Rich agree with raising their taxes to pay down deficit

[TheCouga]

China is increasing their military presence in new ships and missles. Democrats like to downsize our forces and make horrible decisions when in conflict (Kennedy/Johnson/Carter). Their economic wealth already controls our credit, so don't overlook it. China is a potential if not serious threat.

They're increasing, but they still don't hold a candle to us, economically or militarily.

The money we owe them is overblown. It's really not that much in the grand scheme of things. It's actually good in a way, because if the value of our dollar plummets, our debt to China becomes more and more worthless -- so China has a vested interest in keeping the strength of our dollar strong.

Furthermore, they have virtually no oil under their control. Their economy depends on cheap oil just like ours does, but they don't have any. Their future economic growth is going to be stifled by the availability of cheap oil going down.

[hueytaxi]

They're increasing, but they still don't hold a candle to us, economically or militarily.

The money we owe them is overblown. It's really not that much in the grand scheme of things. It's actually good in a way, because if the value of our dollar plummets, our debt to China becomes more and more worthless -- so China has a vested interest in keeping the strength of our dollar strong.

Furthermore, they have virtually no oil under their control. Their economy depends on cheap oil just like ours does, but they don't have any. Their future economic growth is going to be stifled by the availability of cheap oil going down.

That without a doubt is one of the strangest opinions I have ever encountered. I do see the truth behind it. But then, we often don't understand each other on a message board. It would be difficult for many here to believe we can carry on a fun conversation in person.

[MrDeeds]

Last time Democrats were in charge, the budget was balanced. Give them a few more years, and we'll see it again.

The last time the budget was balanced it was with a Republican controlled house. But don't let that get in the way.

[TheCouga]

The last time the budget was balanced it was with a Republican controlled house. But don't let that get in the way.

Actually, the Democrats controlled the House in 93 and 94, when the balanced budgets were passed, and when PAYGO was passed a few years before that.

Nice try, though.

[shabba4detroit]

Wow!!!

I haven't heard the "If you love it so much, why don't you marry it" argument in a long time.

Well played kids.

Wow!!

If that's what you heard, get the wax out of your ears. Because that wasn't even close to what was said.

Guy says he wants to pay more in taxes. Ain't nothing stoppin' him. Tax bill is a minimum, not a maximum. I won't hold my breath to see him put his money where his mouth is. In other words, his mouth wrote a check that his accountant won't match.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

Wow!!

If that's what you heard, get the wax out of your ears. Because that wasn't even close to what was said.

Guy says he wants to pay more in taxes. Ain't nothing stoppin' him. Tax bill is a minimum, not a maximum. I won't hold my breath to see him put his money where his mouth is. In other words, his mouth wrote a check that his accountant won't match.

I assume you're saying this tongue in cheek, but I agree with Vegas, this argument is absurd and one a child would make.

The primary goal for the individuals in question isn't to pay more taxes, as you seem to argue, it's to significantly reduce the debt. Relying on people to volunteer their income to accomplish this is absurd.

[shabba4detroit]

I assume you're saying this tongue in cheek, but I agree with Vegas, this argument is absurd and one a child would make.

The primary goal for the individuals in question isn't to pay more taxes, as you seem to argue, it's to significantly reduce the debt. Relying on people to volunteer their income to accomplish this is absurd.

The headline of the story was "'Tax me more' says wealthy entrepreneur." If he wants to pay more in taxes, he does not need to wait for a mandate from Congress to do so. Both you and Vegas are functionally children if you believe that argument is childish. Nobody has suggested that we should rely upon people to volunteer their income ... but if you say you want to pay more, then do it. The more that gets paid voluntarily, the less that needs to be paid through confiscation.

What's childish is the title of this thread -- equating one wealthy person in favor of paying higher taxes, to the notion that all rich people agree that they need to be taxed more. It doesn't even demonstrate that two rich people agree that they need to be taxed more.

[shabba4detroit]

The government also has the right to collect whatever taxes it choses to collect to pay for maintaining this country, though, given that they are answerable to the voters.

Did you learn that in school?

[shabba4detroit]

Because it's a democracy, and the majority can vote in whatever rules they want.

How about this? Did you learn this in school?

[shabba4detroit]

The money we owe them is overblown. It's really not that much in the grand scheme of things. It's actually good in a way, because if the value of our dollar plummets, our debt to China becomes more and more worthless -- so China has a vested interest in keeping the strength of our dollar strong.

Or this? In school?

[DetroitCity313]

How about this? Did you learn this in school?

It is true though isn't it? The majority rules. It can be overturned eventually, but if you have enough votes you can "vote in whatever rules".

[shabba4detroit]

It is true though isn't it? The majority rules. It can be overturned eventually, but if you have enough votes you can "vote in whatever rules".

Actually, no. We live in a representative republic, with sufficient checks and balances to protect against the, forgive me, childish notion that the majority rules. That should be evident by the relative gridlock with both houses of Congress and the presidency controlled by the Democrats.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

The headline of the story was "'Tax me more' says wealthy entrepreneur."

My bad, I didn't realize you only bothered to read and/or base your argument on the headline and not the entire article. Congratulations, all you subsequent generalizations based on that ~1% of the information provided are dead on and your reasoning is infallible.

[TheCouga]

Actually, no. We live in a representative republic, with sufficient checks and balances to protect against the, forgive me, childish notion that the majority rules. That should be evident by the relative gridlock with both houses of Congress and the presidency controlled by the Democrats.

The majority indirectly rules, except in some states, which can pass laws by ballot initiative.

And, despite your fantasies, it's not "the majority" versus the oppressed "minority" here. Here, the minority (the super rich) are clearly in favor of their taxes being raised. No one's oppressing them. They want to do this.

Get off your "the rich are being persecuted" high horse.

[TheCouga]

Or this? In school?

Nope. This is just common sense. Sorry if that's a foreign concept to you.

[TheCouga]

The headline of the story was "'Tax me more' says wealthy entrepreneur." If he wants to pay more in taxes, he does not need to wait for a mandate from Congress to do so. Both you and Vegas are functionally children if you believe that argument is childish. Nobody has suggested that we should rely upon people to volunteer their income ... but if you say you want to pay more, then do it. The more that gets paid voluntarily, the less that needs to be paid through confiscation.

What's childish is the title of this thread -- equating one wealthy person in favor of paying higher taxes, to the notion that all rich people agree that they need to be taxed more. It doesn't even demonstrate that two rich people agree that they need to be taxed more.

Shabba, it's obvious that just a few generous people are not going to get the job done, but if every rich person's taxes were raised, you could take a much more significant step.

Somehow, through all your victimization of the rich, that concept is lost on you.

[RedRamage]

Because it's a democracy, and the majority can vote in whatever rules they want. Who cares why they won't do it?

Actually it's a republic specifically so the majority CAN'T rule however they want.

[TheCouga]

Actually it's a republic specifically so the majority CAN'T rule however they want.

But they pretty much can, although indirectly. You've seen how polling affects voting patterns with our elected officials, haven't you?

Anyway, this is all a red herring, because the real issue at hand here is that no one group is being oppressed. It's the minority (the super rich) AND the majority that want taxes raised for the rich.

[RedRamage]

But they pretty much can, although indirectly. You've seen how polling affects voting patterns with our elected officials, haven't you?

Perhaps... yes. But the government was designed to try to prevent this as much as possible, and ideally SHOULD prevent this as much as possible. Look, if you want to go the route of majority rules, then things like gay marriage should be banned, no? I think the majority still feels like they don't want this, and therefore it shouldn't be allowed. I disagree with that myself. If you want to say that majority rules, well then I think the majority still considers themselves mostly Christian. If the majority wanted to outlaw work on Sunday except in emergency situations, should it be mandated so?

Anyway, this is all a red herring, because the real issue at hand here is that no one group is being oppressed. It's the minority (the super rich) --

Actually a minority of a them

AND the majority that want taxes raised for the rich.

I wish I could find the original poll. I'd like to hear how the question was asked.

[apabruce]

They could raise the top marginal rate to 50%, and I bet both the Republicans and Democrats would find a way to increase the debt even more.

The top tax rate was much higher than 50% from the 1930s to the 1987 tax reform, where loopholes were closed and we had two tax rates, 15% and 28% with capital gains taxed at the same rate as earned income. That "simplification" lasted about 3 years before it started to fall apart.

Nobody gets elected for cutting spending. Those that advocate cutting taxes are usually unwilling to say where they are going to make the offsetting cut in spending, which is why the deficit grows under both parties.

[TheCouga]

Look, if you want to go the route of majority rules, then things like gay marriage should be banned, no? I think the majority still feels like they don't want this, and therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

So isn't the fact that it's still banned most places evidence of the majority ruling? It's denying people their constitutional rights, but it's still banned.

Anyway, the polling on gay marriage is narrowing. It's almost to the point where it's 50/50. And it has significant support among the younger generations, including young republicans.

Actually a minority of a them

No. Did you read the article? Two-thirds of people who earn $250K or more support raising their taxes. So both the minority and the majority support this proposition.

[sinister porpoise]

The headline of the story was "'Tax me more' says wealthy entrepreneur." If he wants to pay more in taxes, he does not need to wait for a mandate from Congress to do so.

If he wants to be taxed more he needs a controlling body to do the taxing. Legalism fail..

[Biff Mayhem]

Bush is smarter than I gave him credit for. He comes in, lowers taxes and everyone loves it. He made it last only 10 years because he knew it wasn't sustainable and in 10 years it would be someone elses problem. In that 10 year span, the wealthiest 2% got wealthier, and job creation went down.

You should probably provide some numbers to support these statements.

[RedRamage]

So isn't the fact that it's still banned most places evidence of the majority ruling? It's denying people their constitutional rights, but it's still banned.

I don't think that it's a constitutional right, but I was referring to making it a constitutional amendment banning it.

No. Did you read the article? Two-thirds of people who earn $250K or more support raising their taxes. So both the minority and the majority support this proposition.

I did read the article, and that's why I really wanted to find the poll to see what the exact question was.

[Biff Mayhem]

It's denying people their constitutional rights, but it's still banned.

Incorrect on two counts my friend. There is no constitutional right to marriage. And gay people can get married.

[Oblong]

No. Did you read the article? Two-thirds of people who earn $250K or more support raising their taxes. So both the minority and the majority support this proposition.

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™

So are you in favor of repealing the health care law?
Because, like you say, majority rules, and here we see that 57% of likely voters want it repealed. So Obama and Nancy and Harry better get to it. After all majority rules, right?

[shabba4detroit]

Nope. This is just common sense. Sorry if that's a foreign concept to you.

Your version of "common sense" would be a foreign concept to most well educated people.

[shabba4detroit]

If he wants to be taxed more he needs a controlling body to do the taxing. Legalism fail..

Wrong again, counselor. There is no prohibition against paying more taxes than what you owe. Just open your checkbook and pay any extra amount you want. The government will take it. Trolling fail.

[shabba4detroit]

Shabba, it's obvious that just a few generous people are not going to get the job done, but if every rich person's taxes were raised, you could take a much more significant step.

Somehow, through all your victimization of the rich, that concept is lost on you.

Couga, it's obvious that rich people already pay most of the taxes, and that spending cuts are the necessary step.

Somehow, through all your villification of the rich, that concept is lost on you.

[shabba4detroit]

My bad, I didn't realize you only bothered to read and/or base your argument on the headline and not the entire article. Congratulations, all you subsequent generalizations based on that ~1% of the information provided are dead on and your reasoning is infallible.

Wow. Do you always go so far out of your way to miss a point?

[TheCouga]

Incorrect on two counts my friend. There is no constitutional right to marriage. And gay people can get married.

Every right guaranteed by the Constitution isn't spelled out specifically by it.

Gay people can get married in some sense, but our government doesn't recognize it as a right. Which is inconsistent with the Constitution -- for the sole purpose that politicians and judges are chicken***** when it comes to upholding the Constitution when it is unpopular with the people.

Equality is a fundamental principle in our Constitution; thus gay people should be treated as equals to straight people if they want to get married.

[TheCouga]

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™

So are you in favor of repealing the health care law?
Because, like you say, majority rules, and here we see that 57% of likely voters want it repealed. So Obama and Nancy and Harry better get to it. After all majority rules, right?

LOL @ Rasmussen's version of "likely voters." They have been way off about everything since 2008. Support for the repeal of Obamacare is polling around 20-30% right now. I'd be confident that if we put it to a vote right now as a ballot initiative, Obamacare would prevail.

[TheCouga]

Your version of "common sense" would be a foreign concept to most well educated people.

Sorry you don't understand economics. Not my fault.

[Biff Mayhem]

Gay people can get married in some sense

They can get married in the same sense that straight people can. Not just some sense, but in the exact same sense as straight people.

Equality is a fundamental principle in our Constitution; thus gay people should be treated as equals to straight people if they want to get married.

And they are. They can marry just like any other straight person. You said so in the first part of your post that I quoted above.

No constitutional rights are being violated.

[TheCouga]

They can get married in the same sense that straight people can. Not just some sense, but in the exact same sense as straight people.

And they are. They can marry just like any other straight person. You said so in the first part of your post that I quoted above.

No constitutional rights are being violated.

The only way someone could possibly agree with you is if they were purposefully thinking densely.

[Biff Mayhem]

The only way someone could possibly agree with you is if they were purposefully thinking densely.

Can a gay person go to their municipalities offices, request a marriage license, pay the marriage tax, and then go get married?

The answer is invariably "yes". They can get married. They can get married the exact same way straight people can get married. How is this incomprehensible?

[hueytaxi]

ObamaCare Propagandist Funded The AP’s “Unbiased” Healthcare Poll

ObamaCare Propagandist Funded The AP’s “Unbiased” Healthcare Poll

New CNN Poll: 59% Oppose Obamacare

New CNN Poll: 59% Oppose Obamacare | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Quite a few dated polls also show the same thing, but due to age, I did not include them.

[TheCouga]

ObamaCare Propagandist Funded The AP’s “Unbiased” Healthcare Poll

New CNN Poll: 59% Oppose Obamacare | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Quite a few dated polls also show the same thing, but due to age, I did not include them.

The second poll you cited was from March, which was 6 months ago, and like we've seen before, many people oppose "Obamacare" because they think it didn't go far enough. So this is old news as well, and tells me nothing new or special.

As for your first link, the blog "debunking" the AP poll has less credibility than anything else on here. If they want to cite something fishy about the poll itself, they should go ahead and do so, rather than throw out blind, partisan accusations

[TheCouga]

Can a gay person go to their municipalities offices, request a marriage license, pay the marriage tax, and then go get married?

The answer is invariably "yes". They can get married. They can get married the exact same way straight people can get married. How is this incomprehensible?

It's incomprehensible that you are that dense.

[holygoat]

Bush is smarter than I gave him credit for. He comes in, lowers taxes and everyone loves it. He made it last only 10 years because he knew it wasn't sustainable and in 10 years it would be someone elses problem. In that 10 year span, the wealthiest 2% got wealthier, and job creation went down.

Wrong. Bush accepted the sunset clause as a compromise in order to get enough Dems to go along the cuts.

Tax cuts are not the problem, government over-spending is.