Tax the Rich?

[rj.phila]

Taxing the rich has been tried before.

you are totally right, and it worked out ****ing fantastically (see 40's into the 70's).

[GREENBACK]

you are totally right, and it worked out ****ing fantastically (see 40's into the 70's).

C'mon, That period you decribed had nothing to do with taxing rich people. We had a large manufacturing base during that time and a huge need for manufactured goods. WW2 and the baby boom created a huge need for manufactured goods and services as well as housing. This isn't a formula that we currently have to work with.

Taxing the wealthy only put money in the goverments pockets, it did little to spark the economy and it's unlikely to do much today.

[maat55]

[=Scanner;307319}
It's as if anyone employed by a corporation is lucky to have a job and therefore, any and all policy should be drafted around the fact they are so generous with giving out jobs.

I thought the way it worked was you exchanged labor for money (and benefits)?

Shouldn't both parties feel "lucky" for the existence of each otehr and the contributions to each other?

I mean, let's think about it in my own little microcosm.

What happens if Hospital Administration doesn't come in for 3 months? The CEO doesn't come in?

I'd say, well, things may break down 6-12 months. Decisions don't get made, disipline isn't happening. . .the corporation could devolve sooner.

What happens if doctors, nurses, and techs don't come in? I'd say the hospital shuts down almost immediately. Yeah, perhaps they could be all replaced within a months time. . .but so could the CEO really.

There's a lot of people out there with MBA's too who could step up.

I guess I just don't get the "Keep your mouth shut; you're lucky to have a job" sentiment that floats about.

Are you saying that the federal government should determine what is fair or the free market? The fact is that it does not matter which makes the determination, there will always be those who claim that there is not fairness.

We have seen enough proof that central planning does not provide fairness and prosperity, only a free market provides a bigger pie and prosperity.

[Scanner]

Maat:

Where did you get that from what I wrote?

I am not accusing you of this but there is "McCarthy-Like" paranoia that the Right has in that I could say, "I got 342 pieces of chocolate for Halloween" and the Right would think that means I'm a Socialist.

Where do you/they get this stuff?

I was only saying that a "I think you're lucky to have a job, keep your mouth shut" mentality is not healthy for America or the economy that supports it.

[Angio333]

Taxing the rich won't work. Making severe cuts and strict budgeting must be implemented before we do anything else.

[Scanner]

You see, I disagree.

I think we need to do the symbolic act first - taxing the rich.

Then we all are participating in "shared sacrifice." (which the rich and those that support them, don't seem to understand the importance of this concept)

Then we can proceed to severe budget cuts.

No reason both can't be accomplished on a single bill.

[maat55]

You see, I disagree.

I think we need to do the symbolic act first - taxing the rich.

Then we all are participating in "shared sacrifice." (which the rich and those that support them, don't seem to understand the importance of this concept)

Then we can proceed to severe budget cuts.

No reason both can't be accomplished on a single bill.

It is simple Scanner, you either starve the beat or feed the beast. Your desire to feed the beast only makes is grow.

[cptacek]

When has the budget ever been cut? I mean, really cut, not slowing the rate of growth? Wouldn't that be a great big symbolic act, if that is what you are into?

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I'm still laughing over the republican candidates saying not one would take 10:1 tax cuts to tax increases, because there is a tax increase. Sigh, I don't get how simple math of increasing tax revenue along with cuts is the only way out of the mess. But I guess most politician probably never took a math class in college and don't need to balance a checkbook now.

[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