Corporate media leave people with the impression that no one is compromising.

Please point out the compromising.

Or do you see compromise like one hand clapping?

““The debate in Washington over the debt ceiling is so removed from the real life concerns and policy desires of the rest of America that it’s a wonder anyone’s approval numbers are in double digits.” ; again, it just goes to show how UNREPRESENTATIVE of the people the President and Congress is.

“Compromise” in Obasmaspeak means caving to your enemies to most of the Dem base.

Gee, in other countries around the world our government, especially the State Department, with Hilary in the lead sounding the clarion calls, calls that condition “dictatorship” and calls for immediate “regime change.”

But if you ask people what they want to see in the deficit reduction positions in any solution, you get to the heart of the matter.

no one, not even most progressives with a decent sized soap box have bothered to tell their readers that there is no such thing as a “revenue solution.”

which is why we are nowhere near the heart of the matter.

Obamaspeak is making real Dems head explode all over the USA

Dems voters gave Dems the
WH
Senate
House
and got what? NOTHING

Obama and other Dems are intentionally attacking DEM base, and it is time the DEM BASE attacks back

With Obama poll numbers among blacks crashing, OBAMA brings nothing to the table in 2012! If Obama can’t deliver black votes, he is of no use to Democrats.

I think we will soon see the few liberals in DC, attacking OBAMA like never before.

And the right wing trolls will be here in 5,4,3…. to show once again how that hate democracy by saying…

“Of course a poll shows most Americans want to raise somebody else’s taxes.”

In a true democracy, of course, that would be the solution then since that’s what an overwhelming majority of Americans want.

Why do right wingers hate democracy?

please tell my why the heck progressives say that increasing taxes (in this economy!!) is a solution to a deficit non-problem?

Well, some Democratic hack is on Ed’s show bragging about how much Obama wants to cut Medicare.

Primary Obama. I want my party back.

what’s wrong with raising taxes “in this economy”??

The President has forgotten that he is not the president of the banks and the markets, but the president of all the people of the United States. The banks are a service industry, not the core of our economy.

I hear you!

Obama, David Plouffe, David Axelrod, Jay Carnay, all enjoy the idea of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicade.

These are the same people who gave the RICH the Bush Tax Cuts

It gets better in the so call OBAMA GRAND BARGAIN the rich get another tax cut, and the poor, sick, elderly, get their Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade cut.

It gets worse, “OBAMA GRAND BARGAIN” eliminates tax deductions like Home Mortage Int, Charity, tax deductions the middle class need and love. Yes the middle class get a tax increase.

I ask daily, who thinks OBAMA is a Democrat?

I don’t think it was progressives, it was a poll of all Americans and a majority of them picked those responses.

And they were responding a poll question that asked: “In order to reduce the national debt would you support or oppose….” and then listed all of the items they had to choose from.

I don’t read into that any large clamoring for raising taxes, I read into that folks saying well, if you’re going to reduce the national debt, then let’s do it by raising taxes on the wealthy, the oil and gas companies, and the hedge fund managers.

YMMV

Obama’s Grand Bargain will cut taxes for the Rich and raise taxes for Middle Class

How?
Obama’s Grand Bargain gets rid of the Home Mort Int. Deduction, Some Charity deductions

Harry Reid and John Boehner plans both promote the idea of sending jobs abroad.

fiscal drag on a macro economy that doesn’t need something more to be dragging it down.

Updated congressional profile pics.

Deficit warriors.

“Harry Reid and John Boehner plans both promote the idea of sending jobs abroad.”
___

That’s where the “job creators” have been hanging out.

When members of Congress sign pledges to the Tea Party, they appear to commit treason by giving allegiance to a private party instead of to the USA. The Tea Party pledges seem like the worst of film stereotypes of the M*fia. In no way do I want to give the real M*fia a bad rap by comparing them to the arm-twisting Tea Party. Tea Party people don’t believe in free will for humans or members of Congress. Too bad Boehners pistachios are in a jar in a safe somewhere belonging to some small minded TP control freak. Is this the actual reason Boehner cries all the time?

I wish I could believe that increasing Taxes on high earners and spending that money on infrastructure would not be a better use of that money.

At what point to very high net wealth people actually enhance the economy?

End both wars now no longer available?

When the Rs started ranting about the debt ceiling, all Obama had to do to deflate it was to ask why they hadn’t worried about it when Bush was president. This is so phony. The Rs bait the trap and Obama, who is terribly dumb, walks right in with flags flying. I find myself in a constant state of rage and it’s wearing me out.

Obama’s Grand Bargain will cut taxes for the Rich and raise taxes for Middle Class

awesome! /s

It’s very clear that the “debt ceiling debate” is political theater and brinksmanship coming from the plutocracy. It is the shock doctrine, it is class warfare, etc. etc.

Pointing out in front of the powers-that-be that most of the public would prefer a rational solution to budgetary problems, and a focus on the well being of people who work for a living, is pointless. Washington DC politicians of both factions there do not care about the broad working public. They see us as a population of workers and consumers who are bought during election years in large lots or segments by big-dollar ad campaigns on TV, radio, and the internet. Politicians don’t care about us. They care about their wealthy sponsors.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, then the US will likely make a major default on some of its payments. What I understand is that this will a) rapidly deepen the economic slump most people are experiencing, and b) do the equivalent of setting off an atomic bomb on Wall Street.

If you read economists like Dean Baker, the national economy would recover faster than Wall Street from any default. Certainly, Argentina had a far, far worse default, and recovered handily after a period of time.

So the issue with the brinksmanship, over the years to come, is only somewhat about the immediate impact of a default on working people. Mainly, the issue is about the political class in Washington DC demonstrating that it truly no longer has any connection to public service or protecting the working majority. What we are seeing is the likely or imminent proof that the US government has crossed a certain threshold and has become a banana republic government. We’re starting to look like the Duma after the Soviet breakup here.

I bet if he went on national TV and said:

“My fellow Americans, if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling, then I, as the enforcer of laws and the Commander in Chief of the military, will have to make some tough choices to bring down our spending. So, if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling, I will immediately end ALL wars and bring the troops home.”

Bet they’d pass it in half an hour then.

Yeah.

This “service industry” peaked at ~40% of U.S. corporate profits during the 2000s decade just past. The business model was largely recursive paper flipping fee income (and the shoveling of risk out the door to chumps), all of which masked the fact that our underlying real value-adding products and services economy had actually been in decline. Hence the intractable subsequent high unemployment rate and increasing deficit.

You’re probably right. Gotta have our wars, you know.

by all means let’s increase net spending!

but that doesn’t require any tax increase.

(there may be very good reasons to selectively increase some taxes, but deficit reduction isn’t one of them and net tax increases don’t make any sense right now unless one is trying to tank the economy further.)

In other words, the default that will result shortly if the brinksmanship doesn’t deescalate will be a default in the credibility of the US national government as a functional entity rationally managing the US as a stable middle class nation focused principally on the well-being of most people. Any default will show that the political class and the plutocracy have separated completely from the rest of the country and can no longer be counted on to responsibly function. This will have global consequences I personally believe.

I know what I would have done.

The first spending bill I got I would have added a signing statement ending debt ceilings completely.

Then told the GOP, if you don’t like Presidential signing statements, you are free to pass a law banning them. Free the Dems to vote to ban signing statement too if they liked.

the budget put forth by the progressive caucus did a pretty good job in reducing spending and restoring tax rates to pre Bush levels. I just wish they would have gotten rid of the deduction for church giving and 2nd and 3rd home mortgage interest deducts. If you want to give to a church … go ahead but why should the gov’t subsidize it?

If you read economists like Dean Baker, the national economy would recover faster than Wall Street from any default.

where does he say that?

default on ss payments or what?

I’ll say it again. I am just so sick of it… just fucking default so I can stop hearing about it. You guys default, the next morning I get up, get on the bus, go to work and finish my work from the previous day. Just like the day before and the day before that. garnted, my pension might be in the shitter but I’ll get to that. Just get it over with and default.

He’s got plenty of options if he really wanted them.

He could invoke the 14th amendment, which is the way it reads to me, and thus end the debt ceiling nonsense once and for all.

He could use the minting of a coin solution. He could even IMO (though I’m not sure whether every spending bill passed had language limiting this) just ignore the debt ceiling and claim the laws are conflicting, which they are. So he could choose which one to enforce until the conflicts are fixed by Congress or the courts.

This is ALL bullshit. First of all, there is no “debt crisis” and never can be for a government that prints it’s own money. Second, he’s got all the options I mentioned above. And finally, more evidence that they CHOSE this outcome, back in December when they all got together and agreed to RAISE the deficit by $4 tillion they could’ve demanded the debt ceiling be taken of then. He CHOSE not to.

This is ALL bullshit, and it’s bullshit for a reason. They’re going to play this out till the end when they will claim they HAD to cut social safety net programs otherwise the ENTIRE US ECONOMY would collapse.

That’s ALL this “crisis” is about. It’s their excuse to do what they want to do and make it look like they have no choice.

Uh, at the point where they invest in and operate the majority of the businesses that generate jobs in this economy. By raising taxes on people making $200k a year, you’re hurting those very people who run every local small business in your community.

It’s going to be
“My fellow Americans … ”

any day now

It is not a solution, at this time. But I think people are really angry at the upper classes coming away with no losses and others suffering cuts in SSMM. It is offensive.

Uh, bullshit.

The Rs and their sidekicks, the Tea Baggers, are not going to be satisfied until they trash the whole country so it might as well be now. The sooner it happens, the sooner we can start over.

uh, so?

totally agree with you there. but for that a tax increase won’t cut it.

let’s start with fair trials for fraud.

LOL. hadn’t read yours when i posted by #40 but i think we’re on the same page.

Really? Who do you thinks owns those small businesses? George Soros and Bill Gates? Why I DID hear about Warren Buffet buying up that dry cleaner down the street, so you may be right.

Idiot.

I’m so outraged I can’t think straight anymore. I feel absolutely powerless and even voiceless. Do the Democrats not understand cuts to SS/Medicare etc are like cutting life support on millions of people?

Boenner? does he not understand that the real jobs killer is debt default? How many business in this country earn their income from government sources. I know mine does. If I don’t get paid then every single one of my employees will not get paid. What the hell is going on inside Boenner’s head?

Are Boenner and Obama so absolutely bereft of what it is like to WORK for a living and make it paycheck to paycheck they are actually going to play this ridiculous game?????

From now on I say tie all of Congress and the President’s PAY to making sure the debt limit is raised as needed and that government does not shut down. Tie their entire net worth to it as well. If debt default happens then they lose their pay, insurance, homes, savings etc. Screw em all!

So, you raise taxes on them and they’ll just cuts jobs to make do. You really think the major corporations are the ones creating jobs these days?

Yeah, that would be the reality page.

Selise, I think the nation is having a wrong conversation too. It is dysfunctional. But we have been dragged into this farce about deficit and debt reduction by the existence of that stoopid law on the debt limit. so folks are saying, if you want to hurt me, then screw you. It is primal at this point. It draws on a sense of fairness and justice and not economics. Just saying.

i see s/he responded to you and me. hey! how come only you got called an idiot, OFG? I’m hurt.

Demand creates jobs, not wealthy peoples cash, of which they’re right now sitting on trillions of cash and not creating jobs because there is no demand to be met.

And if demand did pick up, every business owner in the country would be willing to go into hock up to their elbows if they didn’t have their own cash to invest and create jobs. The economy has at lots of times throughout history done just fine, with low unemployment, when taxes on the wealth were at 90%.

Moran.

I’ve been wondering lately why the treasury can’t just credit someone’s account when the t bill comes due. why do they need to sell any more treasuries? Who cares, just credit the guys account at his bank. Wny cant they do this as long as they want, sort of like minting a coin only credit the account. Pretty soon the debt would be reduced and then they can issue more treasuries to soak up the cash they put in the system and still be below the debt limit. ???????????????What am I missing???

how is it fair to starve a child in order to get revenge on a bankster?

that’s just the same moral logic the neocons use re collateral damage.

or that we must destroy the village to save it.

it has NOTHING to do with fairness or justice. it’s about revenge and blind rage.

…..

we better get the economics right or there’s going to be a lot of collateral damage.

do progressives care about that or do we only care about revenge?

The idea of a transaction tax on Wall Street has been floated here and in other places before: not only would it raise revenue for the federal government, but also act as a brake on “reckless” trading. You’d get a two-fer, no?

True enough but it takes two to tango as they say. So why are no taxes on the table if we really want to reduce the deficit? (I don’t, just applying the logic of what someone might say.)

transaction tax probably good.

deficit reduction (“raise revenue for the federal government”) = bad

good + bad is not a twofer.

Somebody attack this idea????

because they don’t want to reduce the deficit.

and we shouldn’t either.

Not to pile on, but let’s stick with the example of the 1 Hour Martinizing in my town. OK. Let’s say my pay has been frozen or cut or I’ve taken a lower paying job inasmuch as the economy sucks. Right? OK. i need to tighten my belt and livce within my means. So i need to eliminate some things. I think, for one, I’ll buy some spray starch and iron my own shirts sometimes and save money on drycleaning. OK? I’m not the only one so Mr. Small Businesman Dry Cleaner has to lay somebody off. I know!!!! Let’s cut his taxes!!!! That way he’ll hire back that person to work in his store that has no fucking business because me and people like me still cut ouyt dry clewaning from our budget. How does giving him more money help? Doesn’t. Hmmm. What would help? GIVE ME THE MONEY so I can use his service again and THEN as his business picks up when other consumers do the same he’ll need another employee and hire somebody and he’s happy because he’s making money again because consumers like me have the $ to buy his service. Giving him the money don’t do shit eexcept enable him to take a vacation in the Bahamas or some shit. Geddit, man?

“Moran”. LOL. That says it all doesn’t it?

Look, morOn, when you tax small business owners, you put them out of business or you force them to cut back. Large companies will just pass on the extra tax cost in the form of higher prices , or lay off workers Small comapnies can really only cut heads

This is precisely the wrong time to raise taxes. If not the case, then why not just raise taxes on everyone?

why do you equate “raising revenue for the federal government” with deficit reduction? I don’t think the FishGuy did.

“Tobin Tax”, yeah.

Credit it with what? Just because it’s a wire transfer instead of a paper bill doesn’t change things. The government legally won’t have the right to spend more than it takes in on an ongoing basis.

Look, your credit cards are maxed out. You make $x a week. You can therefore only spend$x a week, minus what you have to pay toward the credit card balance.

yup. you said it all.

You know there are those who will say (not me BTW) that the huge gov deficit is hindering private investment and if the deficit were reduced then the economy would improve bc the private sector would not be competing with the gov for money. (sounds silly but) Further, lets not cut productive work. Lets reduce benefits for those who are not in the labor force by some small amount. that’s Obamas and the thugs idea, just differeht degrees.

Wait! Wait!! Me and the government are the same!!!!!! Hallelujah!!! That’s the answer! Why didn’t I think of that??!!

beowulf would have the cite (maybe google can help?) but by current law, no treasury overdrafts with fed are allowed.

so let’s cut YOUR taxes!

Probably because there’s an agenda to fulfill? You’re right, that’s not really what I’d intended, at least not directly. The issue with the budget is that we’re running at a deficit — there are lots of ways to reduce that (e.g., ending wars, allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire) without “new” taxes designed to help ameliorate the bad effects of those prior problems.

More right wing complete bullshit.

Like I said, history proves the economy does just fine with low unemployment with taxes on the wealthy as high 90%. PROVEN FACT. Look it up. Look at GDP growth and unemployment in era’s where the top tax rate was 90%.

Also, taxes don’t put people out of business, loss of demand does. If the top tax rate today was 90% but there was a lot of demand for that small business owner’s goods, s/he will borrow if s/he has to to hire more people or buy more equipment to meet that demand. Likewise, if taxes were ZERO s/he’s not gonna hire a single new person unless and until demand picks up and forces him/her too.

If you’ve ever run a business you’d know this. Business owners don’t just rush out and hire new employees because their taxes went down. If they did, they’d go broke and be out of business in a hurry.

Moran.

It might be better for most Americans to live in a defaulted America with SS and Medicare as it is, rather than in an undefaulted America with SS and Medicare cuts.

It could be fun to say we defaulted on Boehner and Cantor’s watch. Make sure they spell their names correctly in the history books.

i should have written attempting to reduce the deficit. or maybe reducing cbo projected deficit (bogus projections, but that’s what everyone is after).

The issue with the budget is that we’re running at a deficit — there are lots of ways to reduce that (e.g., ending wars, allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire) without “new” taxes designed to help ameliorate the bad effects of those prior problems.

why would we want to attempt to reduce the deficit by decreasing spending or increasing taxes?

(i’d also like to end the wars and regressive tax cuts — but not for the purpose of attempting to reduce the deficit).

Well lets say I give the bond to the bank, who credits my account. It then turns the bond over to the feds who credit their account at the fed(treas). The bank can now pay me and get the cash from the fed or use it as reserves. The tresury can burn the bond, it is gone.

Government and me are not the same. The gov can print money, I cannot.

Nuts. another stoopid law.

And look at tax revenues as a percent of GDP in those years when marginal rates hit 90%. You know what you will find? They were at the same levels as when the rates were much lower. Higher rates do not raise revenues over a long period. They instead stifle demand and bring down revenues.

If raising taxes is such a good idea, raise your own. Keep your money grubbing hands off of mine. I don’t take much more from society than you and I’ll be damned if you’re going to soak me to make up for your miserable choices in life oldfagguy

There are LOTS of other ways for the federal government to spend money that don’t have the negative effects of defense contractor spending, such as infrastructure maintenance or construction. You’re just being contrary for the sake of being so.

On the other hand, there’s indeed a case to be made that “taxing the rich” isn’t punitive, but rather a fair assessment of the gains in productivity that have accrued at a proportionately higher rate to the upper 5% — having gone to both undergrad and grad school with those folks, you can’t convince me for a second that they all “earned” it themselves.

Yeah yeah yeah yeah, “I’ve got mine fuck everybody else”.

We get it already.

Good luck with that if there’s ever in fact a judgement day.

That’s what it’s really all about. You and your right wing blowhards try use economic bullshit to justify lowering the rich’s taxes, but at the end of the day it’s all bullshit and the bottom line is you’re all in the same “I’ve got mine and fuck everybody else” boat.

One function of taxes is to redistribute wealth. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Over some period of time now the differences between the upper and lower classes hss grown. It may be time to correct that through higher taxes including estate taxes. We are, after all, in this together, or you can leave.

I don’t know any genuine small businesspeople who have incomes that high. Most of them are lucky if they make more than 50K a year.

You’re just being contrary for the sake of being so.

back off with the ad hominem.

i’m obviously not being clear. my apologies for that.

i’m in favor of changing how the money is spent. i’m not in favor of attempting to spend less for the sake of spending less.

you can’t convince me for a second that they all “earned” it themselves.

wouldn’t spend a second trying to convince you because i don’t believe it either.

The wealthy are undertaxed by even recent standards – and too many corporations are hiding their revenue by running it through tax havens.

selise, you know all this already: you’re not stupid or ignorant.

Taxing the wealthy is not necessarily punitive. But this may not be the best time to do it.

left over from gold standard days?

Or, a real example, the bookstore that’s closing because it’s losing money – it’s part of a chain, so some of the people can move to other locations, but it’s going to be hard for them, too.
They can’t compete with the video kiosk in the supermarket and with online streaming/DVD rental, which apparently was a big chunk of their revenue.

That’s a good bet,but the rich are always looking for ways to be sure they are consulted before anything is done.

i don’t disagree.

but it has nothing to do with “raising revenue” or dealing with faux deficit crisis.

it’s like iraq and 9-11. put the two together enough and people end up thinking iraq had something to do with 9-11.

i’m trying to separate the issues of where to spend and where to tax from the faux deficit “problem.” for the same reason — the two issues have gotten conflated and that’s a big problem.

And you also have to explain marginal tax rates to people who should already understand tax brackets.
If the top tax rate was, say, 90 percent on everything over a million dollars, the person whose taxable income was a million and one dollars would pay 90 percent on one dollar, not on the whole thing, and the guy with two million dollars in taxable income would pay 90 percent on everything over 1 million, which would be 90 percent of a million dollars.

Greenspan followed his theories his whole life and then admitted to Waxman he’d found a flaw. We’ve found several flaws in DC laws and thinking. Someone should tell the chief.

or increase taxes on the rich and decrease them on the working class. iow, revenue neutral projections.

the point i’m trying to make(*) is that attempting to increase net taxes is a recipe for further austerity.

(*) obviously i’m doing a lousy job of it tonight.

No, it’s connected.
The last maladministration put its illegal wars and its tax cuts on our bill, and we have to pay for them. But some people are avoiding paying, so the rest of us have to pay part of their bill too. And some of us are tired of it. (The illegal wars and the tax cuts are a big reason for the deficit being as large as it is. The people who think the deficit is a problem are mostly the same people who voted for those. It’s really a people problem, but money is the manifestation we deal with.)

This is for he or she who wants to remain nameless–What have the past ten years of Bush/Obama tax cuts done for the economy? They have given us huge deficits and high unemployment. The line that we can’t raise taxes in this downturn does not work any more. The ten years of tax cuts brought us to this point. Continued tax cuts will put us in the hole deeper. Tax cuts do not create jobs. They have reduced jobs. Quit trying to shove your flawed logic/lies on the rest of us.

selise, selise, selise.
If you increase taxes at the top end, where the money has been disappearing to, that isn’t a problem.
(‘Why do you rob banks?’
‘That’s where the money is.’)

Not only that, but when the economy is bad and these small businesses aren’t making any money, their taxes are already zero or so low anyway as to make tax rate changes insignificant.

Taxes are paid on the PROFITS of a business, not on it’s revenues.

I am an accountant (or used to be) and 99.9% of the small businesses we had as clients never made enough profits to get to the highest rates anyway. Like I said, all of this taxes will hurt small business owner’s is just bullshit to try and make up an economic excuse to get what they really want, which is the rich not paying taxes.

Add to that the Reagan/Bush years with their tax cuts and the same effing argument that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. If that’s true, we should have had economic booms under Reagan and Bush41, and a recession under Clinton. But it was the other way around, so raise taxes and get the money out of people’s mattresses or wherever rich people and corporations stash their cash, and get it back into circulation and paying people for working.

and we have to pay for them

do you think the federal budget is anything like a household budget? that, like us, the federal govt, in order to have money to spend must have revenues, borrow or sell assets?

please, i beg you, read the following (at least the first one):

http://my.firedoglake.com/selise/2011/04/14/usg-deficits-the-economics-the-politics-the-banksters-and-you/

http://my.firedoglake.com/selise/2011/06/06/stephanie-kelton-what-happens-when-the-government-tightens-its-belt/

http://my.firedoglake.com/lrwray/2011/07/06/a-progressive-approach-to-federal-budgeting-or-can-one-take-billionaire-pete-peterson’s-money-and-remain-progressive/

why shouldn’t the first unpaid debt be the paychecks owed to Congressmen and Senators?

The poll asked the wrong question. Why is there a debt ceiling at all? Most sovereign economies with their own currencies do not have a ceiling at all. Where did the concept come and why the big kabuki?
http://my.firedoglake.com/warrenmosler/2011/07/20/modern-monetary-theory-the-last-progressive-left-standing-2/
explains how monetary theory works.
pshakkottai

http://krunchd.com/hiredtodoajob

EverNewEcoN

Why don’t we ask in a poll:

The people at the top TAKE the most because by being on top they get to be first in line to TAKE the most. The lackeys of the people on top have convinced all us chumps on the bottom to let the pigs at the top TAKE more for 30 years because it was supposed to make life better for us chumps. Instead, the pigs have wasted everything they TAKE on personal pyramids, pyramid schemes, and ponzi schemes, and all us chumps are working harder for less – less job security, less health care security, less retirement security, less retraining security, …

Are you so fucking stupid that you OPPOSE letting pigs TAKE less?

1. yes.
2. no.
3. I’m too fucking stupid to pick a yes or no answer.

rmm.

Taxing the wealth is bad to raise revenues for public services being slashed?

Taxing corporations sitting on billions upon billions of profit (many of whom pay nothing do to loopholes) to raise revenues to pay for slashed public services is bad?

Ending the Bush tax cuts to raise revenues to pay for public services is bad?

I don’t get this.

They don’t unless you MAKE THEM PAY their share (no loopholes, 50% rate).

x2.

How does this person comment without a user name showing?

Yeah . . . I was wondering about that piece of bs.

Taxes on individual INCOMES above $250k, not business revenue.

It’s all a load of rubbish from someone without a screen name. If I had a flag option . . . . damned insulting assbyte too, on top of its rubbish.

I don’t think any of us proggies are taking issue with you about NET TAXES!

Tax the rich, make corps PAY their taxes = no loopholes/offshore accounting.

So yeah, there’s a decided mis communication connect here.

I’m not worried about the deficit, I’m pissed about eroding essential public services so they can be privatized.

Raise taxes on rich, corps, pay for public services (and jobs development investment by the government = WPA).

Yep, trickle down is wet and it’s yellow.

Well done.

I bet the Obama loyalists will reply with something like this:

“Polls don’t matter. I don’t think you know how a representative democracy works. The people elected the senate and congresspeople to enact the changes that are on the table. Sure, they’re not perfect, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. At least they’re not harvesting the organs of the poor to pay off the deficit. Half a loaf of bread is better than none.”

amen and thank you!

Because Selise, if the government doesn’t raise taxes they can’t spend unless it borrows or prints the money. Get it? You have to have money to spend money. Generally, rational people think that in a capitalist economy when private demand is low, public spending fills the gap. That’s why they favor higher taxes on the rich. The problem with most Keynesian thinking is that it doesn’t factor in the global economy. In case you haven’t noticed, it is not a recession for the big corporations and their wealthy owners. They are doing quite well (record corporate profits). That’s another reason most rational people would say “tax the bastards!” Get it.

Say you own a concrete company with 50 cement trucks. Those trucks beat up the roads we all use due to their weight. You don’t feel you should pay more taxes to fix the roads your truck destroyed while making tons of money for yourself.