I'd be all for a balanced budget amendment.  But people need to stop treating tax cuts like crack/cocaine.  Just because people get one doesn't mean the heavens part and the suns starts to shine down.  Look at how much good the Bush tax cuts did.  It frustrates me how so many Republicans act like cutting every tax in sight will solve the nation's problems.  Its just not true.

Supply side economics is BS as it has been practiced by Reagan and Bush II, especially when you couple it with ridiculous amounts of spending like the Bush Administration did.  Any gains you get from your supply side policies are offset by the ballooning of the national debt, so you really accomplish nothing except giving rich people more money while slitting the country's wrists with the national debt.

I wish that was true. The problem is when Democrats are in office, they tend to start up social programs that can never be reverted. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, all "The Great Society" stuff.

The things Obama puts into place, will be in place until this country devolves. No one who "really talks nice" is going to enter office and reverse it.

When Republicans fuck up, they are reversible. When Democrats fuck up, we have there mistakes for life.

I actually mostly agree that income from labor is about fair. It's the income off investments that should be raised, except from retirement accounts and school savings accounts.

Sorry, I've explained why a bunch of times. But I'm going to do it again. The two largest expenses in the U.S. budget are SS and the military. The rich benefit more off of the military than the poor. Yes both benefit from both, but the rich substantially benefit more off of the military.

Also, I disagree with Obama on removing the S.S. cap, I do not think that it is fair and is just a way to sneak an unfair tax on to the rich. If they are going to raise their taxes, they need to have the balls to do it in an open manner, so the voters can clearly understand the implications. (In other words a gut check for the voters, because most Americans rich and poor do not want the graduated system to get out of hand. Americans have this thing for fairness.)

How do the rich benfit more from the military again?  I never quite followed that.

Is it just.... "the rich have more to lose!" or something?

Unfortunately we are going to have to do something (and probably a lot of things) to keep SS solvent.  These include:

1. Raising the cap on rich people's income that can be taxed.

2. Raising the age people can collect at.

3. Dropping benefits.

4. Dropping benefits for some sections of society (say 20% or higher in the income bracket)

5. Raising payroll taxes in general.

Fortunately, after we get past the baby boomer generation things might fix themselves.  But people are going to be living a lot longer period, but at least they will be retiring later too. 

If we had universal healthcare then we could probably drop SS benefits some because they wouldn't have to worry about paying for healthcare as much.

I... don't understand why SS exists in the first place.

Raising the cap will not solve any "crisis" social security is experiencing. The program is awash in cash and brings in plenty of money. The problem is that social security subsidizes the budget by purchasing government bonds. If we increase the money going into social security, it is simply going to lead to more deficit spending. The best way to solve any social security "crisis" is to cut spending now!!! That, however, will never happen. I suppose if the government does not repay the bonds...then this would make sense, but cutting the deficits is the best course of action.

OMG cola the taxes goes to pay for things that we need to protect ourselves from future disasters and recoup some loss from this ridiculous debt we have.

Giving everyone under 250k a tax break helps the economy because those people are going to be buying things like food, pay for rent, mortgage payments, and the like. That not only helps the mortgage crisis but puts money into the pockets of people that live in the US.
Landlords, coop farmers, kmart (which employs an amazing amount of people), house workers like painters and plumbers, and the list goes on.
Now, of course rich people may do the same, however they might also shop gucci instead of kmart, whole foods, instead of stopandshop, and other foriegn operated companies. Also, they will still buy regardless because they have the money to do so.
Less money for the poor, well guess whose incomes take the dive, those same landlords, plumbers, and the like.

But like I said, this is more about being able to fund new energy sources, schooling (i said before, the smarter the population, the better the economy does), and various programs that need to be in place.



Prove to me now, how lower taxes for the rich improves anything. Since your snide remarks seems to be an attempt to show that you know what you are talking about.
and don't try to use data that isn't provable. Like one-time occurances, cuz i'm expecting a "didn't work in europe" argument, which has nothing in common with this scenario.

When you lower taxes on the rich, you stimulate the economy, and when it grows, the net income of the government goes up. Interestingly, when you lower taxes on the rich, they end up paying more of the taxes. Here is a fact:

The Tax Foundation states that the tax cuts signed by U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, contrary to popular belief, actually made the U.S. tax code more progressive, not less. In 1980, before Reagan's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 19.05% of all federal income taxes, and by 1988, after Reagan's tax cuts, their share had increased to 27.58%. Likewise, in 2001, before Bush's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 33.89% of all federal income taxes, and by 2006, after Bush's tax cuts, their share had increased to 39.89%. ^[16]

the state of affairs right now is a lot different than your data would suggest mafoo.

you are taking things from out of context and trying to apply them here.
OK, lowering taxes for the rich equals in rich paying more taxes, do we agree?
Now to help illustrate what i'm talking about: Do you also agree that if the rich paid 0% taxes then they would not be paying taxes despite the thinking that 'the lower the taxes the higher the tax revenue'?
At some point the tax reduction stops bringing in such a high return.

Even with the cut rich people might just be saving because of the financial crisis, or perhaps they will simply buy the same amount of things at a lower tax rate as at a higher tax rate. in many cases the income will not increase.

Somewhere in those numbers (between 0% and whatever it is now), there is an algorithm that brings in the most profit. Since you do not have that algorithm, and possibly don't even understand what i'm talking about, I'm just going to assume that you believe lower taxes for the rich is a solve-it all problem.

Finding what they are exactly paying now is quite hard. this was only a cursory search:
in 2007 buffett blasted the government for only having to pay 17% whereas his secretary paid 30. so it was 17% in 2007. If you look up 2008 tax year it says 35% for people over 300k or so.
whats going on, i thought you said that republicans lower taxes for the rich and that was the smartest thing to do. did he just raise them for no reason in particular? from what i was looking at rich people are paying the least amount of taxes in 20 or so years. so what gives???.

from the heritage foundation

"Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy."

obama's plan is to spend it on things that will recoup losses and such. you are only working with one piece of the puzzle or so they say.