Obama vs the Special Olympics

[rtwinger]

From Bush we have record low taxes. Shouldn't we raise them?

JM

That's like saying we've had a record low crime rate, shouldn't we raise it?

[Kuciwalker]

[Jon Miller]

I am saying that there is a problem where there is not enough money for the government. And we have record low taxes. Why don't we raise them? Then the government will have enough money to provide the services we would like it to.

It obviously doesn't have enough income to provide the services that either the Republicans or the Democrats would like it to provide, not regarding the current president (who looks to spend a lot), the past 3 Republican presidents have led during the time when the vast majority of our debt was introduced.

JM

[rtwinger]

I am saying that there is a problem where there is not enough money for the government. And we have record low taxes. Why don't we raise them? Then the government will have enough money to provide the services we would like it to.

It obviously doesn't have enough income to provide the services that either the Republicans or the Democrats would like it to provide, not regarding the current president (who looks to spend a lot), the past 3 Republican presidents have led during the time when the vast majority of our debt was introduced.

JM

JM, you obviously don't understand how markets and the tax system works.

First of all, the top 20% of Americans already pay 80% of the taxes. You're proposing to raise taxes to get more money for the government (why??), so why don't you tax people fairly? In fact, in Obama's budget, the tax cut is actually giving money to people who don't pay any taxes, aka a tax credit.

Second, if you raise taxes on the "wealthy" (arbitrarily set at 250k+) your tax revenue may not increase! Why? Taxes follow a U shaped curve, meaning that which ever point you are on the curve determines your tax revenue. There's an economic term for this that I don't remember.

Third, many people, like me, believe taxing is inherently wrong, because most of the tax revenue is spent on useless stuff like gang-tattoo removal. I don't support a large, wasteful, federal government, yet you're asking me to pay for it? By raising taxes on the "wealthy" you're taxing away people's incentive to become successful, which may lead to a brain drain.

The reason people believe taxing the "rich" is okay is because the mob is inherently, due to human nature, a jealous collection of angry peasants. Most people think it's okay to take money away from someone who has more money than you due to jealousy. The libs and the Democrats have spiced up this concept by calling it "redistribution" and "fairness" when in fact it's just good, old fashioned envy.

[DaShi]

Wiglaf is far better.

[Kuciwalker]

rtwinger

[Theben]

Actually, they should have kicked Don Imus' ass. Learn him some manners.

That would work also.

[Theben]

First of all, the top 20% of Americans already pay 80% of the taxes.

That would be b/c they own 90% of the wealth.

You're proposing to raise taxes to get more money for the government (why??), so why don't you tax people fairly? In fact, in Obama's budget, the tax cut is actually giving money to people who don't pay any taxes, aka a tax credit.

While partially true, it also cuts taxes for people who do pay taxes and really could use some financial assistance right now.

Second, if you raise taxes on the "wealthy" (arbitrarily set at 250k+) your tax revenue may not increase! Why? Taxes follow a U shaped curve, meaning that which ever point you are on the curve determines your tax revenue. There's an economic term for this that I don't remember.

Sounds like Limbaughian bollocks. Any negative results of taxation are long term, and depend more on its impact on economic growth.

[DinoDoc]

From Bush we have record low taxes. Shouldn't we raise them?

He's already envisioning increasing taxes by at least 900 billion over 10 years and that's before we get to his plan to tax donations to charities. How much more would you like taxes raised?

[rtwinger]

That would be b/c they own 90% of the wealth.

Your point? Should you take something away from someone simply because they have it? Are you some sort of commie/socialist? That's not what this country is all about.

While partially true, it also cuts taxes for people who do pay taxes and really could use some financial assistance right now.

What does that mean? Who decides who could "use" some assistance right now. Hell, I'd sure love some assistance, I mean, free money, right now.

Sounds like Limbaughian bollocks. Any negative results of taxation are long term, and depend more on its impact on economic growth.

It's called a Laffer curve, look it up. Though I don't expect an obvious liberal like you to understand/respect economics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sounds like Limbaughian bollocks. Any negative results of taxation are long term, and depend more on its impact on economic growth.

He is talking about the Laffer Curve; however, Tax rates during the Clinon administration seem to indicate that we are no where close to the downslope (that's the main problem... where on the Laffer Curve are we - no one can really pinpoint us).

I like Megan McCardle's idea that instead of tax tiers, there should be a sliding scale formula based on your income. Highest pay 40-45% (and that wouldn't be the $250k people, but more the $1bil folks) all the way down.

[The Mad Monk]

So you wanna cut alternative energy investment, so we can continue to rely on oil imports, the cost of which is only going to go up? Or do you want to walk away from education, and try to compete globally with an undereducate citizenry? Or you want to let healthcare continue to spiral out of control?

He has ambitious programs, yes, but he has them because for too long the basics have been ignored. Without fixing these looming disasters, our future will be bleak indeed.

If he really wants to get us away from foreign oil, he should tell the EPA to stop leaning on the coal mines so hard.

[rtwinger]

Obama and the Democrats are GREATLY benefited from having high oil prices. The more you restrict travel, the more you force people to concentrate, aka live in cities. People living in cities become more leftist due to natural forces in politics, vastly helping left wing politicians like Obama. This is why they twiddle their thumbs when oil prices go up and the Republicans go crazy trying to drill drill drill. Basic urban planning and political science stuff.

[Ramo]

He is talking about the Laffer Curve; however, Tax rates during the Clinon administration seem to indicate that we are no where close to the downslope (that's the main problem... where on the Laffer Curve are we - no one can really pinpoint us).

The main problem is that people believe ridiculous things like that some inviolate economic law dictates that the dependence the tax rate has on revenue is "U shaped" (or has a unique local maximum, for that matter).

[rtwinger]

He is talking about the Laffer Curve; however, Tax rates during the Clinon administration seem to indicate that we are no where close to the downslope (that's the main problem... where on the Laffer Curve are we - no one can really pinpoint us).

The main problem is that people believe ridiculous things like that some inviolate economic law dictates that the dependence the tax rate has on revenue is "U shaped" (or has a unique local maximum, for that matter).

Yeah, economic principles are ridiculous when they don't fit with your political beliefs, eh Ramon?