Obama gleefully is awaiting January 1st when revenues spike. He already has his next budget filled with incredible spending increases to take advantage of the added income. Do you think they will stop borrowing to make up the difference for any potential budget gaps? Never! The added revenue will only make them hungry for more tax increases. And the irony will be that as tax rates go up, realized revenues will actually decrease, as the tax increases will burden an already weakened economy and cause more private businesses to fold. But that’s okay to Mr. Obama, because “the private sector is doing just fine”
RAISE TAXES you MORONS! It’s simple math, raise your income to meet needs. Gee, even the Articles of Confederation called for that! The Constitution calls for it! OH, but then they didn’t recognize that Corporations were “citizens”. Also, btw, in those Articles of Confederation, it is SPECIFICALLY the “land owners” and wealthy who are called upon to raise those taxes in the states, to support the national government! The Constitution actually takes the same line, but today’s “constructionist” SCOTUS, ignores it all, and the Republicans are afraid taxes might burn the fingers of those eating caviar, filet mignon, and drinking Champaign, preferring to tax the kitchen help.
Trout, ease up on the name calling. It’s beneath you. First off, you are talking about raising revenue to meet the demands of the government’s spending, which is included in the capabilities of the US Government. But the problem is that the federal government doesn’t reciprocate and decrease spending to shrink the gap. You will never get Republican support for a tax increase without corresponding spending cuts.At the same time, there is a lot of evidence out there that supports what hanmari is saying. When you raise taxes, yes, you will see a short-term revenue spike as people are having more money taken from them. But what will happen is it will (overnight) increase the cost of doing business in America. Why? Because many of those “making more than 250k a year” are sole-proprietorships that file their taxes as individuals. These small businesses represent 70% of new jobs added in the US every year. You make things more expensive for them, and they will either stop hiring, or they will collapse under the new tax burden. If you look at the CEO’s and the other “non-organizational rich,” you will see one of two things happening. One, they will find a way to conceal their holdings from the US government because they earned that money, and they want to keep it. Or Two, you will see them (or the businesses they own) pass the cost on to the consumers, which will drive up costs for those “who can least afford them.” Either way you slice it, revenues for the federal government will not spike like you think they will.Here’s also an aside: If you taxed all those that make more than 250k a year at 100% (i.e. siezed all assets earned per year), you still wouldn’t close the budgetary deficit. Spending must be cut in order to balance the budget. Here’s a counter to what you’re suggesting: Instead of raising or lowering taxes on specific people (a la class warfare), you apply a flat rate (or two flat rates, as in the Ryan plan — which has Democratic support, by the by) across the board, no exceptions, no exemptions. Then, at the same time, you slash spending across the board to make all the “gimme” programs sustainable, without hollowing out our military (because one of the few responsibilities of the federal government is to provide for the common defense). Stop listening to the partisan hacks out there and realize that just taking in more money is not going to solve the problem. Taking in more money without cutting up the credit card will only encourage them to ring up an even higher tab on that credit card. Eventually, you have to pay the bill.
So you’re going to blame those who were born with disabilities (such as Down’s Syndrome) who can’t get a job on their own?You’re going to blame the kids of the techies who can’t find work because their chosen field is saturated with workers? You’re going to blame those who can’t find a job simply because no business would hire them?Be glad I am not in the same room with you when you said this. You’d end up against the wall —after I’ve blown your ears out via yelling these words at you at full volume.
@eryx “Obama would be ensuring a weak economy because that would benefit him how?”
It would benefit him by making more people completely dependent on the government subsidies he’s been handing out, and making vulnerable people more open to his untrue arguments that the Evil Rich are to blame for our economic plight rather than his anti-business, anti-capitalist policies.
hanmari almost 12 years ago
Obama gleefully is awaiting January 1st when revenues spike. He already has his next budget filled with incredible spending increases to take advantage of the added income. Do you think they will stop borrowing to make up the difference for any potential budget gaps? Never! The added revenue will only make them hungry for more tax increases. And the irony will be that as tax rates go up, realized revenues will actually decrease, as the tax increases will burden an already weakened economy and cause more private businesses to fold. But that’s okay to Mr. Obama, because “the private sector is doing just fine”
Dtroutma almost 12 years ago
RAISE TAXES you MORONS! It’s simple math, raise your income to meet needs. Gee, even the Articles of Confederation called for that! The Constitution calls for it! OH, but then they didn’t recognize that Corporations were “citizens”. Also, btw, in those Articles of Confederation, it is SPECIFICALLY the “land owners” and wealthy who are called upon to raise those taxes in the states, to support the national government! The Constitution actually takes the same line, but today’s “constructionist” SCOTUS, ignores it all, and the Republicans are afraid taxes might burn the fingers of those eating caviar, filet mignon, and drinking Champaign, preferring to tax the kitchen help.
Wraithkin almost 12 years ago
Trout, ease up on the name calling. It’s beneath you. First off, you are talking about raising revenue to meet the demands of the government’s spending, which is included in the capabilities of the US Government. But the problem is that the federal government doesn’t reciprocate and decrease spending to shrink the gap. You will never get Republican support for a tax increase without corresponding spending cuts.At the same time, there is a lot of evidence out there that supports what hanmari is saying. When you raise taxes, yes, you will see a short-term revenue spike as people are having more money taken from them. But what will happen is it will (overnight) increase the cost of doing business in America. Why? Because many of those “making more than 250k a year” are sole-proprietorships that file their taxes as individuals. These small businesses represent 70% of new jobs added in the US every year. You make things more expensive for them, and they will either stop hiring, or they will collapse under the new tax burden. If you look at the CEO’s and the other “non-organizational rich,” you will see one of two things happening. One, they will find a way to conceal their holdings from the US government because they earned that money, and they want to keep it. Or Two, you will see them (or the businesses they own) pass the cost on to the consumers, which will drive up costs for those “who can least afford them.” Either way you slice it, revenues for the federal government will not spike like you think they will.Here’s also an aside: If you taxed all those that make more than 250k a year at 100% (i.e. siezed all assets earned per year), you still wouldn’t close the budgetary deficit. Spending must be cut in order to balance the budget. Here’s a counter to what you’re suggesting: Instead of raising or lowering taxes on specific people (a la class warfare), you apply a flat rate (or two flat rates, as in the Ryan plan — which has Democratic support, by the by) across the board, no exceptions, no exemptions. Then, at the same time, you slash spending across the board to make all the “gimme” programs sustainable, without hollowing out our military (because one of the few responsibilities of the federal government is to provide for the common defense). Stop listening to the partisan hacks out there and realize that just taking in more money is not going to solve the problem. Taking in more money without cutting up the credit card will only encourage them to ring up an even higher tab on that credit card. Eventually, you have to pay the bill.
josefw almost 12 years ago
It’s not a mule, it’s an ASS!
Ketira almost 12 years ago
So you’re going to blame those who were born with disabilities (such as Down’s Syndrome) who can’t get a job on their own?You’re going to blame the kids of the techies who can’t find work because their chosen field is saturated with workers? You’re going to blame those who can’t find a job simply because no business would hire them?Be glad I am not in the same room with you when you said this. You’d end up against the wall —after I’ve blown your ears out via yelling these words at you at full volume.
Farley55 almost 12 years ago
@eryx “Obama would be ensuring a weak economy because that would benefit him how?”
It would benefit him by making more people completely dependent on the government subsidies he’s been handing out, and making vulnerable people more open to his untrue arguments that the Evil Rich are to blame for our economic plight rather than his anti-business, anti-capitalist policies.
Happy to straighten you out!