That only further illustrates why not raising taxes, as Rangel has proposed he will do, is so important. Under the Bush plan we are seeing declines in the growth of the deficit. Should demos get there way, Heritage estimates the increase in taxes would lead to the loss of "more than one million lost jobs each year between 2011 and 2014; more than $100 billion less in economic output per year; slower wage and salary growth; and slower savings growth." In other words, the economy would retract, rather than expanding, as it currently is.

If a person owes $20,000 in debt, the best way to pay off that debt is by earning more money, not less money. The same principle holds true with government. Raising taxes would shrink the economy, thereby shrinking government revenues.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

already got Rove's email thank you.

but I lost it

Democrats will raise taxes if they ever get into a positon to do anything...thats a given.

Well if it leads to a more ship-shape economy and a budget surplus like it has with past dem presidents, I'm more a tax increase for the rich.

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

No, taxes will increase on all, including the poor.

Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate;

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Taxes would be raised across the board and they'd simply not admit it(the tope 1%-2% thing is a political line-its BS).
The increased Taxes would buy you nothing more then what you get now.

So, Rangel doesn't like one single tax decrease voted in under Bush and the Republican Congress. I think that means he opposes all tax cuts (resulting in greater government revenues) implemented under Bush and Republicans. And as Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, that means he would oppose all renewals when the bills expire. Should these bills not be renewed, then each and everything I already posted would take place.

That is a fact.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Well we need to balance the budget. Raising taxes and cutting spending is the obvious way to do it. The neocons had all three houses and half of the supreme court and they still could not do anything about the entitlement programs like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Now it’s going to be up to the next crowd.

Until we can get somebody in Washington to fix the entitlement spending problem we have no choice but to raise taxes or else the empire of America will eventually fall from the crushing debt load.

__________________
Classic American liberal

Just like what happened when Clinton raised taxes right? DOn't you remember that huge deficit he handed Bush and that record high unemployment during his term?

No, I remember the recession Hillbilly handed Bush. It happens every time--raise taxes, the economy retracts (recession). Lower taxes, the economy expands. Most people (except demos) would take an expanding economy over a retracting one.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill