Wall St. abandons republican brand

[.blank cd]

More Wall St. CEOs supporting higher taxes on the wealthy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a...b_1275348.html

[Vteckidd]

Horrible interpretation once again by huffington post.

The problem with raising taxes on wealthy is it does NOTHING for the economy and doesn't pay a dent in they deficit.

Its a retarded argument to make when you're throwing 500 million dollars down the drain on solyndra.

When the economy is this slow, you can argue about raising taxes on the. 000025% that are multi millionaire's, but you'll cripple the small business owners.

And raising taxes on them is giving the govt a blank check to spend more.

Its just stupid

[Browning151]

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, plain and simple.

[.blank cd]

The problem with raising taxes on wealthy is it does NOTHING for the economy and doesn't pay a dent in they deficit.

Billions of dollars in extra revenue, and a projected 1-3 trillion a decade with a proposed financial activities tax alone

Not a dent. Right....

Its a retarded argument to make when you're throwing 500 million dollars down the drain on solyndra.

the projected revenue increase (hundreds of BILLIONS/yr) isn't a dent, but this 500 million loan initiated under the BUSH administration is a HUGE SUBSTANTIAL waste of money. Hmmm

When the economy is this slow, you can argue about raising taxes on the. 000025% that are multi millionaire's, but you'll cripple the small business owners.

Many small business owners have come out to say that higher taxes won't only not hurt them at all, but will help them in the long run.

And it's more like .5%

And raising taxes on them is giving the govt a blank check to spend more.

This is true. So we fix this as well. Curb spending on stupid subsidies to entities that don't need them *cough*oil,pharm*cough*

[RL...]

Horrible interpretation once again by huffington post.

The problem with raising taxes on wealthy is it does NOTHING for the economy and doesn't pay a dent in they deficit.

Its a retarded argument to make when you're throwing 500 million dollars down the drain on solyndra.

When the economy is this slow, you can argue about raising taxes on the. 000025% that are multi millionaire's, but you'll cripple the small business owners.

And raising taxes on them is giving the govt a blank check to spend more.

Its just stupid

very true....which brings up a good point:

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, plain and simple.

this. Even if the government were to pull an additional 10 trillion out of their ass, the current government would still go into defecit. They need to make drastic changes and stop social security, reforming welfare, cutting congressmans' pay, and stopping the 10 year "the war on terror."

[Vteckidd]

Billions of dollars in extra revenue, and a projected 1-3 trillion a decade with a proposed financial activities tax alone

Not a dent. Right....

1) You cant claim ESTIMATED ANYTHING when you dont even know how MUCH they would raise taxes in the first place.
2) What you and the liberal people fail to realize is you assume that tax revenues and the people you would raise taxes on stays the same if you raise taxes. You guys assume "HERP DERP IF WE RAISE TAXES 15%, WE MAKE XXXXXXXXXX DOLLARS AND WILL CONTINUE TOO". Until you flush all the wealth out of the country then who do you rob.....i mean tax next? History is clear on this, anytime you attack or raise capital gains taxes tax revenues sharply decline.
3) 1-3 trillion a decade amounts to FUCK ALL , so yes, not even a dent. By 2015 we will be running 750 BILLION IN INTEREST ACCRUING ALONE. 750 billion dollars in money we owe, if we had a BALANCED BUDGET. But we dont, Obama wants 1+ trillion dollar deficits a year, only fueling the fire.

So in closing, yes , taxing the rich into oblivion doesnt solve ANyTHING. it only weakens the economy.

the projected revenue increase (hundreds of BILLIONS/yr) isn't a dent, but this 500 million loan initiated under the BUSH administration is a HUGE SUBSTANTIAL waste of money. Hmmm

patently false. Bush looked into it, made a conditional deal with solyndra but never actually funded it. The DOE IIRC rejected the original loan application , but reactivated it after OBama pushed it through. So what? If BUSH did the same thing i would have said THE EXACT SAME THING. you know what the difference was? Under BUSH , with 4% UE and massive tax revenue, you could AFFORD to spend 500 million on a gamble. Obama, simply cannot. Tax revenues are down, UE is up, spending is up. Its like telling an alcoholic its ok to just have 1 more bottle of vodka after being sober for 1 day. But you guys love to blame everyone but yourself. SO its understandable you would say that.

Projected revenue increases are bullshit and they never are right.

Many small business owners have come out to say that higher taxes won't only not hurt them at all, but will help them in the long run.

Not true, the majority of small business owners dont want higher taxes. IF THIS WERE TRUE, WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARENT HIRING RIGHT NOW? ITS BECAUSE THEY DONT KNOW WHAT ITS GOING TO COST THEM UNDER OBAMACARE AND OTHER TAXES HE HAS THREATENED.

This is true. So we fix this as well. Curb spending on stupid subsidies to entities that don't need them *cough*oil,pharm*cough*

I dont know if i agree with the Pharm, but i agree on the oil subsidies. WE should lift the ban on drilling, but not pay them to drill for oil, just hold them accountable to being environmentally friendly.

[Vteckidd]

and the last thing ill say is, if you think for one second, ANY ADMINISTRATION (DEM OR GOP) is going to spend 1 extra dollar to pay down the debt, you are kidding yourself.

Even if these so called 1-3 trillion dollars over 10 years happens, you REALLY think they will pay the debt down? and regardless, in 10 years, the interest alone will be more than a trillion a year.

[BanginJimmy]

I would be all for a 1% tax on all forms of individual income that is dedicated only to debt reduction. This would be a tax like SS or medicare that would not be refundable. I would only be for this under 2 conditions though.

1. Pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Only a money to pay for a Congressionally declared war or the amount dedicated to recover from a natural disaster can be borrowed.

2. A move towards a consumption tax such as the FairTax, which taxes effect the year following debt reduced to zero.


Until the spending problem is fixed, there is no level of taxation that will satisfy the spending craze going on in DC.

[BanginJimmy]

this. Even if the government were to pull an additional 10 trillion out of their ass, the current government would still go into defecit. They need to make drastic changes and stop social security, reforming welfare, cutting congressmans' pay, and stopping the 10 year "the war on terror."

The war on terror has been a joke because of politicians that are more interested in being nice than they are in winning.

The war on terror is also a VERY small part of the problem. The 2011 spending deficit alone was more than the 10 years of the war on terror's total spending.

[miatasaint]

Horrible interpretation once again by huffington post.

The problem with raising taxes on wealthy is it does NOTHING for the economy and doesn't pay a dent in they deficit.

Its a retarded argument to make when you're throwing 500 million dollars down the drain on solyndra.

When the economy is this slow, you can argue about raising taxes on the. 000025% that are multi millionaire's, but you'll cripple the small business owners.

And raising taxes on them is giving the govt a blank check to spend more.

Its just stupid

THIS THIS THIS. Spot on, brother.

[.blank cd]

The war on terror is also a VERY small part of the problem. The 2011 spending deficit alone was more than the 10 years of the war on terror's total spending.

So then, you would agree, using this sliding scale of government spending to the deficit, the Solyndra controversy Vteckidd mentioned would be an even smaller, nearly infinitesimal problem comparatively, correct?

[BanginJimmy]

So then, you would agree, using this sliding scale of government spending to the deficit, the Solyndra controversy Vteckidd mentioned would be an even smaller, nearly infinitesimal problem comparatively, correct?

I do agree with you. The issue with Solyndra is that it seems to have been a one of several different companies that received stimulus money despite an obviously unsustainable business model. These "green" companies simply cannot compete in today's market. For a regular person to purchase these solar energy systems, it is a money losing proposition. Something like a 10k investment will still end in huge net losses compared to natural gas and electric.

If the govt want to push energy efficiency, they need to dump their push for cars like the Volt and Leaf, and push more CNG cars. CNG is actually something a normal person could use and it is still HALF the price of electric.

I am actually considering purchasing one of these. I still need to do some more research on them, but they look like a viable alternative to gasoline for the normal person, especially with the in home refill stations.
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/