What % did Jefferson pay on his earnings dave? Was it 50%+? In the meantime, the seem to be plenty of programs for the poor. What we don't seem to have is much accountability for whether the poor ever do anything to get off the dole. OldTrader
Are you trying to argue that Jefferson was a socialist. You are a fool. From the the same letter: "Vagabonds, without visible property or vocation, are placed in workhouses, where they are clothed, fed, lodged, and made to labor."
Sure there's a case for cutting spending. However there's also a case to spend a lot more! How are we going to pay for energy dependence, more regulation in financial markets, a war in iraq, a war in afghanistan, oh and a $10 trillion national debt. Reducing spending is only PART of the problem. Our country needs money. I feel like i spend all day responding to posts like this. Yes, the conservative tax doctrine of low taxes (especially for the rich) and simply letting the market work works great in a great economy. Clinton's policies were pretty hands off, like bushes. Our GDP grows, wealth grows and everybody is happy. Now contrast those times to now. Its black and white. We have declining jobs, home prices falling, inflation, rampant energy prices, the largest debt the world has ever seen, wage earners income is stagnant. Now let me drive this point home: Do you really think that the economic policy that worked for the early 2000's, is the same one we should be applying in the economy of today? What a concept! Maybe what worked in a completely booming economy isnt the same thing we need in a recessive economy such as the one we're in right now. We need money. The top 5% (the only ones who will get a tax hike, and not a tax break under Obama, if you don't believe me just google it, its amazing that people dont go see for themselves) hold 50% of all the wealth and are making more and more. The bottom 95% (middle and lower class) are hurting in every way. Their losing jobs, their wages are stagnant, their costs are up (food and energy), the money the have is worth less (inflation), and their largest asset (home) is losing its value. So who are we going to tax? Yes its a tough decision, but thats what presidents do. It's not a policy that I like, and I oppose it in all other economic climates, but open your eyes and take a look around. About the redistribution of wealth, to me, the word distribution implies some kind of equality. That income equality does not exist in this country. We are not, as the communists were, attempting to distribute wealth evenly, but rather distribute a tiny fraction of what the top 5% hold, so the 95% doesn't go under. You would have us believe that were raising taxes to the extent that we are all earning equal amounts, when in fact that couple % increase won't even make the tiniest dent in the wealth of the top 5%. This isn't, in itself, grounds for raising taxes, the reasons for raising are given above. This is just to prove that we arent attempting to re-distribute wealth in the way communism does. If you still think so, I would advise you to simply study communism more thoroughly and then come back and tell me wht you think.
Jon: Basically I disagree with virtually everything you just said. I favor a smaller, less obtrusive government (not that we have that right now obviously). I don't want national health care. I don't want the government meddling with our energy. I think you'll find out that when the government gets involved, they become part of the problem. They don't solve anything. With Obama you going to see an expansion of the federal government, over what it already is. I'm not for that. So the point is, if we don't do what Obama wants to do, we don't need to raise taxes. And by the way, if you think Obama can have the programs he wants without further increases in taxes, I got a bridge to sell you. I don't want the government programs, I don't want my taxes raised, I want to cut spending...because there is huge bloat at all levels of government. I think my best chance to get anything even close to that is with McCain, not Obama. So Jon, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm as dissatisfied with government as you are...but I want less of it, not more of it. OldTrader
Nice grab. This bigDave guy's whole bs here is clothed in half truths, disingenuousness and evasiveness. Three threads in two days he's let me have the final word after I challenged him on facts. Small wonder Obama is fading like the playoff hopes of the Phillies.
Now I get it. You're in the $1.6million bracket http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries Obama Tax Increases: - The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today. - The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986. - The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends. - The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000. Overall, in an Obama administration, the top 1% of households -- people with an average income of $1.6 million per year -- would see their average federal income and payroll tax rate increase from 21% today to 24%, less than the 25% these households would have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s.