Obama says ending tax breaks required to cut deficit

reply to post by buster2010


Exactly. Clinton had the highest taxes of any recent president, and we had the highest economic boom. Bush Jr. gave tax cuts instead. You don't have to be an economist to see it.

reply to post by DizzyDude

The wealth of America is controlled by a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. Corporations and the rich are not pulling their weight.

They should not have to. It's their right to maximize profits and pay workers as little as possible. This is free markets at its finest.

We should blow up minimum wage laws as well and pay the lazy bums at the bottom what they really deserve. This is just more government regulation which equals a tax if you think about it.

We should let them pay pennies an hour, it's their right.

Although I sense that your post was made in sarcasm, what you said is absolutely right.

Although any corp that would pay pennies would fail in the first month of existence. That's the way it works.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by buster2010

 

Exactly. Clinton had the highest taxes of any recent president, and we had the highest economic boom. Bush Jr. gave tax cuts instead. You don't have to be an economist to see it.

Then PAY more.

Easy.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by buster2010

 

Exactly. Clinton had the highest taxes of any recent president, and we had the highest economic boom. Bush Jr. gave tax cuts instead. You don't have to be an economist to see it.

You do realize that the alleged largest economic " boom " you speak of, was found to be a " false economy ", which suggests that the " boom " you like to promote was a sham, and corruption at its finest. You do realize that right? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by David9176
I don't know how this can even be so difficult to stand for when the majority of Americans think the wealthy should pay more in taxes

That sounds a lot like democracy to me. Whatever happened to opposing tyranny of the majority? If the majority of Americans wanted all the mentally ill castrated would that be something good to stand for too? The people are definitely not the legitimate source from which to draw legal decisions as they are willing to trade someone else's rights for their own.

Besides do you think the US House of Representatives would vote in favor of these tax increases? Not a chance. They promised Americans 'no new taxes' and would hate to end up like Bush, Sr. in 1992.

FYI, the House of Representatives doesn't have to vote for or against a damn thing in order for the President to raise the taxes on the rich. All he has to do is to let the Bush tax cuts expire and bingo, it's a done deal. Then he can tell the republicans in the House to go suck a pickle, which by the way, is a lot nicer than I would be to them.

reply to post by Flatfish

Then he can tell the republicans in the House to go suck a pickle, which by the way, is a lot nicer than I would be to them.

You do realize that Democrats have never pretended to be champions of smaller government right? You do realize that the " boom " economy was originated by Clinton, who demanded the loaning of monies and credit to all people so that they too could " obtain " the American dream.. Only problem is, in all of his alleged ( and quite comical ) wisdom, he forgot to put regulation on it...or did he actually forget? Oh...thats right...his buddies from Goldman Sachs swayed that decision....yup your party is pretty fair and balanced.

Originally posted by Realms


You do understand that the top 2% richest in the US, pay the most in taxes annually right? Its the same argument over and over again. Let's make the richest, who are already paying the most pay more? Thats just asinine!

IS it asinine? Seems like it worked quite well for most of the world for the past few centuries.