Beware The Tax-Raisers

[red states rule]

Here they come folks, Dems with their hands out; ready to take more of your money. Dems keep telling us how lousy the economy is, but they still want to help themselves to as much of your money as they get

Now some in the media are starting to call them on thier asinine economic ideas

Being called on their ideas is the main reason Obama wil not take part in any more debates



Beware the tax-raisers
By Donald Lambro
April 24, 2008

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are coming under fire from some rather unusual quarters, who are challenging their plans to hike taxes at a time when the economy needs all the stimulus it can get.

And the "R" word — as in redistribution of incomes — is being raised by these critics, too, a political killer in any election cycle, but especially in an economic downturn that is squeezing incomes across the board.

The incoming fire isn't just from Republican John McCain, who thinks raising taxes in a sick economy is sort of like the 18th century practice of bleeding. Criticism is coming from the news media and from academia.

"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?" CNBC economic reporter Maria Bartiromo asked Mr. Obama a few weeks ago. It's a question that could define the rest of the presidential election and boost GOP prospects at a time when the No. 1 issue is the economy, dwarfing the war in Iraq.

Picking up on Mrs. Bartiromo's pointed question, ABC News anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos also pummeled both Democratic candidates last week for their tax policies.

"If the economy is as weak a year from now, as it is today, will you ... persist in your plans to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier Americans?" Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs.Clinton said, yes, she would raise the top 35 percent marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 "to the rates they were paying in the 1990s" under President Clinton, which would lift them to a confiscatory 40 percent.

"Even if the economy is weak?" an incredulous Mr. Stephanopoulos asked.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...012/COMMENTARY

[actsnoblemartin]

but i thought entitlements were free

Here they come folks, Dems with their hands out; ready to take more of your money. Dems keep telling us how lousy the economy is, but they still want to help themselves to as much of your money as they get

Now some in the media are starting to call them on thier asinine economic ideas

Being called on their ideas is the main reason Obama wil not take part in any more debates



Beware the tax-raisers
By Donald Lambro
April 24, 2008

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are coming under fire from some rather unusual quarters, who are challenging their plans to hike taxes at a time when the economy needs all the stimulus it can get.

And the "R" word — as in redistribution of incomes — is being raised by these critics, too, a political killer in any election cycle, but especially in an economic downturn that is squeezing incomes across the board.

The incoming fire isn't just from Republican John McCain, who thinks raising taxes in a sick economy is sort of like the 18th century practice of bleeding. Criticism is coming from the news media and from academia.

"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?" CNBC economic reporter Maria Bartiromo asked Mr. Obama a few weeks ago. It's a question that could define the rest of the presidential election and boost GOP prospects at a time when the No. 1 issue is the economy, dwarfing the war in Iraq.

Picking up on Mrs. Bartiromo's pointed question, ABC News anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos also pummeled both Democratic candidates last week for their tax policies.

"If the economy is as weak a year from now, as it is today, will you ... persist in your plans to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier Americans?" Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs.Clinton said, yes, she would raise the top 35 percent marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 "to the rates they were paying in the 1990s" under President Clinton, which would lift them to a confiscatory 40 percent.

"Even if the economy is weak?" an incredulous Mr. Stephanopoulos asked.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...012/COMMENTARY

[red states rule]

but i thought entitlements were free

Only to the ones who get them

We are the ones footing the bill

It is called redistriubtion of wealth - or as it more commonly known - liberalism

[actsnoblemartin]

hahahaha

Only to the ones who get them

We are the ones footing the bill

It is called redistriubtion of wealth - or as it more commonly known - liberalism

[red states rule]

hahahaha

You should not laugh - it is true and it will cost you alot of money

[Joe Steel]

Here they come folks, Dems with their hands out; ready to take more of your money. Dems keep telling us how lousy the economy is, but they still want to help themselves to as much of your money as they get

The economy isn't bad for everyone. It's only bad for the poor and middle-class. The rich are doing quite well and easily could afford more taxation. A tax increase for them would be not only harmless but a step toward tax equity.

[red states rule]

The economy isn't bad for everyone. It's only bad for the poor and middle-class. The rich are doing quite well and easily could afford more taxation. A tax increase for them would be not only harmless but a step toward tax equity.

Tax cuts would bring about fairness.

The top 1% of earners currently payy 29% of all federal income taxes

The top 25% pay 86%

The top 50% pay 97%

How fair is that? Now the left wants them to pay even more

[theHawk]

The economy isn't bad for everyone. It's only bad for the poor and middle-class. The rich are doing quite well and easily could afford more taxation. A tax increase for them would be not only harmless but a step toward tax equity.

But the question is how does taxing even just the rich help anyone else?

[red states rule]

But the question is how does taxing even just the rich help anyone else?

What libs wil not admit, it does not help. Higher taxes reduce the amount of money in the private sector. It reduces the amount of capital business has to invest and expand. It reduces economic activity, thus reducing the amount of revenue coming into government

I never got a job from a poor man

[Little-Acorn]

"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?" CNBC economic reporter Maria Bartiromo asked Mr. Obama a few weeks ago.

A **CNBC** reporter asked that question? Of a DEMOCRAT????



Somebody check Hell! I think it just froze!

[red states rule]

A **CNBC** reporter asked that question? Of a DEMOCRAT????



Somebody check Hell! I think it just froze!

Perhaps she is fed up forking over half (or more) of her income in taxes to the governemnt

[Joe Steel]

Tax cuts would bring about fairness.

The top 1% of earners currently payy 29% of all federal income taxes

The top 25% pay 86%

The top 50% pay 97%

How fair is that? Now the left wants them to pay even more

Our notion of "fair" comprises more than arithmetic. We decide fundamental fairness by considering a number of factors including the ability of the taxapary to pay the tax and its burden on his lifestyle. The rich are taxed relatively more because they can afford to pay more and because relatively higher taxes don't affect their lifestyles.

[Joe Steel]

But the question is how does taxing even just the rich help anyone else?

Most will pay something but the rich will pay more. The increased revenue raised from the rich can be used to subsidize the poor and middle class. For instance, it could be used to fund food programs for poor children.

[red states rule]

Our notion of "fair" comprises more than arithmetic. We decide fundamental fairness by considering a number of factors including the ability of the taxapary to pay the tax and its burden on his lifestyle. The rich are taxed relatively more because they can afford to pay more and because relatively higher taxes don't affect their lifestyles.

So the fact the "rich" are already paying more after the Bush tax cuts then they did before the Bush tax cut does not count?

How much more do you want them to pay? These people are already shelling out about 50% of their total inocme in taxes

Who deems them can afford it?

Libs need to understand the producers are not a renewable money source for their thirst for more and bigger government

[Joe Steel]

What libs wil not admit, it does not help. Higher taxes reduce the amount of money in the private sector. It reduces the amount of capital business has to invest and expand. It reduces economic activity, thus reducing the amount of revenue coming into government

What do you think the government does with the money it collects in taxes?

I never got a job from a poor man

Maybe you haven't but many have gotten jobs serving business supported by benefit recipients. For instance, they may drive bread trucks making deliveries to groceries in poor neighborhoods which take food stamps.