The National Debt Ceiling Was Raised 8 (!) Times Under George W. Bush

[LAGC]

Where were all these Republicans bitching and moaning the whole time while the debt sky-rocketed under their watch? Kind of like the TEA Party, they didn't start getting organized until a black man was in the White House, for some reason.

Hypocrites.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/375px-USDebt.png

The debt still isn't quite as bad (as a percentage of GDP) as it was during World War II, but its getting there quick. Of course, we had 90% marginal tax rates on the rich during the 1950's and strong unions with lots of good-paying jobs (and all the taxes along with them) to help pay it down. There's no way we are going to be able to cut spending alone -- we're going to have to raise taxes on the rich again if we are serious about getting this beast under control. High taxes on the rich never hurt the economy as it boomed during the 1950's.

[Justin]

I understand the hypocrisy about the Republican party, but I don't think the race of Obama has anything to do with the Tea Party. The Tea Party seems like it's full of a bunch of conservatives, who are just trying to revive conservative ideals.

[LAGC]

I understand the hypocrisy about the Republican party, but I don't think the race of Obama has anything to do with the Tea Party. The Tea Party seems like it's full of a bunch of conservatives, who are just trying to revive conservative ideals.

Don't get me wrong, its good we are starting to seriously raise alarm about the debt, I just wish it wasn't as partisan an affair. The Congressional Republicans did a real good job cutting spending when Clinton was in office, but ever since the so-called "War on Terror", government spending has sky-rocketed, when Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of congress.

That's why I'm kind of afraid of getting another Republican president (while Republicans still control congress), because then the Congressional Republicans will just go along with whatever mad spending schemes the executive comes up with, since he's "one of their own."

There's no reason Bush should have gotten away with half of his mad spending, just because he's a member of the same political party.

[Partisan1983]

FWIW....graphs and charts can be very misleading ;)

[stinker]

It's not about republican vs democrat, right vs left, yankees vs red sox, nader vs ron paul cage match, etc.
The descriptive word you're searching for is "statist" of which pappy and jr both are along with every single socialist.

You can raise taxes on the "rich" to 100% for every person/company in the country making over $75k and it would come close but it still would'nt cover the deficit, and you will only be able to do it once. Next year there won't be anyone left making over $75k.

Where's your balanced budget then?

[mriddick]

Of course if it's hypocrisy you want to point out maybe you should look at what obama said about raising the debt? It's also clearly the house that's against raising the debt, I do not believe anyone would say the house we have today is anything like the house we had at anytime between 2000 and 2008.



The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006





You can raise taxes on the "rich" to 100% for every person/company in the country making over $75k and it would come close but it still would'nt cover the deficit, and you will only be able to do it once. Next year there won't be anyone left making over $75k.

Where's your balanced budget then?

Of all the arguments to make against raising taxes that one is probably weakest. No one would suggest a 100% tax, that's killing the golden goose. However...if a person earns 42% of the wealth a nation should they not pay 42% of the tax of the nation? If a person makes 2% of the wealth should they pay 3% of the tax? In a way that's where we are at as well. That is the wealthiest 1% earn 42% of the wealth yet pay 38% of the nation's taxes, the lowest 40% earn 2% of the wealth and pay 3% of all taxes. You could make a case there is some room there to increase taxes and bring the system into balance.

However it needs to be pointed out a budget is not really dependent on what's coming in as much as what's going out. Our problem is simply we have too much going out and that's what really needs to be dealt with.

[Schuetzenman]

There is no problem with income to the Gov. They get 200 billion a month in taxes. The problem is they're spending 350+ billion each month. Cut the spending. The white house staff is 2X what it was under Bush or Clinton. I say they can start there by laying off half the sponges Obama has hired to polish his knob and spin is propaganda.

Bush added less than 2 trillion to the debt in 8 years in office. Obama has added 5 trillion in less than 3 years. It's easy math for anybody ... except convicts.

[Lysander]

Of all the arguments to make against raising taxes that one is probably weakest. No one would suggest a 100% tax, that's killing the golden goose. However...if a person earns 42% of the wealth a nation should they not pay 42% of the tax of the nation? If a person makes 2% of the wealth should they pay 3% of the tax? In a way that's where we are at as well. That is the wealthiest 1% earn 42% of the wealth yet pay 38% of the nation's taxes, the lowest 40% earn 2% of the wealth and pay 3% of all taxes. You could make a case there is some room there to increase taxes and bring the system into balance.

However it needs to be pointed out a budget is not really dependent on what's coming in as much as what's going out. Our problem is simply we have too much going out and that's what really needs to be dealt with.


Because raising taxes always increases revenues, right?

[Schuetzenman]

Because raising taxes always increases revenues, right?

The inverse is what usually happens. Higher taxes makes rich folks look for ways to shelter income from being taxed and stifles investment. I assume your question was rhetorical.

[mriddick]

I would still maintain it comes down to spending more then incoming taxes as that's what always determines if a budget works. I also think people are confusing the short term budget problem with the long term debt issue.


Because raising taxes always increases revenues, right?

No it's much more a question of fairness, if you earn 42% of the wealth I don't see a problem with paying 42% of the taxes. Note I'm not saying anyone should pay more then their share based on what they earn just what would be done under any number of suggested fair taxes you'll read about.

[T2K]

Why is a person who's more successful responsible for more than someone who's less successful? They each have the same services and are eligible for the same benefits (actually, the less successful person is eligible for MORE benefits). They each have access to the same infrastructure, national defense, etc.

EVERY DAMN ADULT needs to pay a fair amount of their income, say 15% (the number could vary). Every company as well. No exceptions, no reliefs, no exemptions, no deductions, etc. That way everyone feels it proportionately the same. We need to fix our income system (taxes) as much as we need to fix our outgoing (spending).

[Richard Simmons]

Of all the arguments to make against raising taxes that one is probably weakest. No one would suggest a 100% tax, that's killing the golden goose. However...if a person earns 42% of the wealth a nation should they not pay 42% of the tax of the nation? If a person makes 2% of the wealth should they pay 3% of the tax? In a way that's where we are at as well. That is the wealthiest 1% earn 42% of the wealth yet pay 38% of the nation's taxes, the lowest 40% earn 2% of the wealth and pay 3% of all taxes. You could make a case there is some room there to increase taxes and bring the system into balance.

However it needs to be pointed out a budget is not really dependent on what's coming in as much as what's going out. Our problem is simply we have too much going out and that's what really needs to be dealt with.

Why do you refer to it as "the wealth"? I see this all the time. It's "THEIR" wealth, it doesn't belong to the nation. How about this. Instead of taking more from people who earn more why not require, by law that people who earn less get a second job and pay more? Since it seems to be all about "fair" why not penalize those who don't do well like you penalize those that do? It's only "fair" isn't it?

[CigarGuy]

It would be interesting to see how SENATOR Obama voted on raising the debt limit under Bush? I'm sure he, knowing how old people wouldn't get Social Security checks,
voted to raise the limit each time? Right?

[Full Otto]

Of course if it's hypocrisy you want to point out maybe you should look at what obama said about raising the debt?

Let's not forget this part

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/geithner-warns-nation-hit-debt-limit-deadline-mid/

As a senator in 2006, Obama voted against raising the debt limit. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president now views that vote as a "mistake."

[CigarGuy]

Let's not forget this part

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/geithner-warns-nation-hit-debt-limit-deadline-mid/

As a senator in 2006, Obama voted against raising the debt limit. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president now views that vote as a "mistake."

I'm shocked! You mean there is hypocrisy on both sides?

[Cypher]

Hmmmm, whats the difference between the debt ceiling being raised under Bush vs. 0.... several trillion dollars.



The inverse is what usually happens. Higher taxes makes rich folks look for ways to shelter income from being taxed and stifles investment. I assume your question was rhetorical.

You mean if GM decided to double the cost of all their cars they wouldn't sell more cars and make more money? I just don't get it :losing-it:



Why do you refer to it as "the wealth"? I see this all the time. It's "THEIR" wealth, it doesn't belong to the nation. How about this. Instead of taking more from people who earn more why not require, by law that people who earn less get a second job and pay more? Since it seems to be all about "fair" why not penalize those who don't do well like you penalize those that do? It's only "fair" isn't it?

I agree with this completely.

If you make more money than average your income is taxed at a much higher percentage, how is raising that even more just for the simple fact you work hard fair? It's not fair in any way shape or form. I think some people also confuse taxing "wealth" with investments that have already been taxed years ago and are still taxed on gains.

Bill Gates has a large portion of wealth in income and investments but the amount he pays in taxes a year may seem small compared to his overall wealth, this is a very ignorant way to look at it.

[El Laton Caliente]

Of course if it's hypocrisy you want to point out maybe you should look at what obama said about raising the debt? It's also clearly the house that's against raising the debt, I do not believe anyone would say the house we have today is anything like the house we had at anytime between 2000 and 2008.

Of all the arguments to make against raising taxes that one is probably weakest. No one would suggest a 100% tax, that's killing the golden goose. However...if a person earns 42% of the wealth a nation should they not pay 42% of the tax of the nation? If a person makes 2% of the wealth should they pay 3% of the tax? In a way that's where we are at as well. That is the wealthiest 1% earn 42% of the wealth yet pay 38% of the nation's taxes, the lowest 40% earn 2% of the wealth and pay 3% of all taxes. You could make a case there is some room there to increase taxes and bring the system into balance.

However it needs to be pointed out a budget is not really dependent on what's coming in as much as what's going out. Our problem is simply we have too much going out and that's what really needs to be dealt with.

Mike, the people making the 42% are the people hiring the ones making 2% and those in between. You need the to have working capital to continue creating jobs. A poor person does not cover a payroll... Neither does a rich person taxed out of working capilal.

The Federal Government is spending 22% to 24% of GDP riight now. Any county that continues to spend much over 18% to 19% fails...

[mriddick]

Why do you refer to it as "the wealth"? I see this all the time. It's "THEIR" wealth, it doesn't belong to the nation. How about this. Instead of taking more from people who earn more why not require, by law that people who earn less get a second job and pay more? Since it seems to be all about "fair" why not penalize those who don't do well like you penalize those that do? It's only "fair" isn't it?

I didn't give a tax amount, while you can take what I said as the top 1% should pay more, it could very easily be done by removing tax on the lower brackets there by increasing the % of total taxes the top would end covering. Really what I said could be taken any way you want as far as taking or remving taxes. Maybe I should try and explain it in more simple terms. How about this; if 4 guys sit down and eat a pie the guy who eats half it should pay for half, the guy who eats a quarter of it pays for a quarter of the pie and the last 2 who might only eat an 1/8th of the pie should pay 1/8 each.

[Cypher]

I didn't give a tax amount, while you can take what I said as the top 1% should pay more, it could very easily be done by removing tax on the lower brackets there by increasing the % of total taxes the top would end covering. Really what I said could be taken any way you want as far as taking or remving taxes. Maybe I should try and explain it in more simple terms. How about this; if 4 guys sit down and eat a pie the guy who eats half it should pay for half, the guy who eats a quarter of it pays for a quarter of the pie and the last 2 who might only eat an 1/8th of the pie should pay 1/8 each.

But in reality the guy that eats half pays for most of the pie..... What your saying sounds like he needs to pay for the whole pie.

[Richard Simmons]

I didn't give a tax amount, while you can take what I said as the top 1% should pay more, it could very easily be done by removing tax on the lower brackets there by increasing the % of total taxes the top would end covering. Really what I said could be taken any way you want as far as taking or remving taxes. Maybe I should try and explain it in more simple terms. How about this; if 4 guys sit down and eat a pie the guy who eats half it should pay for half, the guy who eats a quarter of it pays for a quarter of the pie and the last 2 who might only eat an 1/8th of the pie should pay 1/8 each.

What "pie" are you talking about and what if they all eat the same amount? Is the guy who makes $1,000,000 getting more protection from our Armed Forces that the guy who makes $1,000? Is the Interstate smoother under the tires of the rich guys car than under everyone else's? Does the rich guy get his mail a day earlier than the guy down the street? If you want to try and explain things "in more simple terms" that's up to you but the problem is with your point and not how you're trying to make it.

[mriddick]

But in reality the guy that eats half pays for most of the pie..... What your saying sounds like he needs to pay for the whole pie.

No I'm not, I'm saying if you get half the pie you pay for half the pie.

If you work with a guy and he makes twice what you do is there a complaint if he pays twice the tax you do? Yeah I know there's aways a compliant by someone but seriously of all the ways to define fairness how unfair is it to say we all pay the same percentage based on the amount we earn? It's really not like the tax brackets we have now are that far off (42% of wealth pays 38% of tax) but I do see some room in there if I'm honest.


What "pie" are you talking about and what if they all eat the same amount? Is the guy who makes $1,000,000 getting more protection from our Armed Forces that the guy who makes $1,000? Is the Interstate smoother under the tires of the rich guys car than under everyone else's? Does the rich guy get his mail a day earlier than the guy down the street? If you want to try and explain things "in more simple terms" that's up to you but the problem is with your point and not how you're trying to make it.

There are many ways to define fairness, it would depend on what you base it on. Are you saying we should all pay the same tax regardless of what we earn? I guess you could say the budget should be divided into 330,000,000 pieces and everyone pays the same (which BTW would be almost 10 grand/person). Although I'm not sure how many families of 4 are going to come up with 40 grand but good luck selling your idea (simple or not)...

Still though the main problem with any budget is what goes out not what comes in. We all have heard of millionairs regularly filing for bankruptcy while many making way less never do. IMO we need an honest discussion of what we want to take form the government and then another on how we are going to pay for it. Since I have yet to meet a person really willing to give up much of anything I don't hold much hope in cuts and if that's the case then we need to be honest and pay for what we are actually going to/presently take in our lifetimes.

[Kadmos]

Why is a person who's more successful responsible for more than someone who's less successful? They each have the same services and are eligible for the same benefits (actually, the less successful person is eligible for MORE benefits). They each have access to the same infrastructure, national defense, etc.

EVERY DAMN ADULT needs to pay a fair amount of their income, say 15% (the number could vary). Every company as well. No exceptions, no reliefs, no exemptions, no deductions, etc. That way everyone feels it proportionately the same. We need to fix our income system (taxes) as much as we need to fix our outgoing (spending).

How on earth does that make it feel proportionally the same?

Under the current system, The guy who pays $40,000 into taxes might not get a dream vacation that year and have to settle for a slightly cheaper vacation.

The guy who pays $4,000 might not be able to pay the mortgage or feed his kids.

[mriddick]

How on earth does that make it feel proportionally the same?

Under the current system, The guy who pays $40,000 into taxes might not get a dream vacation that year and have to settle for a slightly cheaper vacation.

The guy who pays $4,000 might not be able to pay the mortgage or feed his kids.
If a guy is making $4000/yr I'd say he's on vacation most of the year as it is. He surely isn't working.

[Kadmos]

If a guy is making $4000/yr I'd say he's on vacation most of the year as it is. He surely isn't working.

Pays $4,000 in taxes, not makes 4k a year.

So an income of maybe $31,000 married filing jointly

[Cypher]

No I'm not, I'm saying if you get half the pie you pay for half the pie.

If you work with a guy and he makes twice what you do is there a complaint if he pays twice the tax you do? Yeah I know there's aways a compliant by someone but seriously of all the ways to define fairness how unfair is it to say we all pay the same percentage based on the amount we earn? It's really not like the tax brackets we have now are that far off (42% of wealth pays 38% of tax) but I do see some room in there if I'm honest.

I guess it doesn't make sense to me because if you make more money you pay a higher percentage and therefore pay much more money in taxes than someone that makes less money. Even if rich people paid the same percentage they would be paying more money into the system and the same portion of their income is being taxed as anyone else, just as an example. Why should 10% of Joe's income be taxed while 50% of Jed's income is taxed? How much they make makes no difference. And I'm not saying Joe needs to pay 50% tax on his income I'm saying Jed should not have to pay anywhere near 50%.

[Cypher]

How on earth does that make it feel proportionally the same?

Under the current system, The guy who pays $40,000 into taxes might not get a dream vacation that year and have to settle for a slightly cheaper vacation.

The guy who pays $4,000 might not be able to pay the mortgage or feed his kids.

That's the reward for working hard. That doesn't make it fair to tax at such higher %'s.

[Kadmos]

That's the reward for working hard. That doesn't make it fair to tax at such higher %'s.

Or the reward for being born into cash and doing nothing but hookers and cocaine.

BTW I'm not saying it's fair, my point was that it most certainly does not "feel proportionally the same". One guy buying a lesser Bordeaux and the other eating Ramen noodles.

The system we have now was meant to make it "feel" closer to proportionally the same. And back in the days of brackets going up to 95% it came damn close to being proportionally the same, really dragging the rich down and killing jobs.

People have come to this mythical conclusion that the more you lower taxes on the rich the more money the government takes in. This is only true up to a point. There is a balance point in there somewhere ....which probably fluctuates with the "mood" of the economy...the high rollers investing in commodities really aren't creating jobs or adding to the tax income like say starting a factory does.

While a flat tax has some advantages, it certainly does not make it "feel proportionally the same". It feels like the poor get harder hit and the rich get a nice break

[Warthogg]

Let's not forget this part

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/geithner-warns-nation-hit-debt-limit-deadline-mid/

As a senator in 2006, Obama voted against raising the debt limit. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president now views that vote as a "mistake."


Obama voted


I'm impressed. Would have thought Barry would have either been unavailable or voted 'PRESENT' as he did for much of his career as a state senator and US senator.


Wart

[Warthogg]

...the high rollers investing in commodities really aren't creating jobs or adding to the tax income like say starting a factory does.



Not exactly right.


Wart

[Lysander]

I would still maintain it comes down to spending more then incoming taxes as that's what always determines if a budget works. I also think people are confusing the short term budget problem with the long term debt issue.



No it's much more a question of fairness, if you earn 42% of the wealth I don't see a problem with paying 42% of the taxes. Note I'm not saying anyone should pay more then their share based on what they earn just what would be done under any number of suggested fair taxes you'll read about.

I don't really care about an intangible like "fair", I care about results. Raising taxes would have no benefit at all.

Second, can we leave out the class warfare? If you really want to break down the numbers as to who pays what, you will lose this one.

Asking anyone to pay more in taxes without meaningful changes being made to the budget would be stupid, quite frankly. If your kid went out, racked up $20k in credit card debt and then coming home, putting a gun to your head, and telling you to pay it off. Robbery is robbery, even when you try to cloak it in terms of fairness and patriotism.

[Cypher]

Or the reward for being born into cash and doing nothing but hookers and cocaine.

BTW I'm not saying it's fair, my point was that it most certainly does not "feel proportionally the same". One guy buying a lesser Bordeaux and the other eating Ramen noodles.

The system we have now was meant to make it "feel" closer to proportionally the same. And back in the days of brackets going up to 95% it came damn close to being proportionally the same, really dragging the rich down and killing jobs.

People have come to this mythical conclusion that the more you lower taxes on the rich the more money the government takes in. This is only true up to a point. There is a balance point in there somewhere ....which probably fluctuates with the "mood" of the economy...the high rollers investing in commodities really aren't creating jobs or adding to the tax income like say starting a factory does.

While a flat tax has some advantages, it certainly does not make it "feel proportionally the same". It feels like the poor get harder hit and the rich get a nice break

As we all know, 99% of people that make over $250,000 a year in income were born into it, how could I forget :martinismiley:

[Kadmos]

As we all know, 99% of people that make over $250,000 a year in income were born into it, how could I forget :martinismiley:

Not what I'm saying.

But equating rich with "good" or "hard working" is as ridiculous as equating poor (or lower working class) with "bad" and "lazy".

Nothing inherently noble about either.

[Kadmos]

Not exactly right.


Wart

Care to expound on that, or simply making a statement?

[Cypher]

Not what I'm saying.

But equating rich with "good" or "hard working" is as ridiculous as equating poor (or lower working class) with "bad" and "lazy".

Nothing inherently noble about either.

I didn't say poor = bad

There are plenty of poor people I know that are great people, I grew up poor a good portion of my life as a matter of fact, my family never abused the welfare system even though it could have helped, always worked hard to make ends meet and survive.

There's no denying the majority of wealthy people have worked hard/smart and earned it though. I don't know about you guys but I don't personally know a single rich person that didn't go through hell to become successful financially, I know one guy that inherited a small business and had a good start and he is probably one of the hardest working people I know and turned it into a multimulti million dollar business. Statistically the Paris Hilton types are few.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

You get no argument from most of us. Bush was a big spender along with the R congress.... probably part of the reason they got their asses handed to them.

Still you cannot dispute Obama doubled down on it AND made sure most of the spending went to his chronies...

It's past the point of the blame game. It's time to get the financial house in order. NO MORE DEBT. To be honest I believe with all the unfunded mandates we're beyond redemption. Bankruptcy and/or european style taxation/oppression is inevitable.

[imanaknut]

One thing Bush did that democrats said he wouldn't, not only did he not cut social security as they said he would when they tried to lie their way into the White House, Bush increased the check to the elderly each year with cost of living increases. Contrast that to obama-messiah who blocked cost of living increases each of his first two years at a time when the gasoline and food prices were skyrocketing, but he is now threatening to not send them the checks next month

One other thing people forget about why the cost of government went up under Bush2, ten years ago this date there were more buildings standing in New York, and there were 3000 innocent people still alive who didn't know that they only had two months left in their lives. How can we "Remember the Alamo" when we can't even remember why things are the way they are in today's world! Sorry but it makes me sick to see how soon people forget the events of September 11, 2001!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kadmos]

I didn't say poor = bad

There are plenty of poor people I know that are great people, I grew up poor a good portion of my life as a matter of fact, my family never abused the welfare system even though it could have helped, always worked hard to make ends meet and survive.

There's no denying the majority of wealthy people have worked hard/smart and earned it though. I don't know about you guys but I don't personally know a single rich person that didn't go through hell to become successful financially, I know one guy that inherited a small business and had a good start and he is probably one of the hardest working people I know and turned it into a multimulti million dollar business. Statistically the Paris Hilton types are few.

I know you didn't say that, my point was that there isn't always a correlation between hard work and finical success.

My dad is a MD, while we lived modestly considering his wage, I did attend private schools, most of the kids drove late model (or new) BMW, Mustangs, Porsche's, there were even some driving the high end Italian sports cars. (I drove a 10 year old Toyota pickup 2wd cheapo that was a hand me down from my dad to my brother to me)

While a lot did well later in life, quite a large number did nothing but live off the family money, not saying they are all hookers and drugs, a lot are country clubs and charity fundraisers. Not even saying they are lazy or bad, but the reason a lot of people have big bucks has nothing to do with work.

It's great when taxes are low, but rather than losing the parks, losing medicare, losing toxic waste cleanup, etc,etc I think most people making say 200K a year would rather see the bracket go from 28% to 30%

Realistically it's not going to kill the economy, and while it will "hurt" it's the more sensible choice than to shut down the government.

Of course if we are going to go that way then there need to be spending cuts as well, and the measure should be temporary.

Most of the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner on this by taking pledges not to raise taxes, which frankly, was stupid.

[Cypher]

I know you didn't say that, my point was that there isn't always a correlation between hard work and finical success.

My dad is a MD, while we lived modestly considering his wage, I did attend private schools, most of the kids drove late model (or new) BMW, Mustangs, Porsche's, there were even some driving the high end Italian sports cars. (I drove a 10 year old Toyota pickup 2wd cheapo that was a hand me down from my dad to my brother to me)

While a lot did well later in life, quite a large number did nothing but live off the family money, not saying they are all hookers and drugs, a lot are country clubs and charity fundraisers. Not even saying they are lazy or bad, but the reason a lot of people have big bucks has nothing to do with work.

It's great when taxes are low, but rather than losing the parks, losing medicare, losing toxic waste cleanup, etc,etc I think most people making say 200K a year would rather see the bracket go from 28% to 30%

Realistically it's not going to kill the economy, and while it will "hurt" it's the more sensible choice than to shut down the government.

Of course if we are going to go that way then there need to be spending cuts as well, and the measure should be temporary.

Most of the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner on this by taking pledges not to raise taxes, which frankly, was stupid.

I don't recall the numbers off the top of my head but the percentage of rich people born into wealth is substantially lower than those that earned it. There is so much waste in the government raising taxes even more than it already is is the last thing they need to do.

[Kadmos]

I don't recall the numbers off the top of my head but the percentage of rich people born into wealth is substantially lower than those that earned it. There is so much waste in the government raising taxes even more than it already is is the last thing they need to do.

2nd to last, shutting down the government is the last

I agree with you on the other stuff