Seeking Alpha

Recent polls suggest that Americans are willing to accept some increase in taxes to reduce the...

Recent polls suggest that Americans are willing to accept some increase in taxes to reduce the deficit, Bruce Bartlett writes. Republicans, take heed.
Comments (155)
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (326) | Send Message
     
    Yeah,right - they are willing to accept increases in OTHER peoples taxes
    14 Jul 2011, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • losbronces
    , contributor
    Comments (785) | Send Message
     
    Exactly.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I'll pay more. It has gotten to the point where paying more taxes is the patriotic thing to do. It's also patriotic to reduce spending.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Paying more is the patriotic thing to do? Biden was laughing at people like you when he spit that out.

     

    True patriotism began as a violent flashpoint against taxation. Our nation was thus founded on low taxes, not higher.

     

    You're not patriotic, friend-o.

     

    You're the opposite of patriotic, as was Biden.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (952) | Send Message
     
    Raise taxes on everyone, especially the most wealthy. Forget this nonsense that business won't hire and expand if they have to pay 3-5% more taxes. Then cut all spending and take that extra tax money and pay down the debt. I will gladly pay more taxes for benefit of future generations.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You want government to stop spending?

     

    Its easy.

     

    Instead of progressive taxation where the rich pay more than everyone else, instead we raise taxes on the lower incomes in reverse progression further and further as you go down the economic ladder.

     

    A couple things happen. First all those programs they use and the rich don't, are suddenly paid for. Also, the democrats can't promise their low rent electorate free crap anymore in order to buy their vote. Buy bye democrats. That party is gone. The middle class and the poor(who have electoral numbers) would never again vote for any idiot that promised to raise taxes. They would figure it out by then. They would also not vote for any political moron who promised them more programs as they would know instinctively that it was a tax, on them.

     

    Now you have a society that is free again and responsible at the same time. Who knows? Maybe we could even see charitable giving start again once government shrank back to its small government role as per the Constitutional mandate.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4103) | Send Message
     
    The government depends on reasonable people who believe that higher taxes will be used to reduce the deficit. I think Marx called them "useful idiots."
    14 Jul 2011, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Then there's the idiots who can't be bothered to look at a chart of marginal tax rates vs. debt to gdp levels.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • ToddT
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely! The left demagogues the greedy rich who are not paying their fair share -- these polls simply reflect the willingness of the meek to tax the "millionaires and billionaires".

     

    If the poll asked "are you willing to pay more in taxes to reduce the deficit?", I bet the numbers would be drastically different.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Only taxpayers should be permitted to participate in such polls,
    or elections for that matter.

     

    Taxation without representation.

     

    No representation, without taxation.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    I am. I'm also willing to cut entitlements and military spending.

     

    It's what it takes.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1356) | Send Message
     
    Send it in Monngie. The IRS will gladly accept the money and it will help. Thanks.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    You are a dangerous dangerous idiot. And profoundly un-patriotic. All this "bad government" and hatred for Uncle Sam will be the death of this country. It is the rise of individualism...me...m... narcissism. That is all you care about. WE are a country and WE need to do something to help EVERYONE do better since none of us will truly prosper. And don't tell me I'm a communist socialist fascist. I can't be any sicker than I am of that drivel.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:12 AM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Your ideas are disastrous and death to the United States of America. It's just that simple.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:15 AM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Higher taxes can be used to fund jobs programs which will get people back to work and ultimately create the demand which will get large corporations to cut loose of the money which they have plenty of to start hiring again. Stop throwing Marx around you nitwit.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:17 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Geez Wyatt....that was before we had roads, airports, air traffic control systems, space programs, multi-billion dollar defense programs and crap like that, that cost money.

     

    Those people didn't fight against taxes. You must be from the Michelle Bockman school of history. They fought to stop taxation without representation.

     

    Those folks fought and died so we could have the country that we have. So sit down, shut up, and pay your taxes. Then you can use all of the modern day amenities your tax dollars pay to build and maintain.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:08 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Way to go billbrad!!!
    15 Jul 2011, 04:09 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I send it in every year and I'm proud of it. It helped make this nation what it is today.

     

    Your Welcome.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:11 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I'm with you.

     

    It would also help if the Republicans that were swept into office to create jobs (remember that?) did what they were sent there to do. People working pay taxes and millions of people working pay down debt.

     

    Problem is we have a party in control of the House that hasn't done what they were sent there to do. All they've done is fabricate a crisis and said NO to any solution to resolve it.

     

    They need to be voted out with the same vigor they were voted in.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:16 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I like your style billbrad.

     

    They bruise Marx up quite a bit around here. It's like a game of ruling elite corn hole!!!!
    15 Jul 2011, 04:19 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    With this type of mindset we'll all be out of work and only the 2% will vote. They'll send all our s#!+ to China.

     

    NO MESSY VOTING CRAP THERE!!!!
    15 Jul 2011, 04:22 AM Reply Like
  • Poormansgold
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, this has been added to my list of profound quotes. this is excellant.
    15 Jul 2011, 08:03 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Most road projects or highway soundwalls are union pork, the costs of which are exponentially higher than they would be if there was real bidding going on. Sadly, that's not the case. Compare the kind of work a CC Meyer does or a Donald Trump who brings back the gentry and increases the value of a neighborhood versus a union ditch digger or a crew filling potholes who milk the entire job for months if not years.

     

    Privatize it. Bid it away to the lowest cost. Form private-public partnerships at the very least. But 'shovel ready' is just doublespeak for union lard giveaways.

     

    Until then your taxes are merely a form of graft and political corruption.
    15 Jul 2011, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I feel dirty after paying taxes, have to shower for weeks to get the stink off.

     

    Those checks though are cashed so damn fast! Its like pouring concrete into a sinkhole. The public sector is a ravenous money pit, a giant belly that eats whatever its allowed to steal.

     

    Proud? heh

     

    Only if one is a flaming tool.
    15 Jul 2011, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You mean Nancy and the democrat majority who took over at the end of 2006, right? Kind of like when it all began to fall apart.
    15 Jul 2011, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Back, back, back in the USSR...
    18 Jul 2011, 03:19 AM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    wow - is that in the constitution?
    18 Jul 2011, 03:23 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Indeed.

     

    Poll them again, but this time ask them if they personally would be willing to pay more in taxes and not that rich jet owner guy dude person man thing Obama keeps yapping about.

     

    Then show them how the ROI on taxes paid has been negative for the last 70 years.

     

    Yeah, let's incinerate all our money in a WDC burn pile, then print more money to replace it. Then keep doing this, until we're all filthy rich fat cats.
    14 Jul 2011, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt,

     

    If they lower taxes on the middle class. They will spend. If they raise taxes on the people making 250-300 K and above less money will flow into emerging markets. When the middle class spend the "rich jet owner" will want to sell whatever they're buying. This will increase plant utilization and be stimulative. All your doing by not taxing upper income is letting their reduced taxes go to investment offshore.

     

    I know you will decry my view of the universe, but, I like talking to walls.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Mongie,

     

    How can you lower taxes on the middle class when most don't pay any?
    14 Jul 2011, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Thank you Monngie. I'm right with you. I'm absolutely sick of talking to walls. The destruction these folks are hoisting on us with these ideas are truly dangerous to our way of life and will affect us all drastically if they take hold. Personally, I'm scared to death.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:21 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I've been middle class all my life and virtually everyone I know is middle class. We all pay taxes. Maybe at the lower end with young people starting out that have kids they get some help. But, you know what. They're our kids and they're making a life for themselves. They deserve a little help.

     

    CAUTION

     

    This kind of stuff isn't instilled in people born with silver spoons in their mouths.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:29 AM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (561) | Send Message
     
    They don't pay any taxes because most lost their job.
    23 Jul 2011, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • mdenis39
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    I have two issues with raising taxes (mine or anybody's):
    1) Fed govt will just spend more
    2) They have never demonstrated an ability to cut the spending. Not talking about the budget (what you plan to spend), but reduce the amount you spend this year compared to last year.

     

    After the govt does this, then they can raise taxes. They gotta go through rehab first.
    14 Jul 2011, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    They must have polled the 49% who don't pay any taxes to begin with.
    14 Jul 2011, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (828) | Send Message
     
    This is ridiculous, they take so much already, what is it going to take?? 40% 50% ????? I might as well stop working at that point.
    Spending needs to drop and then taxes need to drop after the debt comes down some.
    14 Jul 2011, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    We have the lowest tax rates right now of any time in the last 60 years! We had greater overall growth of GDP during the time in the 60's - 80's when we had top tier tax rates in the 70%+ and top effective tax rate of 45%. It's only 34% now. We have a long way to go and the effects of raising taxes, IF spent correctly to stimulate the economy and get us back on track so the deficit can come down. Then, maybe taxes can come down, but we have to face that we have responsibilities as a nation and monngie is right. Paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:26 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Yes, to reduce the deficit, not maintain the status quo.

     

    Problem is, the smart people know any increase will not be applied to the deficit, nor the debt.

     

    History has proven them right.

     

    Fool me once.......
    14 Jul 2011, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    And your chart is where?
    14 Jul 2011, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Right. You have no idea what you're talking about. Is there money spent foolishly in government? Yes. But the deficit is a function of not taking in enough to cover the bills. The government needs to take in more and the best way to do that is to stimulate the economy and in funding technological innovation and spending should be pointedly focussed on doing that. THEN, we can reduce taxes. To do so now is disastrous
    15 Jul 2011, 02:30 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    interesting findings, but I would like to know this-
    1- What % of the respondents actually pay Fed income taxes?
    2-Concerning the taxes the respondents are willing to accept, would these be taxes they would have to pay or somebody else?
    3-If they knew the taxes would be levied against their employer and these would cost them there job or reduce there pay would they still be for them?

     

    The results might have been substantially different were the questions framed differently, possibly favoring the Republicans which would not be tolerated by the MSM
    14 Jul 2011, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (870) | Send Message
     
    W. Bush raised federal debt 7 times. Who will pay for his party's two trillion in debt for wars and other borrowed spending?
    14 Jul 2011, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I know. After 9/11 we should have folded our hands nicely in our laps, kept our heads down and stayed out of other people's way so they wouldn't have hurted-ing us anymore.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1544) | Send Message
     
    And what about the maimings of INNOCENT people on sept 11?

     

    The best action was to defend our freedom and our country by damaging Al Qaeda strengths. I didn't supported Iraq war....

     

    Americans should not forget Sept 11.

     

    On the topic,

     

    If we raise taxes we are surrendering again to the same mantra of the last decades: spend more to create a horde of parasites that pillage the nation's wealth.....

     

    We have enough receipts, and they would grow if we incentivize small businesses....the problem is the outlays, they are too high....

     

    14 Jul 2011, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4103) | Send Message
     
    Why, you will Terry. Now get working and do your part.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Right, because Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind 9/11.

     

    Or could it be that Paul Wolfowitz wanted an Iraq invasion even before 9/11?
    14 Jul 2011, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    What, no mention of Afghanistan? Just enough misdirection to suit you, eh?

     

    I didn't think Iraq was a wise move since it served as a proxy against Iran, but whatever. Continue painting with your wide brush.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Shiek,

     

    Wher you born yesterday?

     

    Apparently you forgot about the Multitudes of UN resolutions Hussein was in violation before Sept 11.

     

    Is this Photo Shopped?

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...
    14 Jul 2011, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Right, because Afghanistan is where we found Osama Bin Laden.

     

    Weren't you saying something about ROI earlier today?
    14 Jul 2011, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Oh like the one against possessing the anthrax and bubonic plague that the Republicans sold him?

     

    www.timesonline.co.uk/...

     

    There's lots of people violating lots of laws and resolutions all the time. I'm not arguing that he was a good guy. I'm arguing that we didn't really get a very good return on our investment. And maybe selling the guy chemical and biological weapons in the first place wasn't that brilliant.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • Positive Equity
    , contributor
    Comments (483) | Send Message
     
    W. spent $4.36 trillion.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Indeed. Where's the ROI of Iraq? Where's the ROI on Afghanistan?

     

    Should have had a real War For Oil. I would have been down with that. It needed to pay for itself, if not make a tidy profit.

     

    The day after the second tower fell, we should have put a seizure on the HOS assets and taken them over. Saudi Arabia. Our oil in 24 hours. All of it. I'm not even certain that Afghanistan was the right move. The 19 hijackers were all Saudi born.

     

    Then, if we wanted to go mongering, I would have supported a much better ROI, less boot & troop support and more bombs from the sky. Just lay 'em out. Take off the fins & GPS first. Then push them out the side of a C 17 and raze skylines and mountaintops. Even better, incendiaries. Incendiaries are cheap. Buckets of hardened grease, light on fire then tipped out over the edge as gravity is the delivery system.

     

    Bush was gentle, confused and not up to the war game.

     

    We had 2 weeks after 9/11 to get it all done, everything on our dream list, and we squandered the opportunity. We even had international goodwill & support before Ted Kennedy decided to turn the war effort into Vietnam redux agit-prop and fire up the lefty hate machine.

     

    Bush was too slow and dopey.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You know that, I know that, and everyone else knows that.

     

    So.....CUT THE CRAP.

     

    I have no problem with Afghanistan, but, we should have been done there 5 years ago.

     

    The NEOCONS had to push us into Iraq on false pretenses. (Read Lies) and that prolonged the Afghanistan War by years and billions.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:34 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    1980, who gives a S#!+. We had Iraq nailed down so tight Sadam couldn't pick his nose without us knowing about it. We didn't have to spend a trillion and the blood of our sons and daughters there.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:42 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Man, you guys must all be stupid teabaggers.

     

    Now go blaze up a big fat one & watch your daily dose of a strangely aging Jon Stewart, then fall in line with the rest of wall-eyed college kiddies chanting the GOP is evil & big government = good.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • easyfix
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    The two big elephants in the room are China and efficiency. The top tax rate being at 35% or 39% (which is difference between Repubs and Dems) or 29% and 25% for middle of the road earners is not going to be the reason jobs are or are not created. Everything has to do with low cost labor. And those smart Asians. The Chinese will work seven days a week with no benefits for social security, health care, vacations, a pension or worker safety. Those are the facts.

     

    Low wages will cause companies to move manufacturing and other jobs to China or other Asian countries. We have lost 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000 and lost 8 million jobs during this great recession. Since 1975 we have lost manufacturing jobs every year.

     

    WHY? Low wages.

     

    Once the low wages get to an equilibrium in terms of cost as compared to US wages, US will stop losing jobs. Right now the average worker in China makes 1.88 an hour. The average US worker makes 8.00 per hour. 10 years ago, average Chinese worker made 30-40 cents per hour. In about ten years, average Chinese worker will be at 3-4 bucks per hour, at which point it might make sense to not outsource jobs, as the cost of logistics and other costs will equalize the pay rate. Once pay rates are closer, we will stop losing jobs. Additionally, automation and productivity increases also increase job losses. Even in Chinese factories they are thinking of ways to automate more, so they can make more money, employ less, but produce more....

     

    Ask a Chinese worker about job security. :)

     

    We are losing jobs because of capitalism, intense foreign competition, and amazing productivity gains. Get used to it. Get retrained. It's good for the world, but it will require short-term to medium-term pain for many Americans.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    I don't think there's anyone who can honestly argue that the GOP isn't evil.

     

    Libertarians certainly have a valid ideology, but the GOP, really? Can you even say that out loud and not burst out laughing?
    14 Jul 2011, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Not just low wages, low regulation.

     

    The Chinese worker hasn't been infanitilized yet by their polis.

     

    Here in America, if you stub a toe, a comp claim form is FAXED over to an insurance company and you are given backrubs for three weeks on company time. And, better use your Visine, don't blink too many times near a co-worker's rack. She'll say you're a letcher. Then sue you for sexual harassment. Compliance costs of AB 1855 are enormous, in addition to the liability. Now companies just buy EPLI, employer practice liability insurance and be done with it. ADA law? Small businesses don't stand a chance, not here in America. OSHA? Forget it. If they walk in, its a fine & fee party, blackmail, grease a palm day. Local labor boards are all skewed towards 'the poor worker', its a wonder that we have any businesses here at all. Haven't even flipped the lid on unions yet.

     

    I'd just skip it all and go overseas.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    GOP...hehehe

     

    GOP...hehehe

     

    GOP...hehehe
    15 Jul 2011, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Now that was infantile, but, ya gotta love it.
    15 Jul 2011, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Ah, the virtues of the Chinese workplace. Wyatt, you would last 15 minutes in one of those sweat shops.
    15 Jul 2011, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Sweat.

     

    Does a body good.
    15 Jul 2011, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Geez Wyatt, that sounds like a pretty good party. Not sure I'd get along with anyone or fit in, but, how gives a $#!+. :-))))
    16 Jul 2011, 01:09 AM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Dems hehehe
    Dems hehehe
    Dems hehehe
    corrupt and evil
    18 Jul 2011, 03:05 AM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Brilliant easyfix. You nailed it on the head. We are in a global economy and therefore until wages become equalized throughout the world - and that means until workers overseas earn more and workers here earn less - we will lose middle class jobs to those who are willing to earn less. (Of course, to us, they are earning less, but to those in Asia and other 3rd world countries, they are earning more than ever).
    18 Jul 2011, 03:11 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    It'll do your body good for about 15 minutes.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • HiSpeed
    , contributor
    Comments (1167) | Send Message
     
    Balance the budget.

     

    Cut Spending.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Which Americans would that be? Quite possibly the 45% of Americans who currently pay no taxes I would guess.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (870) | Send Message
     
    The 45% of Americans who pay no federal taxes, but pay sales tax,property tax, SS-Medicare tax are the ones working non-union jobs after Conservatives moves there jobs to china so they could get a tax break and pay record low federal taxes.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Those paying only 50% of an underfunded future entitlement to benefit themselves, is not a tax that benefits society.

     

    Stop saying they Pay social security and medicare taxes.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Are you implying that you believe that the 55% of Americans who do pay income taxes don't pay SS-Medicare and all of the other incidentals? I can assure you that my household pays all of those and federal and state income taxes.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1356) | Send Message
     
    Terry330,

     

    "after Conservatives moves there jobs to china"

     

    Did you learn English in a foreign country? Graduate from high school? Your obviously biased viewpoints might be considered if you learned sentence structure, pronouns, pluralization, and capitalization. Otherwise, your opinions just seem as ignorant as your use of language.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    GotLife,

     

    The twins are consuming more than their fair share of oxygen from her brain. Not unlike the 50% or so that pay no taxes, yet continue to enjoy the right to vote, and tax the rich.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    Terry, you obviously got a liberal education as you don't know the difference between there and their.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1356) | Send Message
     
    Terry's writing is an insult to all blondes and large twins everywhere. And, it is no more likely to be his picture than he is to become President or to convince a single SA reader to vote for our current POTUS with his horrendous use of the English language.

     

    However, it apparently does get him a lot of thumbs up and, from what I've read, propositions from some SA readers, explaining the huge breeding potential of the well endowed moron.
    15 Jul 2011, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    huh? I'm not sure I understood that run-on sentence. Wouldn't those people be out of a job...And union jobs keep people from working. It's a closed society, either join or you don't get to work.
    18 Jul 2011, 03:04 AM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (870) | Send Message
     
    Wealthy tell us evoneone must sacrifice, but not them. Five decades of tax cuts must be extended.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    And even our welfare recipients have 72" flat screens. Food stamps are a lucrative business, for both the recipient and the politician who hands them out like Chuck E Cheese tokens at a pizza party.

     

    Today's paupers are royalty. Let them pay a tax. Hey, on a good note, there's a lot more of them today under Obama than any other time since the depression. That could help out the budget.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Five Decades?

     

    Really?

     

    GWB who you hate, you know, his Dad, lost re-election by raising Taxes.

     

    Terry, Read my Lips.......
    14 Jul 2011, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    never got a job from a poor man
    18 Jul 2011, 02:59 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    And if we went back to Clinton era tax rates they'd still be filthy rich. I looking for my weed and feed.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (870) | Send Message
     
    Help DEFEAT the Middle Class! . . . Vote Republican­!
    14 Jul 2011, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Terry or whoever you really are, tell us who in your opinion is the middle class? Is it a factoid you would care to share?
    14 Jul 2011, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    Terry- If thats all you really want then just vote Obama back into office, he is fast tracking it and should have it done before the end of a second term
    14 Jul 2011, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Terry, I already told you.

     

    This is not a partisan issue.

     

    Most of the middle class does not even pay taxes.

     

    It's arthmetic, not politics.

     

    What part of that do you not understand?
    14 Jul 2011, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    You really shouldn't be insulting people's grammar and spelling you know. It just makes your mistakes even more unbearable.
    14 Jul 2011, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    50-150k
    15 Jul 2011, 04:49 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Ya, his errors are hard to take sometimes.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:50 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Are you Terry's spokesman, or just Terry?
    15 Jul 2011, 05:31 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    No, its not. 100k-200k. Depends on where you live.

     

    And in some communities that would make you poor. So, let's be safe and say middle class is 200k-300k. Sound good?

     

    Naw.

     

    How about 500K?

     

    Naw.

     

    Just pick a number, put them all up on a dart board. Blindfold someone with a bad rotator cuff and hand them darts. Whatever number they hit, that's 'middle class', sound good?

     

    That's the problem with your kind. You're arbitrary. And the government should not be giving us their subjective opinion and then turning it into a law in order to squeeze more money out of this person while ignoring that person.
    15 Jul 2011, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • ColdLogic
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    The idea that the rich should be taxed more ignores the fact that in a voluntary system of exchange, all wealth comes from voluntary compensation for services or products, so nobody has any legitimate claim on the proceeds of someone's production. Govt today is used as a proxy thief, for those too cowardly to rob their rich neighbor themselves. They just don't understand that the govt IS the richest trillionaire neighbor, and verbally bribes the poor for votes to gain perceived social support for the heist of the second-tier's wealth. The job creators are stolen from, leaving less money to risk in employing new people for business expansion. The poor remain poor, but most importantly, they continue hating the rich, providing a lifetime of votes for the eternal plunderers, the trillionaire monopolist neighbor, the government.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    You should send the rich money every year then to compensate for your lower taxes.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    50-250k, depending on were you live.

     

    No private jets allowed.
    15 Jul 2011, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Moose you keep askin' the question. Just thought I'd give you some sort of answer. It may not be right, but, it's a hell of a lot closer than no answer at all.

     

    Maybe the Republicans in Congress will learn something from me. Right now I'd be satisfied if they did anything at all, even if its wrong. You can correct wrong you can't fix NOTHING, and that's what they have now.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (870) | Send Message
     
    Kark Rove laid out how the federal government can pay its bills in August. He can pay seniors,me­dicare,the military. tax refunds, military contractor­s, veterans, and most unemployme­nt, including interest and some of the debt due.

     

    What he cannot pay for is Customs and Immigratio­n, air traffic controller­s, the Federal Reserve, Treasury, or State Department­, Whitehouse­, Congress or the Federal Courts, and the Ag Department­. What does this mean?

     

    Airports will stop (no air traffic controller­s, no TSA)
    all land and sea ports will stop (no customs and immigratio­n) which means no oil, no auto parts, no imports.

     

    This will stop virtually all commerce in the US. No Autos to be made (2M layoffs), No food being inspected (No goods at your grocery store), No Oil imported (gas prices will skyrocket)­.

     

    Without the Federal Reserve and the treasury department­, Credit will dry up and most likely banks will shutdown. Your insured savings are not insured because there is no one at the FDIC to pay or process claims. Banks will run out of cash, Credit will be nonexistan­t.

     

    This is Karl Rove's plan. I think it was well thought out.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I call your pathetic Y2K bluff. Like we really need TSA molesters/agents? They're now just 600,000 public employees added to the union beast. Fire them all.

     

    We can do this all day with 80% of government, redundant and sick government.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Weren't you just arguing that the trillions in Iraq were well spent to prevent terrorism?

     

    I mean the terrorists didn't come from Iraq, but they did go through our airports.

     

    Just something to think about.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Karl is an evil idiot.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:51 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt doesn't always think about stuff like that.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:53 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You mean because it was a stawman non-sequitur?

     

    SRE brought up Iraq, not me. I guess he assumed I was all down with it because he's a simpleminded cliche generator.
    15 Jul 2011, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4304) | Send Message
     
    i wonder what the precise wording of the question was as it is not indicated in the link.
    14 Jul 2011, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • sysin3
    , contributor
    Comments (61) | Send Message
     
    This whole situation, and all of you people, make me want to nuke the entire planet and let Mother Nature start over with whatever survives. Really, I don't see any part of human "civilization" that is worth preserving.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4103) | Send Message
     
    It certainly appears that the middle class was a transient moment in American history, but it's not the fault of jet owners. The rest of the world has caught up since WWII when the U.S. was the only viable manufacturing and consuming economy. Like it or not, that economy has gone global and class warfare rhetoric won't change it. Adapt or else.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    You know, when all this globalization started it seemed like a great idea. America would pull the rest of the world up by its boodstraps. What a great idea!

     

    Little did I know that our Political leaders, Bankers, and Captains of Industry would pull us down instead.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • wkl
    , contributor
    Comments (295) | Send Message
     
    Hey Bruce, you afraid to show Rasmussen's polling data? I find it to be a better consensus of the general population. Polling can show the pollster whatever the pollster wants to see by ways in which the question is phrased. Even you know that.
    14 Jul 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • valueinvestor123
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    I am in the highest tax bracket and I have said all along, I will accept a tax hike if it means an end to corporate tax loopholes and a real cut in spending. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why a hedge fund manager or private equity manager should pay a lower tax rate than a surgeon. For the record, I am not a surgeon.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1356) | Send Message
     
    Probably because most investors with 5 M are deep into hedge funds. That would include almost every Senator from both parties and most members of Congress.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:50 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    Value,

     

    Logical arguments and a lack ad hominum attacks, from socially well adjusted people, are out of place here.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You would think a 'value investor' would understand that taxes have given us negative returns ever since 1913 & the adoption of the 16th Amendment. Its all gone to hell since then.

     

    Run Washington DC through a Finviz screener. Look at the ratio of long term debt to capital/assets. If it doesn't scare the hell out of you, nothing will.

     

    I never understood why Warren Buffet or Bill Gates cheerlead for higher taxes when they run endowments for the express purpose of avoiding taxes since they know they can be more efficient than government. You would think they would understand the individual is much more adept at how they run their own personal property as investors, creators and entrepreneurs. Perhaps guilt? Wanting to attach themselves to the pretense of suicidal, self destructive behavior. Or maybe they just crave the popularity of the cool kids. I dunno.

     

    And even Bill Gates sucks with his endowment anyway. Why? Because his premise is dumb. Education? It even sounds whiny. They don't need education in the inner city. They need to drop out, like Steve Jobs did and do real things, start real businesses and explore the world. Education is the last thing the business community needs. We need creativity, not conformity.

     

    Look at Oprah. What has she done? Wasted her money in African charities she created. She can do what she wants. Its her money. But these people, all of them are pathetic.

     

    I'd rather Buffet and Gates actually deployed their capital in real things that created real jobs. Not fairy tales. Invest in E&P oil juniors. Develop industries in things people need. Roughnecks, truck drivers, manufacturing, etc. Not this feel-good nonsense. You want to run a charity? Open a business in your neighborhood and hire people. That's a real charity. Not endless, useless giving that cannot be sustained. But then they'd have to pay taxes which is what they're trying to avoid in the first place by being a non-profit, useless, pay-it-forward endowment. They're shell operations and tax shelters, that is all. And it allows them the popularity they need to keep the pretense alive.

     

    I guess I can see why they'd scream for higher taxes. They don't really understand the value of hard work, or value at all.
    15 Jul 2011, 03:04 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Bravo valueinsestor123
    15 Jul 2011, 04:55 AM Reply Like
  • ColdLogic
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    You don't mind getting robbed, if the thieves steal more from your other neighbors than from you. Gotcha. All of us should pay lower taxes, almost zero. Then we could have full control over what services we actually want, and transact for them in the free market with one another. As it is, government functions like a choice of two monopolies. You can vote for the Republican Brand package deal, though you may only like 1 or 2 policies in particular, or the Democrat Brand package deal, though you like only 1 or 2 services they provide. The more we move away from package deals (big govt) into a la carte (free market), the more power we have over our lives. You run your own life better than people thousands of miles away.
    15 Jul 2011, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    He doesn't want that CL. Monngie likes being a slave.
    15 Jul 2011, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Of course if they (Buffet and Gates) want to pay more tax, they're more than welcome to "donate" some of their money to the gov't. Same goes for all the whiny Hollywood liberals. Why don't they just donate more of their own money instead of demanding that the gov't just raise taxes on everyone else?
    18 Jul 2011, 02:52 AM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    That's because you are not in the politicians' pockets or part of a union or lobbying group. Hollywood pays lower taxes too. And we all know how they love liberals in Washington.
    18 Jul 2011, 02:52 AM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (326) | Send Message
     
    I have just read all 59 comments. Any time this subject is up for debate - all hell breaks loose. It ALWAYS will. Eliminate the SYSTEM of judging of who pays what. Eliminate the corruption of lobbying, eliminate loopholes, eliminate those who escape the system,eliminate money being in politics. Demand the Fair Tax
    14 Jul 2011, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4304) | Send Message
     
    Current crop of Repubs views eliminating loopholes as a tax increase. I.e they are absolutely ideologically incapable of voting for that.

     

    Apparently they have been so successful selling that line the only honest fiscal conservative who was potentially running for President on the Republican side had to withdraw due to lack of support.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    'Loopholes' is a democrat invented word. I guess they reeled you in, sea monkey. The real thing they are going after are 'business deductions'. Say the right word. All businesses have them.

     

    taxguide.completetax.c...

     

    So, the question you need to ask yourself is why are they then going after some businesses and not others for something all businesses have universally benefited from?

     

    What's this game REALLY about then?
    15 Jul 2011, 03:16 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    You say potato, I say loophole.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:59 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt, you're being disingenuous. You know now as well as I do that the corporate jet issue is about special tax breaks for corporate jet purchasers that go above and beyond regular deductions.

     

    The game for you is apparently about advocating that the government picks winners and losers, then complaining about the government picking winners and losers.
    15 Jul 2011, 06:21 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You know as well as I do that Learjet deductions(or should we use your word 'special tax breaks' LOL) are an Obama red herring to incite class warfare. You also know as well as I do that they will have nil effect on reducing the deficit, but have quite a substantial effect in killing an entire industry or offshoring the industry altogether as the company expats elsewhere. (C'mon Obama, I thought you were down with the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' cliche? Oh you mean you were just lying again?)

     

    We could do this all day with everything the democrats demonize from the coal industry to petroleum to offshore drilling to smoking cigs. Government is a parasite similar to the Buffalo River Gnat found in the Amazon. Drink the water, as you do, and that parasite lays its eggs in you. Pretty soon you have a giant 200 foot tape inside you parallel with the long bones of your body as well as your facial planes. This is what causes River Blindness as it pinches off the optic nerve. And yes, this is also a parable on pro-government doorknobs who become blinded after drinking the water of their Big Bro heroes.
    15 Jul 2011, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Government shouldn't be picking any winners and losers, but it does. Let the free markets decide!
    18 Jul 2011, 02:52 AM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Well there goes my buddy from the sushi bar, he'll surely be laid off - thanks Obama! (My buddy is a pilot - oh that's right, you probably think he is wealthy because he has a job piloting corporate planes, so therefore he deserves to be laid off. Yah, he gets laid off, and then the waitress at the sushi bar gets laid off, and then the cook in the back gets laid off, and then... you see where this going)
    18 Jul 2011, 02:52 AM Reply Like
  • mike mohr
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Tax the corporations and the rich not the middle class.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    mohr,

     

    Corporations will then just have to pass the costs along to the Middle class now, won't they?

     

    Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them.

     

    I can see you and your Sheeple have yet to figure that out.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    What exactly is the middle class? Define it precisely in your own way.
    14 Jul 2011, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Corporations will fire you. They will go overseas. And the ones that don't will raise prices on you, pathetic consumer.

     

    Eat the rich = starve the poor.
    15 Jul 2011, 03:33 AM Reply Like
  • ColdLogic
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    Only tax the rich and corporations who voted for big-government spending. Those who didn't should be entirely immune. Only those who vote for an expensive govt should have to pay for it, not ANYONE else. Whoever you vote for, and therefore socially empower into the role of "elected official", you hold complete liability for their spending of your tax money. That's why I only vote for people who are certain to lower the cost of government, meaning I don't vote much. Remember, voting today creates a *loss* of freedom, it's a delegation of one's own decision making capacity to another person.
    15 Jul 2011, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Fair enough, but then those who are against government need to get off the highways and internet.
    15 Jul 2011, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    As long as you go live in a Siberian gulag.

     

    Yes, the military is the only Constitutionally warranted spending, even if it is much too high in terms of the budget.

     

    As far as roads go, I paved my own, 2 miles in. Highways? The States could figure that out.

     

    And the internet was an inevitability. Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone. All the internet is is an extension of that, with cool neato graphics aka data lines. Big deal.

     

    If we were allowed to keep our own money, we would have not only had Internet part 2 by now, but probably the so-called space age as well. The public sector robbing from the private has mitigated such advancements, but visionaries like Fritz Lang would have had us living in George Jettson glass penthouses by now. Government has stalled the inevitable. The internet was delayed by Big Bro, son. DELAYED.
    15 Jul 2011, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • ColdLogic
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    "Government" doesn't exist, in the same way a forest is just a bunch of trees. The people exist and would even without the concept of "government", and nearly everyone wants roads and internet and would pay for them, therefore their creation doesn't require forced extraction of our money (taxation) to achieve. Look at the computer industry, perfect example of the fast design evolution and trend towards lower price/higher efficiency/higher speed that is INHERENT in the free, competitive market system. Huge room-size ones, then PCs, laptops, iphones, netbooks, ipads and everything in between. The people "vote" with their dollars, directly, every day, voting in the better service. The middle men creators of the stuff have to earn their money through persuasion, not force.

     

    If govt created an iPad, we'd vote on whether it should be red or turquoise, whether it should have 128MB or 256MB, and whether we should get to buy it for $5,000, or for $1,000 and have our kids pay the rest. Opportunity cost! The simulation of centralized allocation of resources FAILED everywhere tried, because it is based on the fallacy that there exist individuals with several million times the intellectual capacity as any of us, who receive the right to make our decisions for us, with money they forcibly steal. Govt chooses when they want to optimize quality or price or time-savings for ALL of us, but the free market lets us decide for ourselves which optimization we want at any time.
    15 Jul 2011, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Recent polls suggest that Americans are willing to accept some increase in taxes to reduce the deficit, Bruce Bartlett writes. Republicans, take heed.
    ======================...

     

    Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport reveals Americans' views on raising the U.S. debt ceiling and how Congress should handle the deficit.

     

    www.gallup.com/video/1...
    14 Jul 2011, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Recent polls suggest that Americans are willing to accept some increase in taxes to reduce the deficit, Bruce Bartlett writes. Republicans, take heed.
    ======================...

     

    55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal

     

    www.rasmussenreports.c...
    14 Jul 2011, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    This is a result of Rasmussen's phrasing....and the fact that they are consistenly an arm of Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:37 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3183) | Send Message
     
    I think some context is needed in this poll.

     

    I WOULD be willing to pay more in taxes - IF it went directly against the 14 Trillion we already owe. I hate that we spent the money - but its been spent - and we as a nation have to pay it back.

     

    Now if the tax increase is simply used to help close the 1.4 Federal deficit from this year - then I Would NOT be willing to pay more taxes. Cut 1.4 Trillion in spending THIS year!

     

    All these polls are meaningless - I hate to say it but the majority of people in this country don't really understand anything beyond the 15 second sound bites they hear on tv. And if someone tells them that there is some rich guy that can pay for everything then they are all in favor of that.... Unfortunately, that rich guy can contribute something towards the problem, but we'll still have a huge problem.

     

    Drastic action is called for, unfortunately all we get is drastic sound bites. Seniors will have to retire later. Medicare/Medicaid will kick in later and won't pay for every procedure under the sun. Military spending will be cut. Entire agencies will be closed. Bureaucrats pay and benefits will be cut. That all has to happen just to stop the bleeding! Then we can look at how much to raise each year in taxes to pay off the 14 Trillion.
    14 Jul 2011, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (561) | Send Message
     
    Vote Obama out of office in 2012.
    14 Jul 2011, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    867046 (AKA Clueless)

     

    What state is the #1 state in per capita debt, one of only 2 states to have 0 private sector job growth in the last 20 yrs?

     

    And being ranked in the bottom 10 in pro business policies?

     

    Also about # 4 in overall tax burden?

     

    Just Guess what color that P-O-S is?

     

    You can come up with all your BS data, like Wyoming, etc., because nobody lives there. But many natural resource projects benefit the rest of the nation, not to mention water, National parks and the like.

     

    Save it for somebody that will buy it, like mark to Myth accounting.
    14 Jul 2011, 11:30 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Here's some interesting data:
    arts.bev.net/roperldav...
    15 Jul 2011, 06:34 AM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1356) | Send Message
     
    Nope.
    15 Jul 2011, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1356) | Send Message
     
    I don't know about the rest of the SA investment community but I find the recent appearance of the Democratic party trolls that have suddenly popped into the website's discussions tiresome. Their constant drivel of talking points, faulty English, ad hominen attacks and comic book level historical knowledge are beyond my patience.

     

    Is there a way to simply block their (witness the correct use of there and their in a single sentence) appearance from my view? Is there a way for SA editors to provide such a mechanism? Could we avoid feeding them with comments? Or, will they all just go away only when the campaign money dries up?
    15 Jul 2011, 10:04 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Good job elevating the discussion yourself.

     

    I mean looking back over your posts they're mostly spelling and grammar nitpicking and personal attacks. Now you're going to complain about people posting useless drivel? Really?

     

    Another hypocrite.

     

    Honestly, did you seriously expect the comment section for a politically charged article about a politically charged topic not to have politically charged speech?

     

    All you've done is bring the level of discussion down lower and then complain about it.

     

    You want to talk data, numbers, whatever, great, pony up.

     

    Otherwise wallow in the useless drivel that you insist on dumping out here and then complaining about.
    15 Jul 2011, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Just understand that you will have a certain percentage of the population that is always stubborn & retarded both emotionally and logically. Jon Stewart hopeychangers. Nothing you can do for them. They are lost. They will be unsuccessful in life, both financially and in their relationships since they are liars, bores, cheats, self-made victims and parasite champions.

     

    There's no such thing as a free lunch. They never got that one in Econ 101 and still think you can rob others and redirect the income to the unproductive class(dem voter) which they hilariously think will create an incentive to want to keep trying. They actually think the government is not only valid, but provides winning service for the price within its uncompetitive, monopolistic arrogance of cubicle farm people whose limbs move at the speed of dried amber.

     

    They aren't brave enough to just come out and be honest and say they are Marxist. I could respect that. No. They rather hide their animus and motivating force and use pretense instead to peddle their soft socialism that is getting harder by the year as the progs move deeper into their party. JFK is not even in their modern day canon. He would be thrown out of their party today. JFK had speeches that sounded like Paul Ryan today. That's how far they have drifted. Now they have the same philosophy as Fidel or Hugo and the dyed in the wool ones, Mao and Stalin. It is these latter fools that I enjoy the most as their hatred for mankind and her freedoms are endlessly entertaining to make fun of. I love to tip over their cliche karts the most and spill their hopeychange on the ground in wet piles of outhouse agglutinated substances. They are destroyers of wealth creation, hate the rich, hate the middle class and hate the poor. They hate mankind. Indeed, they simply hate life. They hate freedom. They want someone to take care of them and everyone else. They are weak, pathetic and sad people. But don't feel sorry for them because they advocate force & vote for coercion in order to steal what you have earned and take it for themselves. Thus they are motivated by envy its just that they don't want to do any real work to earn it for themselves. They would rather just take it.

     

    What is cap-n-trade? What was it? A giant tax. They used 'the earth' as their agit-prop to get the deal done. It would have ripped off $400 billion a year from the economy and drove energy inflation off the charts, closing mines and the jobs with them and causing the elderly to starve as their fixed income wouldn't have been able to match the rise in heating costs. The left is very sick. And 38% of the american population will vote with them no matter what, even if it means they have to drink rat poison.
    15 Jul 2011, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    Your position is ludicrous as the Republicans are as involved in picking winners and losers as the Democrats.

     

    You still haven't explained to me how your advocating for special tax breaks for corporate jets is different than my advocating for special tax breaks for nuclear power.

     

    Besides that, sure regulation doesn't really lead to a vibrant market, but neither does allowing Enron to black out California.

     

    Your concept of freedom is taxing the poor to death to pay for mounting bibles to bayonets and shoving them down everyone's throat while at the same time handing out subsidies for corporate jets, oil companies, and ethanol.

     

    A theocratic police state of a plutocracy might sound better to you, but I'm not a huge fan of the Pakistani way of life.

     

    You don't believe in economic freedom any more than a Democrat, and you certainly believe in a lot less social freedom.

     

    But hey if you don't the things the government has brought us add value, no problem. You don't have to use highways or the internet. You've just solved a problem for both of us.
    15 Jul 2011, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "Besides that, sure regulation doesn't really lead to a vibrant market, but neither does allowing Enron to black out California."

     

    Haha, such an ill-informed dunce.

     

    California's over regulation is WHAT ALLOWED ENRON TO GAME THE STATE since they were not allowed to buy long term contracts and were forced to buy from spot.

     

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

     

    Precisely, what in the hell is wrong with you?

     

    Do you even know what you're blathering about? Duh er Bibles on bayonets, duuurrr. Highways & internets. Highways & internets. LOL.

     

    Let the private sector run, kid. You'll have more highways & internets you'll know what to do with, plus the highways won't have potholes in them and the internet will be 1000X faster.

     

    Its like you want to shove a roadblock in our way and call it progress.

     

    Seriously, do you know how stupid you sound, like some college age clown that thinks they just discovered the world in a Noam Chomsky newsletter. In your world up is down and left is right and the lie is better than the truth. You believe what makes it easier because you're weak and entropy a natural state of mind and a handout is progress even if it is the path of least resistance.

     

    And as far as duh internets go, who just phased out NASA's shuttle program and outsourced it to Russia? I'll give you a couple minutes to figure it out.

     

    I guess fat public pensions are now more important than the next internet.
    15 Jul 2011, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...

     

    Did I win the theatrics game? You should ask Glenn Beck for some advice on manufacturing tears to up your game even further.

     

    Or are you going to follow now with your usual "INFINITY PLUS ONE YOU'RE A CHILD AND I'M NOT NEENER"

     

    It must have been regulation that allowed them to game the state. That's why it happened after California started deregulation, and why they paid so much money to lobby against it.

     

    Hmm, guess not.

     

    Put simply enough even for you: if regulation allowed them to make money they wouldn't have lobbied against it.

     

    Sorry, I'm actually in a very high tax bracket and have never had debt except for college loans which I paid back in two years. Higher tax rates certainly won't be a handout for me.
    Good try though, I guess, sort of?

     

    By the way, what tax bracket are you in? If you're not in the top bracket I'm sure you'll put your money where your mouth is and send the people at the top money every year, right?

     

    Right, because the shuttle program was rapidly developing new technologies. Oh wait we're switching to an iterative approach where we continue to develop new technologies rather than just re-using 40 year old ones.

     

    Who said I was for public pensions? Oh right, straw man arguments are your specialty.

     

    You're still confused. If you want the private sector to run free, then why do you support tax breaks and subsidies for your pet industries?
    15 Jul 2011, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
     
    After passage of Gramm’s energy commodity deregulation bill in
    December 2000, Stage 3 emergencies increased from one to 38 until federal regulators helped end the crisis by imposing price controls in June 2001.

     

    Because of Enron’s new, unregulated power auction, the company’s “Wholesale Services” revenues quadrupled — from $12 billion in the first quarter of 2000 to $48.4 billion in the first quarter of 2001.

     

    Enron took advantage of lax oversight following deregulation and formed a complicated web of more than 2,800 subsidiaries — more than 30 percent (874) of which were located in officially designated offshore tax and bank havens.

     

    President Bush’s presidential campaign received significant financial support from Enron ($1.14 million).

     

    Upon assuming office in 2001, Bush promptly scrapped plans put into place by former President Bill Clinton to significantly limit the effectiveness of these countries as tax and bank regulation havens.
    15 Jul 2011, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Riiiight.

     

    Might want to publish your link next time instead of just copy-n-pasting here. Time for school, kid, and not from some link either. I live here in the State. I know exactly what happened.

     

    Get your textbooks out and take notes...

     

    First, none of this is difficult to understand. Supply and demand inform price when they intersect. Econ 101. The problem is when artificial supply and artificial prices are introduced by outside forces(ie, government) causing havoc. And they have the gall to call this 'deregulation'. The irony is thick.

     

    First, you had to deal with growing power consumption across the state, but supply was crimped due to the fact that California had no new power plants since politicians decided not to continue permitting them. This held the state hostage to buying power outside its border. You could say this is where Enron came in, but there's more to it than that. Yes, it gets worse.

     

    California has had huge YOY growth in electricity usage over the last 15 years mainly from major tech industries drawing out demand, not just population increases. The disgusting, corrupt oversight of politicians is that they put a ceiling, a lid, on what the utility could charge their customers but failed to likewise slap a lid on what price utilities had to pay for their wholesale cost of electricity, since they were forced into this position to buy it from generators. And once again, no new power generators were allowed to operate or go online in the state. Does this sound like 'deregulation' so far? LOL.

     

    This is where the out of state wholesalers come in, the Enrons of the world, who then summarily turned around and gamed the shite out of California and pinned their sorry tail to a wall, forcing California to buy spot market prices since they were unable(read, unallowed) to lock in long term contracts/rates.

     

    That, my friend, is NOT deregulation by any stretch of the imagination. That is outright Maoist, liberal price controls which were then gamed by others.

     

    Please, stop while you're behind. No more copy-n-paste for you. You will just continue looking more idiotic from this point forward.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "Put simply enough even for you: if regulation allowed them to make money they wouldn't have lobbied against it."

     

    You're simply ignorant of the history. Not an insult, just a fact. The media propaganda was huge while this whole legacy of Grey Davis rolling blackouts was occurring.

     

    There never was dereg. NEVER. It was always regulation. That didn't stop the media from parroting the reverse. And yes, they had motive for doing so as it was part of their green gimmick. Every time the media said, dereg, all you had to do to get the real story was replace it with regulation and viceversa, and you would have been much better informed the entire time. Not even Orwell would have dreamed this one up.

     

    But, it worked, on lemmings like you, hook, line & sinker.
    15 Jul 2011, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    Your first paragraph has multiple ad hominem attacks as defined in: Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, University of California Press.

     

    As for the Democrats, how do repubs respond to the following assertion (from Wikipedia)?

     

    "Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness.[1] Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt).[2] Similarly, David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s.[3]"
    15 Jul 2011, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Looking at the executive office is easy, but misguided. Congress runs the budget. Sure the president can veto, but they rarely do if there are majorities. Perhaps you need a refresher course in how American politics works?

     

    Off years & transition latency from one regime to the next has a bit to do with it also, even if its at the margins. But more to the point, Clinton was corralled in '94 from further spending and welfare reform helped to bridge the budget gap. Also, dot com ponzi, which we can all agree was illusory helped to make it appear things got papered over. When the bottom fell out in March of '09, debt erupted and that fallacy got thrown out and exposed for what it was, mostly fraud pump'n dump from Silicon Valley.

     

    JFK was a serious tax cutter which helped to inspire investment and, in turn, growth. That's actually legit, to your point. Carter however was a derelict who gave us massive inflation and later high, crushing interest rates. LBJ incurred the beginning of massive transfer payments from the taxpayer to 'the poor' and invented welfare(ie the so-called 'great' society). This lead to decades & decades of debt piling that still strangles US growth today and keeps large segments of our population non-performing drags on society. As far as Reagan, who was the majority then? Might want to look that up. Any other loony citations you get, let me know. I'll help you grow up in the process and educate you if need be.
    15 Jul 2011, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    From the sound of it, GotLife just wants to here only from the right wing conservative nut side of the argument so he can preach to his choir.

     

    He does a good job of talking down his nose like some freakin' aristocratic english teacher in his comments.

     

    If we wanted a freakin" english lesson we'd take a class at night. So there....err...they're... said it.
    16 Jul 2011, 12:42 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt is all for tax breaks for the rich and well off industries.

     

    Everyone else KEEP OUT.
    16 Jul 2011, 12:49 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    JFK also kick started the space program into which government poured billions. The technological advances that resulted are still at work today expanding economies worldwide. It would be a very different world without that government spending.

     

    You won't acknowledge the positive role of government played in transforming the world though.
    16 Jul 2011, 01:05 AM Reply Like
  • daffodil
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    yes and "here" and "hear" (see a comment below), "your" and "you're", etc. I'm not an English major - English was my worst subject, but man, I'm tired of reading comments from people who can't use the correct spelling. Makes the comments less readable and believable (and no I'm not perfect - but at least I look over what I've written before sending)
    18 Jul 2011, 02:52 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    Ultimately it for SA conservative side it comes down to credibility. During Bush 2 there was a huge amount of reckless spending by the republican side. When we had 8 years of republican rule, every branch of government was opened up for republican looting. All one has to do is look at the no bid contracts and the congressional plus ups in republican districts. The fact that very few republicans own up to any reckless spending is astounding. The export of wealth from the blue states to the red states through the federal tax system, which should be an issue to financial conservatives, is rarely noted.

     

    As an aside, to his credit, Carter tried to cancel the B-1 bomber as a worthless military platform.

     

    The logical issue with free market capitalism is the lack of widespread adoption. Given the Dawinian nature of national economics, if free market capitalism offered a competitive national advantage, one would think that at least a few nations would have adopted it by now.
    17 Jul 2011, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "The logical issue with free market capitalism is the lack of widespread adoption. Given the Dawinian nature of national economics, if free market capitalism offered a competitive national advantage, one would think that at least a few nations would have adopted it by now."

     

    Awesome. Classic nonsense.

     

    "So, you would think that at least a few nations would have adopted it by now?"

     

    LOL.

     

    The sizzling growth rates of the emerging economies these last 10 years I guess where due to hard socialism? ROFL >3

     

    Singapore's amazing growth? South Korea? Brazil? Chile? Panama? Colombia? India? China? Even, Russia?

     

    Sorry bud. The reason why the growth is there is because finally these countries figured it out by looking at us. And ironically, we've switched places... with them.

     

    The only thing that is real economically is capitalism. Its what pays the bills of irresponsible governments. What's left over, which we call 'profit', and what used to be the incentive to try harder, is now for government plunder, whose confiscatory action stalls further growth. This is the simplest stuff. And yet, people make it out to be some kind of mystery.

     

    Go watch some TED seminars. These people are inventors, entrepreneurs, next generation manufacturers. This is where it all comes from. Wealth. It isn't created in a local DMV. Its not created in the Pentagon. Its not created by social security. No. In matters of fact, social security, the Pentagon and yes, even your local DMV have all contributed to stunting growth and invention and creativity by siphoning off wealth that they didn't create and by robbing incentives.

     

    China, before the Brits gave back Hong Kong at the turn of the century, was looking at HK as their own little lab experiment that they would in turn replicate all over their country. Sure the Chicom Reds were (and are) still in charge, but they are moving towards capitalism not away from it. And as they do, and as their yuan rises against other currencies, their people will become enriched as consumers. This, my friend, is capitalism with a capital C. And hopefully the Reds will die a slow death in influence over there as time proves them irrelevant.

     

    You have everything backwards. Everything you believe is wrong. You might as well get up in the evening, put on your clothes backwards, walk backwards to work, sit in a chair backwards, talk backwards like an Ozzy album and then eat Cheerios for dinner and then go to sleep at dawn... like a zombie. Yes, everything, your entire life, everything you believe is backwards.
    17 Jul 2011, 03:31 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs