Tax The Rich Enough To Cover The Deficit.

[PoliTalker]

We liberals would love to have all kinds of new soak-the-rich taxes to pay for all kinds of free stuff, but we can get by without that.

How about you Republicans do the responsible thing instead and tax the rich enough to cover the deficit?

Or is 'compromise for the good of the country' not in your vocabulary.....

 

[countryboy]

We liberals would love to have all kinds of new soak-the-rich taxes to pay for all kinds of free stuff, but we can get by without that.

How about you Republicans do the responsible thing instead and tax the rich enough to cover the deficit?

Or is 'compromise for the good of the country' not in your vocabulary.....

Run the numbers for us, and show us how that would be possible without crashing the economy. Raising taxes on the rich wouldn't necessarily raise revenues to federal coffers, as history has shown. It's the spending that needs to be addressed. But evidently, neither side has any interest in doing that.

 

[Celticguy]

The right needs to reduce the spending so that the revenues are sufficient. The rich would just leave so thats a non starter.

 

[cawacko]

Run the numbers for us, and show us how that would be possible without crashing the economy. Raising taxes on the rich wouldn't necessarily raise revenues to federal coffers, as history has shown. It's the spending that needs to be addressed. But evidently, neither side has any interest in doing that.

Sadly that is #truth

 

[Celticguy]

Run the numbers for us, and show us how that would be possible without crashing the economy. Raising taxes on the rich wouldn't necessarily raise revenues to federal coffers, as history has shown. It's the spending that needs to be addressed. But evidently, neither side has any interest in doing that.

DJT is prepping spending cuts for the campaign.
Fingers crossed that he can make good on them.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Celticguy,

The right needs to reduce the spending so that the revenues are sufficient. The rich would just leave so thats a non starter.

That is an opinion which I disagree with. The rich didn't leave the USA when taxes were 90%.

They stayed and they paid. We built interstates, airports, a power grid and hospitals.

All of those things are falling apart now that we don't tax the rich enough.

And we can't even pay our bills, living on borrowed money.

Pathetic.

 

[PoliTalker]

DJT is prepping spending cuts for the campaign.
Fingers crossed that he can make good on them.

He can't get spending cuts without control of the House. He is doing what he can, taking away food assistance programs, but it won't be enough to make a dent in the spiraling deficit.

 

[cawacko]

DJT is prepping spending cuts for the campaign.
Fingers crossed that he can make good on them.

It would have been nice if it happened the first two years when the Republicans controlled Congress. I know I'm old and cynical but we've heard politicians preach spending cuts for decades on the campaign trail then do nothing about it while in office. Trump is no exception.

 

[Celticguy]

Hello Celticguy,



That is an opinion which I disagree with. The rich didn't leave the USA when taxes were 90%.

They stayed and they paid. We built interstates, airports, a power grid and hospitals.

All of those things are falling apart now that we don't tax the rich enough.

And we can't even pay our bills, living on borrowed money.

Pathetic.

Because noone ever paid 90%.
You forget that when the nominal rates were reduced, so where deductions eliminated. There was little to no change in net revenue.

 

[Truth Detector]

We liberals would love to have all kinds of new soak-the-rich taxes to pay for all kinds of free stuff,

Why? What good would that do?

How about you Republicans do the responsible thing instead and tax the rich enough to cover the deficit?

The reason is OBVIOUS. We don't have a REVENUE problem. We have a SPENDING problem. Why don't dems get off their dumb lazy arses and work on spending cuts.

If you taxed the rich at 100%, you would still have a deficit problem.

Or is 'compromise for the good of the country' not in your vocabulary.....

When did you become the "decider" for what is good for the country? How about the mega rich democrats out there sending MORE of their hard earned wealth to the Fed? What is stopping them from doing that? There's a box you can check and send the money in.

 

[Celticguy]

He can't get spending cuts without control of the House. He is doing what he can, taking away food assistance programs, but it won't be enough to make a dent in the spiraling deficit.

Yes he needs the House which the Squad is busy at making happen.
But then he also has to get the GOP on board which is far harder to do. They are loth to do this as they have shown repeatedly.

 

[Celticguy]

It would have been nice if it happened the first two years when the Republicans controlled Congress. I know I'm old and cynical but we've heard politicians preach spending cuts for decades on the campaign trail then do nothing about it while in office. Trump is no exception.

Trump is a big exception as he isnt owned by rich people. He IS a rich people and cant run again and need not care as he will go back to a very comfortable life in 2024 no matter what.
However Congressmen are so making it happen is hard.

 

[countryboy]

DJT is prepping spending cuts for the campaign.
Fingers crossed that he can make good on them.

Yeah, but he also said he wouldn't sign another budget like the last one, and he just did. Both parties are going to ride this runaway train right into the ravine.

 

[CookieCrusher]

We liberals would love to have all kinds of new soak-the-rich taxes to pay for all kinds of free stuff, but we can get by without that.

How about you Republicans do the responsible thing instead and tax the rich enough to cover the deficit?

Or is 'compromise for the good of the country' not in your vocabulary.....

Typical leftist....wanting someone else to do your dirty deeds.

 

[gfm7175]

We liberals would love to have all kinds of new soak-the-rich taxes to pay for all kinds of free stuff,

Yes, you would. It's quite apparent that the Democrats are now following in the footsteps of Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto.

but we can get by without that.

Great. Let the free market do its thing then!

How about you Republicans do the responsible thing instead and tax the rich enough to cover the deficit?

Okay, let's tax them enough to cover one deficit. Great. What about the deficit after that, and the deficit after that, etc...?? What about all the debt that was created by all the other past deficits?? "The rich" simply do not have enough money to cover our debt. The problem is spending. We spend WAY too much money. No amount of revenue will ever be enough if spending is not significantly reduced.

Or is 'compromise for the good of the country' not in your vocabulary.....

How is forcing "the rich" to cover our deficit "compromise"?? What concessions are "the poorer people" making?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Celticguy,

Because noone ever paid 90%.
You forget that when the nominal rates were reduced, so where deductions eliminated. There was little to no change in net revenue.

Well they must have paid SOMETHING because we used the money to build all that infrastructure that's falling apart now.

Even with the deductions, they were paying more than the rich are paying now.

AND THEY DIDN'T LEAVE like you said they would.

Obama raised taxes. Why didn't the rich leave THEN?

Total baloney, this hoax that the rich would leave if we raised taxes. They never did before before taxes got lowered too much.

The tax cut was a bad idea. We opposed it because we said it would make the deficit too high.

We were right.

Now the deficit is too high.

Taxes need to be put back up.

We need to raise taxes on the rich enough to cover the deficit.

THEN we can talk about spending.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello and welcome CookieCrusher,

Typical leftist....wanting someone else to do your dirty deeds.

I presume that since you entered this thread talking about me instead of the subject that you have nothing to say which can justify lowering taxes for the rich so much that the deficit is a trillion dollars.

And you also have no good reason to oppose raising enough revenue to cover our existing irresponsible budget.

I should also warn you that my PIP is adhered to. You are on thin ice even talking about me at all. I am happy to talk about any issue facing this nation. I came here to talk about politics. I did not come here to talk about myself or other posters. Your comment was not on topic. You have not taken part in the discussion. What you have done is to talk AT the participants. If you would like to be a part of the discussion I would suggest that you contribute something meaningful. I always enjoy an intellectual discussion of politics and the issues. Rise above cheap shots and we can trade some ideas, learn why each other holds differing views. Can you do that?

 

[cawacko]

Trump is a big exception as he isnt owned by rich people. He IS a rich people and cant run again and need not care as he will go back to a very comfortable life in 2024 no matter what.
However Congressmen are so making it happen is hard.

It takes two to tango of course, Congress & the President. I don't know if Trump's personal wealth has anything to do with his position on government spending. The largest spending items on the federal registrar are entitlements & the military. He ran on not touching entitlements and increasing military spending. So while he spoke of the issues of our national debt he never really had any true desire to address.

We can go back to George W. and the Republican Congress during his first term. Same thing. No fiscal discipline and no spending veto's from W. The only real time we have sort of done anything was under Clinton and a Republican Congress.

 

[CookieCrusher]

Hello and welcome CookieCrusher,



I presume that since you entered this thread talking about me instead of the subject that you have nothing to say which can justify lowering taxes for the rich so much that the deficit is a trillion dollars.

And you also have no good reason to oppose raising enough revenue to cover our existing irresponsible budget.

I should also warn you that my PIP is adhered to. You are on thin ice even talking about me at all. I am happy to talk about any issue facing this nation. I came here to talk about politics. I did not come here to talk about myself or other posters. Your comment was not on topic. You have not taken part in the discussion. What you have done is to talk AT the participants. If you would like to be a part of the discussion I would suggest that you contribute something meaningful. I always enjoy an intellectual discussion of politics and the issues. Rise above cheap shots and we can trade some ideas, learn why each other holds differing views. Can you do that?

You started a stupid thread....what do you expect?
But, you're correct, I should ignore you in the future.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm7175,

Okay, let's tax them enough to cover one deficit. Great. What about the deficit after that, and the deficit after that, etc...?? What about all the debt that was created by all the other past deficits?? "The rich" simply do not have enough money to cover our debt. The problem is spending. We spend WAY too much money. No amount of revenue will ever be enough if spending is not significantly reduced.

This make it sound hopeless. Let's say for a moment that the situation is indeed hopeless, and that there is no possible way to ever eliminate the deficit (even though President Clinton did actually do that exact thing, created a surplus.) IF it is hopeless, then there is no point in TRYING by reducing spending, because as soon as the deficit is reduced, Congress will see that as a green light to either reduce taxes again or increase spending again and run up another big deficit.

The reality is that, while it is a challenging predicament, it is NOT hopeless, and it is possible to balance the budget.

How is forcing "the rich" to cover our deficit "compromise"?? What concessions are "the poorer people" making?

The compromise has nothing to do with the rich. It is a compromise between Republicans who want lower taxes which they already got, and Democrats who want more spending for new programs, which they have been denied. The reason the new tax hike must go to the rich is because the rich are the ones who got the recent tax reduction which placed us in this predicament.