Reply With Quote
Already answered.
Already did. You don't like to hear it, that's your problem.
Was revenue higher when the Clinton tax rates were in effect, yes or no.
Answer the question.
Already answered.
This is a stupid premise.
he knows...but he wants someone man enough to answer..
you're stupid.The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appe e.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=568737
If it is a half-truth, then what exactly is the half of the truth or bit of context that is left out of that statement?
One might not be directly paying taxes, but they are quite surely indirectly paying income taxes on everything that they buy.
Because that would be rather markedly unfair and confiscatory.
There is a vast gulf between 37% and 100%. Please leave the slippery slope logical fallacies at the door.
WC is never worth engaging on any mathematical question.
Will you guys agree that the "we only want to tax the rich" argument is more about politics and class warfare than an actual serious attempt to reduce the deficit? The money is simply not there...the simple fact is that every month that goes by the US spends 140 BILLION more than it brings in...we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem...
so cutting spending and increasing revenue won't do anything to the deficit....oookkk...
You could confiscate ALL those evil rich peoples assets and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket towards solving the deficit issue. If you are gonna try to seriously make up the difference with tax increases you are gonna have to tap the middle class too. Plus, can you name ONE PROGRAM that Obama has proposed to cut? Obama sure couldn't this morning when he was asked after the press conference...
As I have pointed out repeatedly, there is already a class war being waged by the rich on everybody else.
For me though it is not about punshing rich people, but about the best way to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt.
As for a "spending problem, not a revenue problem" that is akin to looking at a raging forest fire and saying that you have an "too much oxygen problem, not a too much fuel problem"
If half of a working married couple loses a job, and they are stuck with 1/3 their previous income, you would not tell them that their deficit is simply a spending problem, and not to worry about getting new income in the door. You do both as fast as possible to get cash flow back to positive.
Sorry I just don't buy that spin.
President Barack Obama said that every federal program and tax break should be scrutinized for potential spending cuts, in his Fourth of July weekend address to the nation Saturday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1SCMQS2MW
He is GOING to look at everything? What the has he been doing? He can't name ONE ING PROGRAM that he would actually cut?President Barack Obama said that every federal program and tax break should be scrutinized for potential spending cuts, in his Fourth of July weekend address to the nation Saturday.
you do realize that Biden's negotiations have already identified 1.7 trillion dollars in cuts over the next 10 yrs...right?
"we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem"
you lie
the income tax revenue has dropped a few $T due to dubya's 2001+2003 tax cuts and drop in all kinds of taxes at all levels due to the Banksters' Great Depression.
REPUG POLICY decisions have increased the spending: 2 unending wars, Medicare Advantage, Prescription drug benefit, Repugs forbidding govt to negotiate as single-buyer for drugs and medical equipment/devices for Medicare/medicaid/VA.
And now ALL the spending cuts, anybody know where the $4T cuts go?, are laid on the poor, the sick, the young, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, public employees, NONE of whom had anything to with the Repug policies, while the superwealthy and corps and politicians are left untouched.
Actually, it would make a drop in that bucket. Someone posted an article where renowned liberal economist Ben Stein even said such.
BEN STEIN, ECONOMIST, ACTOR & AUTHOR: We've got to raise taxes. There's just no way around it. The deficit situation is so serious that while I wish we did not have to raise taxes, we just can't cut spending enough. I wish we could. We can't. We have to raise taxes. Mr. Obama is going to have to do it. I don't know if the Republicans in the House will go along with it. If they don't, there will be a genuine crisis, and I am frankly frightened about it. I'm extremely concerned about it.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreill...#ixzz1SCRKWDfH
Nice catch, GG.
Lest we malign a comedian unfairly...
No you didn't
How many other factors played a part of it? With so many variables, how can you know with certainty?
Here's this King/IA asshole again.
GOP Rep. Steve King Would Reject Debt Ceiling Deal With $3 Trillion In Cuts And Just $8 In Revenue Increases
KEYES: Obviously any type of deal is very fluid at this point, but in terms of what you would be willing to accept and vote for. For instance, say there were $3 trillion in cuts and just $8 in revenue increases, do you think that’s something you yourself could be supporting? [...]
KING: I’m not for raising taxes. I won’t support anything that raises taxes. Revenue increases are a euphemism for raising taxes. Closing loopholes, one person’s loophole is the other one’s legitimate business expense. And tax deduction or tax credit as the case may be. That doesn’t get to the root of the problem. Let’s send a cons utional amendment to the states for ratification and then start talking business.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...nue-increases/
Well, at first I thought is was a stupid question too. One that is so obvious, it shouldn't need to be asked. I figured it was a good reminder of trends. However, since I am not getting any answers that fit the question, I guess it's not so stupid after all. Maybe you all are too stupid for the question?
Logical King right here, TBH.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
