When you're talking about $250,000 AGI, you're talking about the top 1.5%

[flpoljunkie]

President Obama might want to remind the American people that Ronald Reagan raised taxes every year of his presidency, but one. Yet, today's spineless Republicans are held hostage by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and his no tax increase pledge. Grover is famous, more like infamous, for saying, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Complicating the issue, all the Bush tax cuts were extended for two years at the end of the 111th Congress, so it's not a matter now of letting the tax cuts for the rich expire. They all expire. The folks at Morning Joe apparently weren't aware of this fact this morning.

[flpoljunkie]

1. Joe, Eric Cantor did not answer the 'tough question' posed to him by Nora O'Donnell

She reminded Cantor no job growth resulted from the Bush tax cuts. His response was totally inadequate--tried to blame the lack of growth on 9/11.

[ladjf]

12. Cantor is one of the dumbest Republicans. nt

[flpoljunkie]

2. Fact: Obama stimulus, tax cuts account for about $600 billion of the current $14.2 trillion debt.

Budget Battles: Tax and Spending Myths and Realities
April 12, 2011

Here are two numbers to keep in mind when thinking about the House Republicans’ budget plan: They want to cut spending on government programs over the next decade by $4.3 trillion. And they want to cut tax revenues over the same period by $4.2 trillion.

Government spending needs to be brought under control. But slashing vital services just to pay for more tax cuts is bad public policy and bad economics.

It won’t fix the deficit, no matter what the Republicans claim.

Stimulus spending since Mr. Obama took office — including tax cuts — accounts for about $600 billion of the current $14.2 trillion in accumulated debt. The Bush-era tax cuts coupled with major new spending for two wars and a Medicare drug benefit, have added $3.2 trillion to the debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/opinion/13wed1.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1302692504-7f6boNx52/gHQo1TOuL9UA

[dkf]

3. In 2008 the top 1% made a total of $1.7 trillion. The cutoff is $380,000

So if you taxed them 100% for federal taxes and left them with nothing for state taxes or real estate taxes you would barely balance the budget.

And you would pay down little of the huge deficit we owe.

Asking the top earners to pay for everything won't work.

[flpoljunkie]

4. No, but it's a good start.

[dkf]

6. Yes but so many here think taxing the rich fixes everything and that isnt feasible.

We haven't even got to the demographic train wreck yet that causes all the entitlement programs to grow and grow and grow. We can't balance the budget at te beginning of the baby boom retirement years. It's only getting worse from here.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Many here think about fairness and equity

And look here, many of us have paid the top ranges or pay the top ranges. I know several very wealthy people, all of whom would gladly pay much more in taxes. You can project all you want, no one thinks there is a single pronged and instant solution to our financial problems, but the simple fact is you can not continue allowing the highest earners to pay less than their fair share. Your posts go on about 'taking it all, leaving nothing for State tax' and you and I know that is just a frame built of falsehoods, we both know that the highest rates apply to the parts of a high income that are the highest, so when we had a '90% top rate' not one person paid 90% of their entire income, some paid 90% on the extreme top tier of their incomes. A portion. So even taxing as we did in the past left those of high income with tons of money. The US never taxed all the money away from those of high income, never, and you know that.
Really deceptive language. You should stick to facts instead of pontificating about how you see other DUers. You foist a straw DUer and argue with it.
Nonsensical. I think nonsense should be taxed at 99% as 1% nonsense is plenty for any earner of any income level.

[dkf]

9. Yes it is nonsense to tax at that level and that is my point exactly.

Taxing the top 1 or 2% makes things better but does not fix the problem of how to pay for growing spending. The increase in taxes has to bleed down to lower levels of income than people who make over $250,000. So support services if you like, just realize your taxes will increase to pay for it.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Kid, my taxes have always been high

Everyone can read what I wrote and what you wrote. So claiming I said taxing the rich is nonsense when I did not will not impress reading and thinking people.
Taxing the top millions of a multi million dollar income at a very high rate does not damage the one making millions, he or she is still left with millions.
I understand that some, maybe you, are at that cusp and yet not really liquid, so that 300K is not really making the ends meet, and so paying a few thousand more in taxes might be a strain to them. I do not empathize with that.
It is fair and just to tax the extreme ends of extreme incomes at extreme rates. That is a stand alone fact, and anyone making that sort of money who can not afford to pay more tax is not managing their money well.

[zbdent]

10. um, no ...

again the fallacy that Dems/Libs rely on a silver bullet/magic elixir cure-all ...

Fact is, "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts!" is the snake oil / magic elixir.

Every (and I do mean EVERY) time a Dem proposes something to help fix things, it's portrayed by REPUBLICANS MAKING APPEARANCE AFTER APPEARANCE IN THE LIBERAL MEDIA as "Dems expecting plan X to be a magic bullet" ...

[Autumn]

15. Ending the 3 wars would make

a good size dent in it too.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Joe: Grover Norquist said yesterday 235 Republicans had signed his No New Taxes Pledge.

[dkf]

7. What are they going to do about the expiration of the Bush/Obama tax cuts?

If the Senate doesn't buckle it's going up automatically. This is the reason just taxing the top 2% won't work. The Republicans will insist on all of it or nothing.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. You know, when liberals ask for something there are terms used

that could at least be spoken when the Republicans 'insist' on something while holding one pitiful chamber of Congress. There are people here well rehearsed in saying 'manufactured outrage' and 'they want ponies' 'poutrage' is perfect for the weeper of the House. Funny, how if I mention wanting equal rights, DU 'moderates' will shout 'manufactured outrage' but when the Republicans ask for absurd tax breaks for people who do not need them, the moderates cower and wonder what to say to this insistent batch of people. Oh dear! They will insist! Well, in that case, if they are going to insist, what can be done, with just the Senate and the White House in our hands, I mean, they are insisting!
Just hilarious that people act shocked that in politics the opposition will oppose. I guess the bipartisan fantasy took hold deep, and so if they 'insist' they must be pleased, at once. Can not call them poutrageous, they might insist again!
Show me one Republican with veto power. Now a veto, that is a way to insist that actually has legal authority beyond whining and crying.
But oh, dear, clutch my pearls, the opposition is 'insisting' on the opposite! Who would have thunk such a thing?!?!?

[Jackpine Radical]

11. If we cut the military by 20%

and invested that money in new infrastructure especially including alternative energy research & deployment, enforced corporate taxes, cut giveaways to the oil companies, and maintained SS and Medicare on their current trajectories, we would not balance everything overnight, but could start working ourselves out of the hole. Combine that with legislation that doesn't permit imports from nations that don't meet humane labor standards and strong environmental rules, and you'd bring back a lot more jobs (while putting on some pressure for the slave-labor parts of the world to reform).