For once, you're absolutely right, Col. I think that the Dems MAY help balance the budget. Because Bush and Company don't realize the way to fleece people is to TAX and spend.

Gideon

In reality the Democrats may Tax and Spend but the GOP policy of Charge and Spend is far WORSE. The difference is Democrats pay for the spending as it takes place. The GOP policy requires us to pay for our spending at some point and ADDS the interest we until we pay off what we have borrowed.

If we are determined to SPEND, as it appears we are, it is far better to pay as you go with taxes then to borrow as Bush and the GOP have done!!! In recent years more and more of our added debt is purchased by foreign interests like China. The interest we pay on any debt held by foreign debtor’s results in our tax dollars paid to them in interest to be removed from our economy. Interest paid to Americans will for the most part be returned in the form of spending. That is NOT true of the interest we pay on the debt to foreigners. Today 40% of the publicly held debt is held by foreign investors.

WE MUST balance the budget and begin repaying the nearly $9 Trillion in debt to reduce the drain we have because of the interest payments. This interest in the future will compete for the Federal funds needed for such things as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

In reality the Democrats may Tax and Spend but the GOP policy of Charge and Spend is far WORSE.

See, this is where you lose me, Col. Why do you defend runaway spending?

I don't like tax and spend, I don't like charge and spend. Let's start making sense here. BOTH of the "big two" parties have let us down consistently.

I agree with your thesis, Col, that we need to balance the budget and lower the debt. But as long as you point fingers at the GOP and give the Dems a pass, you're missing out on identifying half of the problem.

See, this is where you lose me, Col. Why do you defend runaway spending?

He doesn't care about spending or democratic corruption.  The whole point to this and most of his other "opinions" is to raise taxes on successful Americans. 

The whole point to this and most of his other "opinions" is to raise taxes on successful Americans.

True. What he doesn't seem to realize is that wealth redistribution is a disincentive for personal achievement. As I progress in a field where above average pay is a very real possibility within a year or so, I resent those who would try to steal the financial incentives I have for self improvement.

There's a quote from Jules Feiffer that fits the liberal mindset: "I was hostile to the middle class myself until I made executive level" (Feiffer's People).

Gideon

I did not condone runaway spending. What I said is that if we choose to spend, at what ever level, the issue is HOW to pay for that spending. The GOP puts it on the tab and we have to pay first for the spending and then for the interest which means we may again and again for the same spending. The Iraq war is a perfect example. I do not know if the $100 Billion per year is part of what you call, “Run away Spending” but we have BORROWED every cent of that added spending and are paying interest today on the $400 Billion paid from 2003-2006. I agree some of the added spending is not needed. However the GOP has been worse at controlling pork and the use of Earmarks then the Democrats.

Thus there are two issues-- How much to spend?How to pay for what we decide to spend?
I do not agree with BORROWING ANY part of our annual budget expenditures. That is what the GOP has been doing. That is CHARGE and SPEND. That is far worse then TAX and SPEND.

As to increasing taxes when that becomes needed, it is less disruptive on economic growth by increasing taxes on the wealthy that will pay their added tax from their SURPLUS rather then taxing middle income tax payers who will pay the added tax from their spending which adversely impacts the overall economy. It has nothing to do, with as some claim, punishing those that are MORE successful! It has everything to do with ability to pay and how the added tax burden will impact consumer spending and demand which drives the economy!

Gideon

I did not condone runaway spending. What I said is that if we choose to spend, at what ever level, the issue is HOW to pay for that spending. The GOP puts it on the tab and we have to pay first for the spending and then for the interest which means we pay again and again for the same spending. The Iraq war is a perfect example. I do not know if the $100 Billion per year is part of what you call, “Run away Spending” but we have BORROWED every cent of that added spending and are paying interest today on the $400 Billion paid from 2003-2006. I agree some of the added spending is not needed. However the GOP has been worse at controlling pork and the use of Earmarks then the Democrats.

Thus there are two issues-- How much to spend?How to pay for what we decide to spend?
I do not agree with BORROWING ANY part of our annual budget expenditures. That is what the GOP has been doing. That is CHARGE and SPEND. That is far worse then TAX and SPEND.

As to increasing taxes when that becomes needed, it is less disruptive on economic growth by increasing taxes on the wealthy that will pay their added tax from their SURPLUS rather then taxing middle income tax payers who will pay the added tax from their spending which adversely impacts the overall economy. It has nothing to do, with as some claim, punishing those that are MORE successful! It has everything to do with ability to pay and how the added tax burden will impact consumer spending and demand which drives the economy!

It has nothing to do, with as some claim, punishing those that are MORE successful! It has everything to do with ability to pay and how the added tax burden will impact consumer spending and demand which drives the economy!

Of course it is col.  You offer to real reason only to tax successful Americans other than "they can afford it".  That is pure class warfare and it's something you have advocated for years. 

People here, actual business owners themselves, have told you directly what raising taxes on them would mean, and you completely ignored it.  The simple mindset of people that raising taxes on "rich" people will somehow solve all problems without creating others is ridiculous.

IslandDog

The simple truth is that when we choose HOW much to spend we MUST be willing to pay for that spending.

I have read the arguments from the business owners and I have the factual data from the 1990's when those same upper income Americans has the BEST YEARS EVER with the higher tax rates. The issue that you can not refute is that higher taxes on the wealthy will have LESS adverse impact because the wealthy will pay the higher taxes from their SURPLUS. The middle income taxpayers will the forced to reduce spending to pay the higher taxes because they are already spending all of their income. That is not class warfare it is economics. THE Bush tax policy has shifted the tax burden more to the Middle income taxpayer. That is class warfare. 51% of the Tax Cuts go to the wealthiest 1%. Cutting the tax cuts to this group will not cause them ANY real financial harm. They were able to pay the higher tax rated in the 1990's and end up AFTER tax better off then ever in our history!

The added debt and the future burden that places on the next generation are far more destructive then a small tax increase on the wealthy today.

You are exaggerating again when you say the middle class is "spending all their income".  You know this is false, but you continue to claim it.  The middle class is not as bad as you make it to be. 

Your "factual data" has been broken down here many times before, and you have been shown to be wrong about your tax theories.  The people with the largest tax burden in this country are successful Americans, and you want to shift more of that burnden to them regardless of the consequences that have been posted to you.

 

IslandDog

It is you that is incorrect.

First, the savings rate in the U.S. is at an all time low.

Second, the average credit card debt is at an all time high.

Third, more people have refinanced their homes to take out cash and the percent of equity has fallen overall.

All this clearly indicated that people are not only spending all they make but are going deeper intro debt and not saving their income.

Finally, Average weekly wags AFTER INFLATION in Down as reported by the Census Bureau.

If we increased taxes on the middle income workers it will come from spending and could further increase personal debt levels. The added Federal income to help balance the budget must come from those that can take it from their SURPLUS. That is the wealthy!

All this clearly indicated that people are not only spending all they make but are going deeper intro debt and not saving their income.

No it doesn't.  It indicates people do not budget correctly and most likely spend beyond their needs.

If we increased taxes on the middle income workers it will come from spending and could further increase personal debt levels. The added Federal income to help balance the budget must come from those that can take it from their SURPLUS. That is the wealthy!

Typical liberal, wanting to spend other Americans money just "because" you think they can afford it, even though you have no idea about their finances or how it will affect the people the "wealthy" employ. 

“It indicates people do not budget correctly and most likely spend beyond their needs.”

By your own admission you are saying people are sending all their income and more. You have just proven my point that if we increase taxes on middle income taxpayers the added tax will reduce their spending or increasing the amount they borrow.

We do know that any added taxes on the wealthy would come from their surplus. The wealthy do not spend all their income. They have vast holdings and in fact 80% of the securities traded on the stock market are owned by 20 % of the population.

By your own admission you are saying people are sending all their income and more. You have just proven my point that if we increase taxes on middle income taxpayers the added tax will reduce their spending or increasing the amount they borrow.

Some people spend beyond their means col, everyone does that.  The poor, the middle class, and even the rich.  You imploy the entire middle class is strugling and is spending every penny they have, which is false.  Some do yes, but it's their own irresponsiblity and NOBODY should have to pay for their mistakes.

You don't take into consideration the cost of raising taxes on successful Americans col, you just follow the talking points that the "rich can afford it". 

“It indicates people do not budget correctly and most likely spend beyond their needs.” By your own admission you are saying people are sending all their income and more. You have just proven my point that if we increase taxes on middle income taxpayers the added tax will reduce their spending or increasing the amount they borrow. We do know that any added taxes on the wealthy would come from their surplus. The wealthy do not spend all their income. They have vast holdings and in fact 80% of the securities traded on the stock market are owned by 20 % of the population.

This whole thing is wrong. Here col...chew on this:

Income Gap Not Growing, Data Shows By Fred Lucas CNSNews.com Staff Writer January 05, 2007 (CNSNews.com) - The gap between rich and poor -- a rallying cry for some congressional Democrats wanting to increase mandates on business -- isn't really growing that much, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. From 2001 to 2005 -- the last year data was available -- there was virtually no statistical change in income inequality, based on a statistical test by the Census Bureau, requested and released by Congress's Joint Economic Committee.