us out of the financial hole is to spend more and create more goverment programs. I have trouble with that as an answer. It's tough to quantify the results of bank and corporate bailouts to be sure but where does this all end? We need to start accepting the fact that borrowing money and raising taxes just to try something new isn't a good plan.

[Mr Nice Guy]

Once you guys started using the words rightie, leftie, conservative, liberal, republican and democrat, this conversation lost all rationality...