William Bradford finally figured it out nearly 400 years ago. But it hasn't sunk in for Obama yet.
Humans have evolved and are wired to be concerned with their own self survival. Next would be the health and well being of their families. Finally would come their tribe or group. This does not mean we should ignore the needs and troubles of others in the larger community, or that we shoud not strive for the common welfare, but by human nature we will think of our own well being, and that of our mates and children first.
Why would a rich person even want to create jobs or hire anyone or make more money if the government takes 90% of it...of even 40% if the cuts expire? They might as well be content to live off the interest and invest their money and efforts elsewhere.
The only thing that needs to “sink in” to RWers is that America rejected their straw-man nonsense. No one is proposing to take 90% of anyone's income (that's silly hyperbole). However, you don't need to go back 400 years to a time when upper incomes in America were indeed taxed at a 90% marginal rate and the economy grew.Today, Obama is only proposing to go back to the Clinton tax rates (which was a time when 22 million jobs were created and we made a few debt payments due to running a surplus. We tried it Dubya's way for 8 years (NO JOBS). Now we want to try something different. A plan that worked in the recent past (not 400 years ago, but 14 years ago).You RWers and your ideological “grand scheme” nonsense is oh so irrelevant (and smells like warm poop from sour grapes). FORWARD
So you're suggesting that the rates going back up to 39.6% on those that make over $250K will somehow create thousands of jobs. Government jobs perhaps? How would that exactly work jpat. Sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
The truth is, is that the economy gets sick and recovers pretty much on it's own. Interest rates or tax rates appear to have little to do with it. Any money from new taxes would simply be used to finance old government programs, or create new ones. The left has been doing this since, like, forever.
Or perhaps " revenue " spread out equitably among the higher income brackets on a scale down to lower brackets can be used on such projects as infrastructure upgrades on an electrical grid that seems about as stable as anything Roosevelt might have encountered. That's Teddy not Franklin. What a concept, actually putting revenue into America instead of CAIRO where it seems dear leader has taken the measure of telling the courts and judges he is beyond anything they may rule for against his policies.
Not one red nickel borrowed from the Chinese should be spent in Egypt or Pakistan among others....i'm telling you, bribes don't go very far these days in those dusty outposts while folks are shivering in the dark in places like Staten Island waiting for Aleaxnder Graham Bell lighting and power to figure out when the lights are coming back on....that Muslem Brotherhood in Egypt, the GOTTI crew looked like Jersey shore next to these guys...
Like you mentioned Skyjack, caring for one self, family and then community is the pecking order. WELL propping up a dictatorship in Egypt comes about as far down the list of grocery items this country should shop for. And hiding OBL right under the nose of the CIA should get PAKISTAN on the to DON'T list as well, with Kabul and it's suburbs right in the mix of places to not see with the family this summer.
jpatman wrote: "Increase taxes on the wealthiest is for helping lower deficit spending and pay bills over time."
No, jpatman, that WON'T, jpatman! The ONLY way to slow the growth of our deficit is to CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING, and President Obama CAN'T do that without seriously hurting his party's political power! The Democrats are ALL ABOUT increasing entitlement spending! Once they begin to CUT entitlement spending they LOSE VOTES! It's just that simple!
"The private sector created 22 million jobs at the Clinton tax rate (which invalidates the argument that “increased taxes on the wealthy stifles job growth”)."
President Clinton benefitted greatly from the end of the Cold War (won by the policies of Ronald Reagan) with its accompanying defense spending cuts! President Obama doesn't have that option, but that certainly won't prevent him from gutting America's military if he can then use those funds for more federal entitlement spending! "A slight tax increase on the wealthiest is not meant to be the end-all be-all of solutions"
It won't be ANY kind of a solution, jpatman! But this president will try and use it as a way of blaming Republicans for his OWN economic failures! Once again, he CAN'T CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING without damaging the Democrats!
"The real truth is our economic bubble/bust scenario can be traced back to causation (i.e. Dubya's voluntary lending standards and poor capitalization requirements). Even today, Rs continue to support Dubya's failed standards."
Still blaming Bush, I see? That never gets old. But I guess it's either that or face reality, right? Once again, we currently have a president attempting to create a "dependency economy" here in the United States! He's already added FAR MORE to our national debt in 46-months ($5.6-trillion) than Bush added in 96-months ($4-trillion), but you can't talk about that because it destroys your entire argument! I understand and feel your pain.
Sylvester wrote: "Funny, Dick Durbin a leader among progressive forward politics said on todays Sunday gabfests that yes entitlements can be looked at in budget talks but the gop's are sticking to there story, no increase on taxes for the top 2 percent which would help close the deficit"
If you're going to run for office promising your voters that you WON'T agree to raise taxes, then you SHOULDN'T, Sylvester!
Especially if the president isn't serious about reducing government spending and/or cutting our nation's ever-increasing debt! Democrats LIKE raising taxes but they are UNABLE to cute government spending, unless it's tied to national defense!
The race to represent Arizona's ninth district was too close to call until Monday morning.
Kyrsten Sinema has officially been elected as the nation's first openly bisexual congresswoman, the Associated Press reports.
The race to represent Arizona's ninth district was too close to call until Monday morning, when the AP announced that Sinema's lead had risen to more than 6,000 votes — a margin too large for her opponent, Vernon Parker, to overcome.
The Victory Fund, which funds and trains LGBT political candidates, backed Sinema's campaign. "We're thrilled for Kyrsten," said Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund, in a statement. "She's a dynamic leader and she'll be a strong voice for her community and for all LGBT Americans."
Sinema had been optimistic all along and announced Sunday that she had gained votes against Parker.
"On Sunday, after additional votes were tallied by the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, Sinema increased her lead by an additional 1,079 votes. Sunday’s total brings Sinema’s lead to 5,789 over Parker, or 2.8%. We look forward to the remaining votes being counted and Kyrsten Sinema being sworn into Congress next year."