Geithner: 'Privilege of Being an American' Is Why Rich Need Higher Taxes

Since the government has every business in levying taxes, it would be just as wise for the Govt to insure the taxes it levies is sufficient to cover its spending.

But then, if the Republicans stopped beating their little drum people would stop hating the middle class, and they'd start to look at their morally vacuous economic record. And they can't allow that to happen.

Hence the non-stop false propaganda from the conservative we see regularly regurgitated here.

 

So as long as there is someone out there with a nickel left untaxed, the government is under what constraint to stop spending?

Your comment tells one everything they need to know about liberal fiscal policy...it's the people's job to cover for whatever government decides to spend. Thank you for the lesson.

 

The rich didn't cause the debt, the government did.

So sorry.

 

So, according to Geithner, the poor aren't Americans? They don't pay taxes so they aren't recieving the privilege of being American. Actually, they are "negative Americans" cause they take out more than the give.

 

In large part by cutting taxes mostly on the rich.

What for?

 

And who cut the taxes?

 

Mostly Reagan and Bush, and Obama as part of the Stimulus.

 

So the government?

 

Sure. I acknowledged that in the post to which you responded.

 

Ok, I wasn't getting your context with the pronouns. I saw it as you saying the rich cut the taxes, cause he said the rich didn't cause the deficit, the government did. You just agreed with him and there for the rich shouldn;t have to burden the revenue alone cause they are the cause of the debt. I get what you are saying now.

 

Is that like "who let the dogs out?"

 

I add relevent things all the time...it's just that you don't listen. So, I really have had it with trying to have a sane discussion with you.

 

So, now that I answered your question...can you answer mine? I will give you one last chance to have a sane discussion about it I suppose, that's just the kind of girl I am.

 

Feel free to explain what your avatar has to do with my post.

Your avatar, by the way, is way wrong. It simply pronounces you as someone who accepts erroneous consertive propaganda on face value and that you are too lazy or ignorant to check the slop they feed you.

 

See my post immediately above.

 

Slop they feed you? Who's they? And how is it not relevant to what we are discussing? Also, tell me how it's false.

I'm about to give up on you again....

 

They being the conservative propaganda media. Where did you find the pic for your avatar?

It is false because when Bush left office, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion, not $6.3 trillion.

It has increased $4.8 trillion since Obama took office, not $6.5 trillion.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

None of which was relevant to my post, which was about spending, not debt.

Give up on me for what?

 

Actually it took 43 Presidents to amass a debt of $10.6 TRILLION.

And one incpmpetent fool to increase it to $15.4 TRILLION.

220 years to OVERspend $10.6 trillion and then 3 years to OVERspend $4.8 trillion more.

31.16% of the total national debt run up by one idiot in just 3 years!

When Democrats took over control of Congress in 2007 the debt was 8.677 TRILLION. So $6.760 TRILLION OF OUR $15.4 TRILLION national debt has been run up by Democrats since 2007. 5 years and they ran up 44% of the total 220 year debt.

Your numbers were off by a bit but the spirit was there.

 

Of course, Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit and the worst recession in 80 years, which has a lot to do with it.

The real tragerdy was runnin up all this debt at times when the economy was doing OK.

 

Maybe if Obama had used the stimulus for more shovel ready projects like he promised instead of teaching African men how to clean their penis he would have helped the economy more.

Now three plus years into his term he has no one else to blame but himself.

 

Blame for what?

Steady growth in the economy for more than two years?

The private sector creating 3.6 million new jobs over the past two years?

The stock market going from 6600 to almost 13,000?

The unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 8.3%?

Sure. Blame Obama for those.

 

Steady growth at a snale's pace.

That may be good enough for Obama but its not good enough for us.

 

Funny, it was good enough for you in the last two election cycles.

 

And one is wholly correct in asking what proof is there that any policy of obama's has had anything to do with the recovery. Recoveries DO happen without interference. When the Stimulus was passed,,,,that day, I said the recovery just got set back at least 2 years.

The Stimulus was passed and failed 2 years ago. The only recent beneficial policies in place are the BUSH tax cuts and the tiny FICA tax reduction that is a terrible cost to future Social security financing.

obama's expertise lies in two areas. Blaming everyone else for his failures, and taking credit where he deserves none. But he does both extremely well!

 

The global automotive industry would have collapsed. Aggregate demand would have fallen. Recovery would not have happened.

This is logic. I can't argue with belief. If you want to believe Obama is the antiChrist then there is little I can do.

The truth is that the deficit Became enormous under Bush, the global banking system collapsed under Bush and the stimulus was rightly started under Bush. Obama didn't actually do that much. I suppose he can take limited credit for that. But that's also what's disappointing. The worsening of the US economy and deficit was already in the pipeline. Obama doesn't even make good speeches any more.