The Republicans gave it their best shot . . .

1) If that's the case, why do you oppose the rate increase?
2) Those exemptions and deductions still exist, meaning no one actually pays the rates as they are today either.
3) Regardless of the exemptions and deductions, raising the rates still raises significant revenue.
4) I think the rates should be raised as well as some deductions ended.

 

where, in the constitution, is it clear what can be made legal tender for all debts

 

I have no issue with increasing the tax rates for incomes over 1M. But that will do nothing to fix our financial mess, and studies say that it will cause the loss of more jobs. Why do you support more unemployment?

Many deductions that were available when the rates were high have been eliminated.

Boehner offered a plan to increase revenue by doing away with exemptions and deductions available to rich people--obama rejected that -- why?

 

the topic is constitutional limits on the role of the federal government.

 

the point is that it's not in the constitution

 

legal tender? what does that have to do with what we are talking about? Lots of things are not in the constitution, but the federal govt is doing them--thats my point. maybe we are agreeing, its hard to tell.

 

you said the roles of the federal government are very clearly spelled out

show me where the constitution clearly spells out what the federal government's role in creating legal tender is

 

Post the studies saying that raising taxes slightly on those making more than $1 million will affect employment significantly.

If these studies are valid, why don't you acknowledge the studies that say that cutting government spending as much as Republicans would like would cause job loss. What about the studies that say the stimulus helped prevent much worse unemployment? Don't listen to only the studies that you like.

I only know of ones that have been extended, actually.

It raised less than half the revenue that Obama's did. If you say that raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't raise anything, then what's half of nothing?

 

Raising revenue is not the answer, unless you want to raise taxes on 100% of the population. The only way to fix the mess is to cut spending.

 

So you think each state should have its own currency? How a bout a company paying employees in "money" that they could only spend at the company store?

what point are you trying to make with the legal tender argument?

 

Hi Meta. You aren't referring to the income of the wealthy. Rather, you're referring to seizure of the principal capital assets of the wealthy. There is not enough income to pay the national debt. To pay the national debt would require seizure of capital assets themselves.

 

The point is that no matter how much you tax the rich, there is not enough money in their combined incomes to fix the problem, but it sounds like you are now advocating for the govt to seize their private property---i.e. steal their wealth from them. Are you sure thats how you want the USA to operate? Do you want them to be able to steal your stuff? If they can steal from the rich, they can steal from you.

 

Unless you are going to confiscate personal property, the only way to pay off the debt is to have an annual surplus, and the only way to have an annual surplus is to cut spending and increase revenue------the problem is that obama's proposal does not cut any spending, and does not raise enough revenue to make any dent in the debt.

Its going to be painful for everyone to dig our way out of this mess that liberal thought has created. Taxes will have to go up and major spending cut will have to be made.

OR, we can make the country business friendly and grow the economy and generate more revenue that way.

 

no

the constitution does not clearly spell out what the federal government's role is in creating legal tender

 

I was simply correcting an ambiguity in your prior post.

 

So pay up, bro. Pay YOUR fair share. Do you need a government mandate to tell you not to be a GREEDY BASTARD?

 

YOU made it personal by asking for a tax increase in the USA. I'm just asking for clarity of the cash-hoarders motive. A real American would simply cover my bill. A LIBERAL would try to make me pay not only my BILL BUT THEIR BILL ALSO.

 

This statement is a "put up or shut up" statement. Pay more in taxes FIRST before you expect others to take your hypocritical lead. If or when you ever take the lead, I am sure a subordinate class will follow.