Lalo Alcaraz for November 29, 2012

And they’re all ‘for the good of the country’.-And, in an astonishing coincidence, they all protect the interests of the wealthy.

Dems don’t mind because they love higher taxes.

Notice, the Dems are NOT talking about any spending cuts, only raising taxes!! Think about it, you voted him back in!!

Santa Boma to the rescue

Dems do not love higher taxes, but since the Dixiecrats left the Dems to become Republicans, most Dems do like social justice, fairness for the middle class, protection for the old, young, and poor. In the last 48 hours, I have heard 4 Dems saying that medicare and medicaid will become insolvent if nothing is done within 12 years and all 4 wanted those programs reviewed and revamped. All 4 were against making major changes to the SSN system since Americans pay into that fund and had congress not raided those funds years ago, it would still be solvent and self supporting. Kind of like the pension funds prior to 1998 when pension fund managers were given permission by lobbyist motivated legislators to gamble with the retirement funds of millions of Americans. I am sorry Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to remain as the head of their party in the House and Senate. Fresh faces might have meant fresh opportunities. It certainly would have gone a long way toward ending some of the bad blood of the previous 4 years. Republicans arent’ talking about spending cuts either, unless they are entitlements protecting young, old, and poor people. Republicans still want gold mining companies to underpay for gold harvested from federal lands. They want oil companies to continue getting subsides. They want big box items for the military that the military doesn’t want or need in today’s battlefields.Reagan, Bush Sr., both raised taxes. Bush Jr was convinced by people he trusted that a war with Iraq would be over in less than six months, the people would love us, and we’d make money from oil contracts with them. Instead, it lasted 9 years, Republican owned companies like Halliburton committed enormous waste and fraud, and from 2003 to 2008, there was no amount budgeted to conduct our 2 war fronts.A Conservative Government doesn’t deprive people of needs, ConservGov. It does conserve resources. It makes changes to policy and infrastructure to reduce unexpected, but inevitable, disasters resulting from weather, or man made disasters. Obama is the first American Presdent who, in his first run for office, said it was time for the USA to set money aside in the budget to address disasters like Sandy, the droughts, the firestorms out west, and industry caused disasters like the BP oil rig that did so much damage to the Gulf Coast.A Conservative Government is not a restrictive cruel government, it is protective. A conservatory protects.But no one likes to pay for waste and fraud when they pay taxes. And it’s not very conserving to pay for waste and fraud.Respectfully,& Happy HolidayzeC.

Notice, the Dems are NOT talking about any spending cuts, only raising taxes!! Think about it, you voted him back in!!Last time we were at this point, Obama offered a compromise to the Republicans of $10 in budget cuts for every $1 in raised taxes. The Republicans refused to compromise. Our credit rating dropped as a result and Eric Cantor netted a tidy profit on his investment in a hedge fund that shorts treasury bonds.

Very well said C

Reagan raised taxes.

“…lower tax rates actually generate more revenue…”-So, if the formula is: Less taxes = more revenue…-

…then the smaller the tax number the greater the revenue number…-…therefore, if the tax number is reduced to zero, then the revenue number should increase to infinity.-Somehow, I don’t think that economics is as simple as you claim H.

Actually, according to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the tax rate has NO effect on revenue, so you are partially right. However, historically a lower tax rate on the top earners has coincided with a higher unemployment rate, while a higher rate coincided with a lower unemployment rate. One theory is that those who save the most with a tax cut (ie. the 1%) hoard money during a period they see as temporary, to come out ahead when taxes go back up. When taxes are higher, the best way to make money is through increased production, therefore hiring more workers is beneficial. Kind of like leaving kids in the room with a bowl of candy: watch them closely and they will take what you say they are allowed. Leave them alone in the room, the candy jar is empty by the time you get back.

Wait! Let’s try tax cuts for the rich… again.

Yeah, I know. Then you stopped being friends with them. A lot of Republicans/Fox “news” viewers did that.-Their hatred toward Obama was so intense, they couldn’t be friends with one of them demlibs.

Front and center in Newt’s Contract with America was campaign finance reform. As far as I know, it never even got introduced as legislation. If it did, there was never a recorded committee vote.

^then you should stop your constant mis statement of the laffer curve. if you don’t know who art laffer is then google it.

lowering taxes raises revenue IF taxes are too high.lowering taxes lowers revenue IF taxes are too low.raising taxes raises revenue when taxes are too low.raising taxes lowers revenue when taxes are too high.

it is a fluid dynamic and a moving target. Just because hitting the brake stopped the car when it was moving, doesn’t mean that hitting the brakes stop the car when it’s already stopped.

“No—and not as simple as the deduction you made, either.”-My deductions were based on your premise. If I was wrong, please demonstrate how, show your math.

People keep using that word “liberal” I don’t think they know what it means. For one thing, it’s not a swear word.

“You made an illogical assumption. He said “lower tax rates generate more revenue.”He did not say “the lower the tax rate the greater revenue,” nor did he say they were inversely proportional ad infinitum.I believe what he said is true.”-Doesn’t “lower tax rates” = “the lower the tax rate”? And isn’t “more revenue” the same as “greater revenue”? If not, please explain. -I agree that they aren’t “inversely proportional ad infinitum”, in fact, that’s kind of what I was trying to say: At some point, lowering taxes no longer yields greater revenue, so, what is that point, and shouldn’t we admit that it IS possible that lowering taxes won’t result in higher revenue?

HOWGOZIT said “…lower tax rates actually generate more revenue…”, yet you say "He did not say “the lower the tax, the more revenue.” It’s almost word-for-word.-And it’s possible that the returns diminish, but it’s also possible that continuing to lower the taxes beyond a point causes less revenue. Can you prove that yours is fact? And even if it is, since the returns diminish, isn’t there a point where doing so is a useless action?