Hey Republicans worried about taxes...

[Ardeshir]

Why are you so worried about taxes being increased? We are 11 trillion dollars in DEBT from 2 wars and all kinds of excess government spending brought on by dems and neocons.

Even if Obama were to raise taxes on middle class (which I believe he won't, only on the fatcat 1% elite), he might just work to reverse this DEBT by making better executive decisions and eventually pulling out of the middle east.

Doesn't seem odd to you "I have my own small business" republicans that your taxes weren't raised when we had undergone 2 wars? What did this government have to do in order to wage 2 wars while not raising taxes on the middle class? Well, first, the governmetn printed money and borrowed dollars from china. This is a dilution of your wealth and a symptom called inflation. You pretty much are gonig to be TAXED through inflated when the cost of goods go through the roof (and they have right now) and the dollar value plummets because of the overprinting and borrowing of dollars. A lower dollar value means higher oil prices, and you get the picture..

Sure, obama may raise your taxes, but I'm confident he will reverse this decifit and actually TAX and SPEND with money that has been raised through taxes, not PRINTING and borrowing from china. Think of the interest we will have to pay on those payments.

His tax policy will be a net gain.

[Erich von Manstein]

It is highly, HIGHLY unlikely that his tax policy will result in a net gain. Various independent think tanks have established that his economic policy will ultimately increase the federal debt by 50% or so. It should be pointed out that these early estimates are almost always on the very conservative side; it is important to remember that Bush promised to start paying off the national debt during his 2000 campaign (instead, he doubled it). So, for starters, disregard the notion that Obama will pay down the debt; no mainstream economist harbors that belief.

The main reason that Republicans (and libertarians, for that matter) oppose higher taxes is because they (we) don't feel that we should be forcefully deprived of our legally-earned income to support entitlement programs that we most likely disagree with. This isn't just based on feelings of selfishness, either; there is an extensive amount of academic research available demonstrating the incredible inefficiency of federal entitlement programs throughout history. So not only are our wages being taken to support programs we disagree with, they generally end up lining the pockets of those with influence in the right places. Case in point, Obama's tax plan. Assuming it is passed, it will create numerous tax shelters for the super-rich. Those with savvy tax attorneys will actually witness the taxes on at least their first $250,000 worth of income being halved. So the upper middle class will end up paying more in taxes while those who can afford tax attorneys will end up paying less. Does that seem fair to you? Maybe now you'll understand one of the reasons Obama was able to buck several decades of historical precedent by raising so much more money than his Republican opponent. The rich are no more afraid of Obama than the poor are. It is the people in the middle who will ultimately feel the squeeze.

[Nouvelle Vague]

It is highly, HIGHLY unlikely that his tax policy will result in a net gain. Various independent think tanks have established that his economic policy will ultimately increase the federal debt by 50% or so. It should be pointed out that these early estimates are almost always on the very conservative side; it is important to remember that Bush promised to start paying off the national debt during his 2000 campaign (instead, he doubled it). So, for starters, disregard the notion that Obama will pay down the debt; no mainstream economist harbors that belief.

Well it would help if they didn't start unjustified wars that cost taxpayers Billions upon billions of dollars to pay for while Bush gives the top 1% tax cuts. Sorry But I don't see the logic in this.

The main reason that Republicans (and libertarians, for that matter) oppose higher taxes is because they (we) don't feel that we should be forcefully deprived of our legally-earned income to support entitlement programs that we most likely disagree with. This isn't just based on feelings of selfishness, either; there is an extensive amount of academic research available demonstrating the incredible inefficiency of federal entitlement programs throughout history. So not only are our wages being taken to support programs we disagree with, they generally end up lining the pockets of those with influence in the right places. Case in point, Obama's tax plan. Assuming it is passed, it will create numerous tax shelters for the super-rich. Those with savvy tax attorneys will actually witness the taxes on at least their first $250,000 worth of income being halved. So the upper middle class will end up paying more in taxes while those who can afford tax attorneys will end up paying less. Does that seem fair to you? Maybe now you'll understand one of the reasons Obama was able to buck several decades of historical precedent by raising so much more money than his Republican opponent. The rich are no more afraid of Obama than the poor are. It is the people in the middle who will ultimately feel the squeeze.

I'm happy that the US actually picked a candidate who actually showed how he was actually going to pay for his own spending. I think if you earn over 250,000 a year then you ought to be no longer considered middle class. Plus Obama is actually giving tax breaks to actual middle class workers and away from Exxon Mobil. Yay!

Also a lot of the entitlement benefits are for elderly and disabled people anyways. Something both parties said that they would support and continue. The difference is Obama isn't going to rape Medicare as McCain was.

[Erich von Manstein]

Well it would help if they didn't start unjustified wars that cost taxpayers Billions upon billions of dollars to pay for while Bush gives the top 1% tax cuts. Sorry But I don't see the logic in this.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything I said.

I'm happy that the US actually picked a candidate who actually showed how he was actually going to pay for his own spending. I think if you earn over 250,000 a year then you ought to be no longer considered middle class. Plus Obama is actually giving tax breaks to actual middle class workers and away from Exxon Mobil. Yay!

Again, his proposed spending plan will increase the national debt by 50%. Better than the 100% McCain's spending plan would have increased the debt by, but I would hardly call it "paying for his own spending." That is the DNC's propaganda talking, not the economist's statistics.

frankly i am shocked to hear such a attitude from an american, the land of freedom and equality

You confuse equality before the law with economic equality, methinks.

[Nouvelle Vague]

I fail to see what this has to do with anything I said.



Again, his proposed spending plan will increase the national debt by 50%. Better than the 100% McCain's spending plan would have increased the debt by, but I would hardly call it "paying for his own spending." That is the DNC's propaganda talking, not the economist's statistics.



You confuse equality before the law with economic equality, methinks.

Bush promised to start paying off the national debt during his 2000 campaign (instead, he doubled it). So, for starters, disregard the notion that Obama will pay down the debt; no mainstream economist harbors that belief.

The problem that Bush faced was the fact that he engaged the US in to separate wars and had no actual proposal on how to pay for it other than get money from China. Arguably the US would have not gone into deficit under a different administration. But it's the stark contrast between both the Clinton and Bush jr Administrations which is pain to see.

It's pretty unrealistic to think that Obama could eradicate the deficit yes, but he's set the foundations for it to be slowly recovered.

Many of Obama's proposed spending is mainly focused on the economic recovery package along with that bailout package congress voted on as well.So in a scence the speing is somewhat nessariy.

[Erich von Manstein]

The problem that Bush faced was the fact that he engaged the US in to separate wars and had no actual proposal on how to pay for it other than get money from China. Arguably the US would have not gone into deficit under a different administration. But it's the stark contrast between both the Clinton and Bush jr Administrations which is pain to see.

Actually, the deficit under the Bush administration began following the combination of the creation of the DHS and the recession started by 9/11 and the tech bubble burst. It did grow worse following the invasion, to be sure, but even Gore would have most likely experienced a deficit to some degree.

It's pretty unrealistic to think that Obama could eradicate the deficit yes, but he's set the foundations for it to be slowly recovered.

He's setting the foundations for the deficit to be slowly recovered by increasing it by 50%? Forgive me for saying so, but that logic sounds like something straight out of George Orwell novel.

[Confederate Jeb]

His tax policy will be a net gain.

Yeah right. He wants to tax everyone and give money to people who sit on their butts and do nothing on purpose, then will fund his radical agenda. I would think the debt woul double under his dirty hands.

[Kisfvo]

Here's my daily history lesson.

Way back when, we had fought in a war that we wanted nothing to do with - the French and Indian War - and now we had our taxes raised to "pay for it" because we weren't paying enough for being colonists, just like "the rich aren't being taxed enough with all the money they have."

Quite frankly, Barack Obama believes in Marxism and wants to set in place a Dynamic Equilibrium for our tax plan. When someone gets straight A's and graduates from an Ivy League School, shouldn't they have more money than say an Illegal Immigrant who isn't paying taxes himself? Barack Obama wants to give your hard earned money to some sladamach Joe who isn't paying taxes to begin with, while saying it's for "the war debt."

[LoZz]

Yeah right. He wants to tax everyone and give money to people who sit on their butts and do nothing on purpose, then will fund his radical agenda. I would think the debt woul double under his dirty hands.

not everyone who is poor "sits on their butts and does nothing on purpose"

some people fall on hard times, they are "let go" by there employer while there job is sent over to china. getting another isnt always easy, particulary if you where paid quite well and you need a well paying job to support your family, or if your only skilled in one kind of job then working elsewhere can be hard.

others get ill and are no longer able to do the job they once did.

others are in jobs, but due to there level of education are stuck in very low paying/crap jobs

some people just lack the "people skills" to be in a decent paying job. that guy peter griffen works with in family guy who has odd shoes is a prime example.

it may come as a shock but simply working doesnt make you rich or even middle class, you can work your ass off and still be poor depending on your circumstances.

and again while it can be your fault for simply not trying hard enough in school, it isnt always. if your schools in your area happen to be the worst schools in the state where everyone else around you doesnt give a damn about education and your parents cant afford to move or ship you to a decent school, what do you do then?


its very easy to knock the poor off as being lay abouts who do nothing, and in some cases that is the truth, but largly it isnt. frankly i am shocked to hear such a attitude from an american, the land of freedom and equality. i exspect a comment like that about the poor from my own country where class (lower, middle and upper) used to be the bases of our society. but not from a country which prides itself on fairness and equality.

[Hounf of Culan]

not everyone who is poor "sits on their butts and does nothing on purpose"

some people fall on hard times, they are "let go" by there employer while there job is sent over to china. getting another isnt always easy, particulary if you where paid quite well and you need a well paying job to support your family, or if your only skilled in one kind of job then working elsewhere can be hard.

others get ill and are no longer able to do the job they once did.

others are in jobs, but due to there level of education are stuck in very low paying/crap jobs

some people just lack the "people skills" to be in a decent paying job. that guy peter griffen works with in family guy who has odd shoes is a prime example.

it may come as a shock but simply working doesnt make you rich or even middle class, you can work your ass off and still be poor depending on your circumstances.

and again while it can be your fault for simply not trying hard enough in school, it isnt always. if your schools in your area happen to be the worst schools in the state where everyone else around you doesnt give a damn about education and your parents cant afford to move or ship you to a decent school, what do you do then?


its very easy to knock the poor off as being lay abouts who do nothing, and in some cases that is the truth, but largly it isnt. frankly i am shocked to hear such a attitude from an american, the land of freedom and equality. i exspect a comment like that about the poor from my own country where class (lower, middle and upper) used to be the bases of our society. but not from a country which prides itself on fairness and equality.

I agree with what you are saying about poor people's circumstances but that doesn't mean they should get free money. America is all about giving everyone the opportunity to be wealthy, not just giving everyone wealth. Everyone has to work to get where they are.

[Gauvin]

some people fall on hard times, they are "let go" by there employer while there job is sent over to china.

Do you think Obama taxing the pants off the rich will encourage job creation, or more layoffs? He is heavily taxing those who employ the working, and the middle-class.

[Ciabhán]

confed reb is just a kid who got brainwashed by his parents, his posts demonstrate that. Don't be too hard on him. One day he will realize even if you work your ass off 24/7, there is a chance you will fell and need help in real life.

Since when is it the job of everyone else to save those who fail. If you fail then you start over and work harder, you don't get a free bloody ride from those who succeed. I for one will happily donate the entirety of my tax responsibility to a PAT opposed to policies like this one and write it off.

[bushbush]

Yeah right. He wants to tax everyone and give money to people who sit on their butts and do nothing on purpose, then will fund his radical agenda. I would think the debt woul double under his dirty hands.

actually his policy is similiar to clinton's, cutting tax for middle-class, increase tax on rich and stop corporate tax loopholes.

the result? surplus and reduced debt percentage.

bush did exactly the opposite, cut taxes for the rich, look at what happened?

[touchmaster]

Why are you speaking, and only speaking to the "republicans"? Care to elaborate?

[GrnEyedDvl]

His tax policy will be a net gain.

So you admit he will raise my taxes, and then you call that a net gain? For who? Certainly not for me. Anytime you take money out of my pocket, thats a net LOSS, pure and simple.

Spending is one of the huge issues I have with W. The 11 trillion dollar debt doesnt all come from him, but a substantial portion of it does. The way you lower the debt is decrease spending, not raise taxes and spending both.

[Kiljan Arslan]

So you admit he will raise my taxes, and then you call that a net gain? For who? Certainly not for me. Anytime you take money out of my pocket, thats a net LOSS, pure and simple.

Spending is one of the huge issues I have with W. The 11 trillion dollar debt doesnt all come from him, but a substantial portion of it does. The way you lower the debt is decrease spending, not raise taxes and spending both.

actually increacing taxes is needed to get rid of the debt, but then so is decreacing spending.

[GrnEyedDvl]

actually his policy is similiar to clinton's, cutting tax for middle-class, increase tax on rich and stop corporate tax loopholes.

Taxes actually went up under Clinton, for everyone.

actually increacing taxes is needed to get rid of the debt, but then so is decreacing spending.

I disagree, until they show they can decrease spending I will oppose any tax increase, on anyone. But they never reduce spending.

[Big War Bird]

Agreeing to paying more in taxes is like giving money to crack addict in the hopes that with a bit more money he will kick the habit.

[bushbush]

Agreeing to paying more in taxes is like giving money to crack addict in the hopes that with a bit more money he will kick the habit.

a very one-sided imbalanced analogy. If your government is really just a "crack addict", i am pretty sure you aren't living in a first world country with the freedom ing at your government right now.

[Big War Bird]

a very one-sided imbalanced analogy. If your government is really just a "crack addict", i am pretty sure you aren't living in a first world country with the freedom ing at your government right now.

Do you agree or disagree that the government wastes money?