Tax, spend, increase, repeat. It's really quite a simple method the dems have.
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Regardless of Rand and the GOP saying only cutting benefits for those needing them is the only way to stop this large deficits, actually forcing the upper 1% to pay their fair share of taxes would cut the deficit by two thirds by itself. Of course, all the poor GOP'rs say that rich need help.
Leon Friedman: Fixing the Deficit by Getting Help From the Top 1%
President Obama seeks to reduce the deficit and the national debt by cutting defense costs, lowering spending on Medicaid and Medicare, reducing itemized tax deductions for the rich and eliminating the Bush tax cuts for families earning over $250,000 a year. The Republicans have already defeated him on the last issue during last year's lame duck session when they insisted on keeping the reduced income tax rates for the next two years in exchange for continued unemployment benefits and reducing payroll taxes for middle class workers. The Republicans in control of the House argue that repealing the Bush tax cuts would have an adverse impact on small businesses which are often single proprietorships subject to individual income tax rates. If their taxes were increased, they would not hire or rehire workers in this time of grave unemployment.
The latest Congressional compromise on the federal budget reduces funds for police and fire agencies and cuts $600 million from community health care centers. Is there another way to reduce the deficit, rather than depriving the lower and middle classes of necessary government benefits, such as Medicaid and Medicare or educational grants?
Some recent reports show that those at the top of the income and wealth ladder have done extremely well in the last decades. Hardly a day goes by without some economist discussing and analyzing the huge disparity in wealth between the rich and the rest of society. Joseph Stiglist, the Nobel Prize winning economist, has written an article in the latest Vanity Fair entitled "Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%." The article discusses the enormous and growing inequality in wealth in this country, which has largely been the result of the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980's and the Bush tax cuts of 2001. Stiglitz points out that in the last 25 years, the top 1% have doubled their percentage of yearly income. In the period from 1976 to 2007, while national income has increased by about 60%, the income of the top 1% has increased by 275%. As of 2008, the top 1% received over 20% of the total income earned by all Americans.
When one examines wealth, instead of income, the top 1% do even better. In 1970, the top 1% owned 20% of the nation's wealth. In 2007, they owned 34.6% of the total wealth, according to a study (the Survey of Consumer Finances) prepared by the Federal Reserve Board. A leading scholar on wealth inequality, Professor Edward Wolff of Bard College, has argued that a truer measure of the wealth of the top 1% is their ownership of easily disposable assets, that is, the net worth of a household, minus the equity in owner-occupied housing. If one eliminates the value of a family's owner occupied home (the basic source of wealth for the bottom 50% of the country), the percentage of non-home wealth owned by the top 1% -- stocks, bonds, other real estate, businesses -- increases to about 42.7%. The top 1% own over 60% of financial securities and 62.5% of business equity.
fiscal conservative, Constitutional Neo-liberal democrat
"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat," Noted humorist Will Rogers
http://politicalcorner.org/index.php
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
Tax, spend, increase, repeat. It's really quite a simple method the dems have.
Take a good hard look, it's coming.






The best fix for any yearly deficet is simple. We need jobs for the millions of the unemployed, who could then pay taxes. So, the jobs have to pay enough as to allow for taxes to be withheld. Add tax increases on the rich, who can certain afford it since the tax codes have allowed them to create much more wealth at the top. And of course some spending cuts. A three prong approach which might go a long way in solving the debt issue as well.
I keep hearing this is a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Perhaps that is so, but revenues would increase naturally with a low unemployment rate, that reflected decent jobs. Yet as long as we bleed jobs due to slave labor, fixing anything is gonna be real tough. Given the political climate today.
Does this Conlib person ever actually contribute? all he does is post some crap and run.
IF YOU TAKE EVERY PENNY OF ALL CASH FROM THE TOP 50% YOU WILL NOT ELIMINATE THE DEBT.. You would cut the yearly Deficit for one year, but then we would have NO ONE PAYING TAXES!
How the hell do you liberal think taxing the 50% of the people that actually PAY FUCKING TAXES MORE, while allowing nearly 50% to pay nothing and actually get a welfare check each February is getting someone to pay their fair share..
WTF!!!
“Are vital U.S. interests more imperiled by what happens in Iraq where were have 50,000 troops, or Afghanistan where we have 100,000, or South Korea where we have 28,000 -- or by what is happening on our border with Mexico?...What does it profit America if we save Anbar and lose Arizona?”
P, Buchanan
http://faceswaps.files.wordpress.com...ke-it-rain.gif
Raise the taxes on the rich and cut defense... and even if you did both, and took it to 100% (all the money earned by the top 1% and cut defense to zero) it would not be enough.
The raise this can't be debated, here or anywhere else, is you can't get the liberals to face those FACTS



























And when you pass your costs on to your consumers...where are they going to get the money to pay for it from?
Given their employers can't afford to pay them more with their increased costs.
Force people to start limiting what they spend, they will. Which will cause the economy to be less active.
A is A






Heck, taxes have been passed on to consumers since I was born, I think. Not only are the middle class taxed by income tax but there is a hidden tax in most of what they used to buy. You know this 9 aces, surely you do. If not, perhaps I taught you something?By the way this is one argument that neil bortz uses to push for the fair tax. Those hidden costs in consumer goods and services.
















The only way to ensure that everyone is paying a fair share is to tax everyone at the same percentage rate. Period.
Once someone pays a higher percentage than someone else, it's no longer fair...
Bookmarks