Democrats vote to raise ALL of our taxes......

Interesting that the conservatives support adding $700 billion to the deficit to protect the top 3% of wage earners from having to pay what they did under Clinton in income taxes. And actually, some of them will even get a tax cut.



http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2010_budget_high-income.cfm

They figuresd it out that since the Dems won't vote on this bill, come Jan 1st, a family of 4 making $50,000 will be paying $2900 more in taxes. $240 more per month. I guess that is OK with you guys?

pineinthegrass wrote: Interesting that the conservatives support adding $700 billion to the deficit to protect the top 3% of wage earners from having to pay what they did under Clinton in income taxes. And actually, some of them will even get a tax cut.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2010_budget_high-income.cfm

Let's look at logic again. You tax those who create and supply the most jobs and they will have to do one of 2 things. Raise their prices which effects all lower and middle class families, or lay of workers and stop hiring. Which one of those options works best for you? And on top of that, since when do Democrats care about the deficit? rofllol rofllol rofllol They have raised it higher than all other Presidents combined and NOW you are worried about it? Give me a break!

Ben Nelson, (D) was on this morning and is livid that the Dems adjourned without voting on the tax increases. he said we need a tax break extension for ALL people especially those who create and supply jobs. This is a top Democrat saying this!

Viking, why do you say that the rich create the jobs? If I remember correctly, the majority of jobs being created recently are from people that start their own businesses. I seriously doubt that the top 3% are investing their money in little startups. In fact, I'll bet that most rich people are not spending money at all, but are hoarding it, waiting for the economy to rebound so they can invest again.

Do you have a link that shows that the top 3% of earners are the ones who create jobs?

Here's some more interesting information about taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax ... ted_States " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"



Look at the cause and effect - in 1981 the top rate was cut from 70% to 50% and the national debt tripled under Reagan; of course his policies took it all the way down to 28% by 1990. A slight bump up by Bush-the-elder to 31%, which Republicans crucified him for, then a modest increase to about 40% under Clinton and unprecedented growth 1993-2000. 2003-2009 the rates have been 35% and the national debt doubled under Bush 2.

The right likes to talk of JFK cutting rates, but they were left at 77%, then 70% under LBJ.

Of note is that rates needed to pay for wars has never been below 70%, until now, and Eisenhower's rates were above 90% his whole Presidency.

To me it's obvious that even the prosperous economy during Clinton's years was with taxes too low for the rich except for the facts that we had unprecedented technological growth (internet, etc.) and he raised them as much as he dared under the political realities at the time (he lost both Houses of Congress anyway).

Also the middle class hasn't gained at all since 1980. (Look it up). Obama hasn't seen fit to go higher than Clinton's rates and even that is looking dicey.

The American public is taking "getting hit over the head" lessons again, and we never seem to learn. Class Warfare - Reagan started it, and the right seems determined to run us into the ground.

Diametrically opposed to the Eisenhower approach, in which we paid for wars and such, even Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Obama have to take half-measures.

Also see the rates 1925-1932: about 25%. And what followed that? The Great Depression.

The Viking wrote:
Let's look at logic again. You tax those who create and supply the most jobs and they will have to do one of 2 things. Raise their prices which effects all lower and middle class families, or lay of workers and stop hiring. Which one of those options works best for you? And on top of that, since when do Democrats care about the deficit? rofllol rofllol rofllol They have raised it higher than all other Presidents combined and NOW you are worried about it? Give me a break!

My point was about the $700 billion deficit. Are you OK with that to keep tax cuts for the top 3%.

Of course Democrats have shown they weren't concerned about the deficit when they passed the stimulus. At least they are trying to cut it down by $700 billion now.

So why are you against cutting the deficit $700 billion? I thought that's what conservatives are all about!

pineinthegrass wrote:
My point was about the $700 billion deficit. Are you OK with that to keep tax cuts for the top 3%.

Of course Democrats have shown they weren't concerned about the deficit when they passed the stimulus. At least they are trying to cut it down by $700 billion now.

So why are you against cutting the deficit $700 billion? I thought that's what conservatives are all about!

Raising the tax rates won't raise that $700 billion. Not even close. By increasing tax rates you will change the way people act, and they won't do the economic activity to raise that $$.

Tax rates have no direct correlation to tax revenue to the treasury. Cutting taxes has raised additional revenue to the treasury many times in our past. The intention is to increase economic activity, not stifle it.

Like the fact that the Bush tax cuts could only create 3 million job in 8 years, vs. the 23.1 million jobs that were created in the previous 8 years with rates that were put in place by Reagan?

Got it.

LJ you should never grade yourself on a curve. Get over the Bush card already!! Concentrate on what your guy can do.

This is so much more complicated than just taxes and deficits.