A trillion in new taxes only on 'the wealthiest'?

BI
What do you think this means.
""I'm prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done. And I expect the other side should be willing to do the same thing."

What has Obama said h is offering that would cause him to take heat from Dems?
 
Of course most people would rather someone else pay the bill. I think the best compromise would be a 1% increase in highest tax bracket for those earning $1 million plus per year with the amount indexed with inflation. In return, Pubs should get an across the board cut in entitlements. It allows Obama to save face and allows Pubs to bring fiscal responsibility to the forefront.
 
The primary issue I have with this entire mess is not the taxation and increasing taxes, nor the size of government. Honestly, I don't believe that either 'side' or 'party' starts with these as the primary issue.

The primary issue for our government, both parties, and the situation we are in is trust. We don't have a money problem so much as we have a trust problem. Let me go through the 3 possible 'fixes' to the current situation.

1) We raise tax rates in order to fund our current spending levels. The bottom line issue is NOT the raising or lowering of taxes, but the trustworthiness of what that additional tax dollars would be spent on. If you could in actually guarantee (NOT just promise) that ever additional dollar of tax revenue created would go to debt, principle and interest, I think almost ALL Americans would be for this solution.
Problem is we have a history of distrusting our government. BOTH parties raided the SSI trust fund. Did lottery earnings really go to pay for education? (a small %).... We simply do NOT trust the government with the tax dollars they receive. I will gladly give huge sums of my income to someone I trust. I do this on a regular basis. He is called my financial planner. I invest with him and pay him BECAUSE I find him trustworthy and I willingly give him large sums of money because I believe he provides a service for me that is for my greater good. This can simply NOT be said by most Americans about our current federal government. We feel we can NOT trust them.

2) Only Cut spending. Many in America have come to this conclusion as the only 'fix' of note because it actually requires BOTH parties to make hard decisions and earn the trust of the American people. If American families had to learn to live on less when their income decreases so should our federal government. It doesn't mean raising taxes is evil or even wrong. I am all for tax increases... for a responsible trustworthy government. BOTH parties... we just don't have it.

3) Combination of the two. Let me be the first to say that all things being equal this is BY FAR the most logical, reasonable solution. The only reason I oppose it is because our government, when having revenue raised ALWAYS spends it. I just do NOT trust either party, the Bush WH, the Obama WH, nor the Congress to NOT spend in an irresponsible way.


This is why I fall into the cut only camp. Not because I am opposed to any single group paying a higher tax rate, (excluded in that are the poor, because I believe that they should have lower rates because they are barely scraping by. So I am 'liberal' on this, but 'conservative' on taxation over all), but because I simply can NOT trust the federal government to spend responsibly.

Honestly, honesty and trust lie at the very bottom of this mess. We don't trust the government, the parties don't trust each other... sad time, but this fundamental, root must be acknowledged. And btw, it requires no finger pointing between parties.
 
I can't fathom why anyone would trust these polititicans with more money in the form of tax increases. It's SPENDING that got us into this mess and it should be SPENDING CUTS that get us out.

Why are we even talking about raising the debt limit anyway? You all damn well known that if you were to call amex or visa or mastercard every 6 months and ask for an increase in your limit, there will come a point when they will say NO MORE for you sir. Well that time has come for this country and we need to say NO MORE!
 
THEU nailed this topic exactly. It is a trust issue primarily and that is why I and the Tea Party lot in general fall in category #2.
 
Can any of the folks in these negotiations be trusted?

Pelosi? Of course not. She's very much a proven commodity.

Obama? I despise is politics but I'd love to be proven wrong as with Bin Laden. I just don't think it is in his DNA to reduce government.

Boehner? I like his politics generally but he still has a lot to prove.
 
So Yo,

you are now convinced we need to cut spending and not increase taxes right?


Obam may say he want to reduce the size of government, but every action he has taken in life belies that statement.
 
Revenues have gone up for the government on a year-by-year basis except for Post 911 and the 2008 Market Crash.

Taxes are not the issue here.
 
Of course YO wont look at facts that were posted above.....that total federal spending increased every single year under clinton.
 
Here is the debt during the Clinton years:

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,633.43
09/29/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/28/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06


Treasury Department

Not sure where the last few Clinton years produced a surplus since every year of his administration showed an increase in the national debt. I am not saying this to be sarcastic or smug. I honestly don't know what they meant by a surplus. If someone can explain to me what they mean that would be great because I never understood it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top