I've done those exact calculations (basically). It is so frustrating to me that people just can't comprehend that tax increases are not going to make the slightest dent in the problem. Even if we could squeeze out another $50billion in revenue, that is 3% of the deficit for this year. Shifting the discussion away from cutting spending and onto revenue generation is absolutely idiotic and irresponsible.
People want simple solutions and want others to pay for it. We keep hearing about "shared sacrifice", yet the only people who are demanded to sacrifice are those who can pay "just a little bit more". If Obama's view of how to grow the economy wasn't so destructive, it would be laughable.
It's funny how math works, and I agree that the taxes won't be enough. But by saying "well it's just a drop in the bucket, don't bother" is kind of silly. Is it not the same argument some say about "well don't cut this program, it's only 1B$ it's just a drop in the bucket?"
The point is that the discussion is being diverted away from spending cuts and towards tax increases just so the Dems can keep their bloated programs, try to have others pay for it, and kick the can down the road. We need to keep the discussion on spending cuts because that is the ONLY way to get this mess under control, as the math shows.
Neither will locking up more murderers. Sometimes you do something just because it's the right thing to do. The economy will start up again when the corporate rich stop getting handouts, tax credits, and tax exemptions from the government. Until they think they need more money they will not have any incentive to create jobs, so they won't.
I'll make a deal with this government. I'm willing to restore the Clinton tax rates if we can restore the inflation-adjusted Clinton spending levels. Does anyone think the Obama Administration would take that deal?
Your use of AGI makes your arguement worthless. There are billionaires with good accountants who have an "AGI" smaller than the average American. Your "another $1M in taxes from those 8,274 people" is laughable too as many of them should be paying many, many multiples of that amount.
HAHAHAHA!!! Let's raise peoples' taxes out of principle, even though it won't accomplish anything. It's the right thing to do to take more money from people. HAHAHAHA! Thanks for helping to kickstart my day with a good laugh.
Look at Buffett who paid $8M in taxes. He's at the very top end of the scale, and if you doubled his taxes it wouldn't pay for a few seconds' worth of deficit spending, and it certainly wouldn't do the economy any good. You confuse wealth with income, and we don't normally tax wealth. Obama did it when he stole GM from it's owners and creditors to give it to the unions, but that was a first. If we continue down that path, some agent of the government will confiscate your house so the govt. can use the money from selling it for pennies on the dollar to give to the Chinese.
Well then I guess Bush started us on the wrong path when he bailed out the savings and loans and the airlines.
Story? It is fact... and it is a fact that under Obama's watch we also bailed out auto industry... which Denny implied in this thread stated would put us down the path to Socialism. Denny also missed the fact that Bush approved the initial bailout of GM and Chrysler for 17 Billion (which didn't work by the way... and had we allowed them to go bankrupt it would have a massive payout to their debtors) And Denny also said What? The employees don't own GM... the US goverment does and GM is trying to reaquire it. Also... the employees gave up 20 BILLION in retirement benefits that were owned them from GM as part of the reorganization.
I'm curious how that would look. I have a feeling the tax rates would not account for as much revenue, and thus the adjusted spending levels would leave a larger gap.
Reagan bailed out Chrysler, but creditors and shareholders weren't wiped out. Ditto some of the banks, who've paid back the loans. GM was a very different kind of deal, and a dangerous kind of deal at that. Under no circumstances should the govt. own stock in a public corporation. You REALLY don't want lefties to tell car makers to make all electric cars any more than you want righties to tell them to stop making them. We certainly don't want govt. picking winners and losers, and we don't want to see our 401K or other investments taken by govt. on a whim and given to someone else. The GM deal was wrong on every level.
