Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 They will increase taxes on the upper income Wait a second. You keep insisting you're not in favor of increasing taxes, you just want to "roll back".Ironic, on an article talking about "flipflops" of a Presidential candidate!

I have always favored returning to the tax rates in effect during the 1990's for then wealthy. It is people on this Blog site that insist that is a TAX INCREASE. I am just accepting your terminology!

lets see if you return to the 1990 tax rates. then people will be paying higher taxes than they are now. but that isn't a tax increase.

Nice spin, but let's look at the facts:

If you pay x dollars in taxes in 2007, and you pay x + 1 dollars, that is a tax increase.

It's spin to call it anything else.

I was just interested in your change in terminology. Ultimately, you know it's an increase, you just don't want to say it.

I was just interested in your change in terminology. Ultimately, you know it's an increase, you just don't want to say it.

I want to increase taxes on the wealthy for this reason-- The 2001 tax cuts were justified by the $5.6 Trillion Surplus that Bush said we had to return to the tax payers. If there had been such a Surplus that argument made sense. The problem is there was NO SURPLUS and the justification for the Bush Tax Cuts did not exist. Both Greenspan and O'Neil told Bush that his tax cuts should be TIED to the surplus. If it existed as Bush claimed fine. If it fell short the tax cuts would be phased out. Guess what - There was not ONE CENT of a Surplus and the tax cuts should NEVER have taken place. TIME TO FIX THAT MISTAKE! HOW do you answer that?

You KNOW how I answer that. Which is, incidentally, not how the GOP does. Cut spending!

You and I agree on one key point, Col, and I think it's fair to acknowledge that. We agree the government should not spend more than it earns. The difference is, you see the solution as raising taxes, I see it as cutting spending.

Democrats aren't going to "help" anyone move into a class.  People in this country decide their own incomes and how they live.  NOTHING democrats will do will help anyone with their lives.  Why do you insist that democrats can somehow change your income so much that?




It is a tax increase if you raise taxes, no matter how you spin it.  Your solution to everything is more money, higher taxes, and more social programs.  How ridiculous!

in fact gene. the welfare system was designed, by the so called for the poor party, the democrats to keep them in their place.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 HOW do you answer that? You KNOW how I answer that. Which is, incidentally, not how the GOP does. Cut spending!

That is not the question. The Bush Tax cuts were justified on a Surplus that did not exist. Thus, they should be reversed! Spending should also be looked at but as I have documented we can not solve the fiscal problems with just spending cuts! WE WILL NEED both SPENDING CUTS AND ADDED TAX REVENUE TO BOTH BALANCE THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND repay THE DEBT!

You and I agree on one key point, Col, and I think it's fair to acknowledge that. We agree the government should not spend more than it earns. The difference is, you see the solution as raising taxes, I see it as cutting spending.

When Congress sets the spending, even though not all agree, they MUST set tax Revenue to equal that approved spending! If Congress says that is what we believe should be spent, they have the responsibility to insure the tax revenue is equal to the approved spending. The GOP controlled Congress agreed on a spending level and then IGNORED how they would pay for it. The added cost of the Iraq war is a perfect example-- We have spent $800 Billion on that war and did not increase the tax revenue to pay for that added cost. WHY?

The question was, how do I answer that? The answer I give is spending cuts.

I really wish you would stop "shouting" at me when I concede a key point of yours. It's poor form.



I disagree. IF we need additional tax revenue AFTER spending cuts are implemented, then and ONLY then should we even THINK about raising taxes, and yes, I agree, IF that becomes necessary, the wealthy should pay more than the poor or middle class.

But I don't agree it would be necessary.

This is backwards. They should set spending to the tax revenue.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 That is not the question. The question was, how do I answer that? The answer I give is spending cuts.I really wish you would stop "shouting" at me when I concede a key point of yours. It's poor form. WE WILL NEED both SPENDING CUTS AND ADDED TAX REVENUE TO BOTH BALANCE THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND repay THE DEBT! I disagree. IF we need additional tax revenue AFTER spending cuts are implemented, then and ONLY then should we even THINK about raising taxes, and yes, I agree, IF that becomes necessary, the wealthy should pay more than the poor or middle class.But I don't agree it would be necessary.

Your position makes no sense. Congress HAS agreed on what they want to spend. Any cuts were included in their FINAL spending choices. You may think more cuts are needed but that is NOT what CONGRESS Decided and under our Republic THEY have the final say on spending. Thus, we need to increase taxes to equal what Congress has chosen to spend!

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 When Congress sets the spending, even though not all agree, they MUST set tax Revenue to equal that approved spending! This is backwards. They should set spending to the tax revenue.

NO that is NOT the way it works. For example, the added money we are spending on the Iraq war must be paid for. By your logic we must end the Iraq War TODAY because the tax revenue does not provide the money to continue the war!

But I don't agree with their spending priorities. Just because they agree doesn't mean it's necessary!

no you are wrong the president has the final say.


unless the congress can override his veto.