The rates going up for everyone will cause far more problems than it will solve for the country as a whole, not to mention millions of people. Don't suggest letting that happen because you feel you'll be okay with it personally. That has to be one of the most selfish things I've ever heard.

So the Repubs are holding the 98% hostage because less revenue will be generated if those making $250K and up have their taxes increased?

Puh-lease.

No.  They're not.  All of us are being held hostage by the fact that there are no meaningful spending cuts involved in any of the Obama proposals.  FWIW, the "increases" may only give a temporary revenue bump in the first place.  Once in place, behaviors will change in response? and that revenue they supposedly need so badly will be gone.  In the meantime, these tax increases do nothing to help the economy - nor will they likely actually shift any of the burden to the rich in the long run.  The opposite could very well be true, as it has been historically.

If they have to raise the debt ceiling, they should just do it.  Fight the tax increases on another front.  If they absolutely have to soak the rich, they don't need the fiscal cliff to do it.  The fact that they are tying tax increases to it tells us that the "hostage taking" is going on by the Democrats.  Democrats and Obama don't deserve a pass on this.  It's a two way street.  I don't think Republicans deserve a pass either.

Both parties are using the crisis to force their agendas.  Of course, it's the Republicans who offered to vote on the offer as presented and the Democrats who refused.  Who are the hostage takers again?  (My answer = both).

Posted by bistiza on 12/6/2012 3:27:00 PM (view original):
The rates going up for everyone will cause far more problems than it will solve for the country as a whole, not to mention millions of people. Don't suggest letting that happen because you feel you'll be okay with it personally. That has to be one of the most selfish things I've ever heard.

This doesn't seem contradictory to you?  Then you must be a lot less smart than you think you are.  Taxing the small guy is going to cause problems, but if small business owners can't pay they should go out of business.  Problem is, these are the same people.  Many small business owners pay Federal income taxes on several times their true take-home income because of the legal structures most small businesses have.  I know my parents pay taxes on 4-5x their paychecks.  So they should go out of business since they appear to make more money than they actually do, but low to middle-income families who just happen to work for somebody else deserve tax relief?

BTW, bis, if that was in response to one of my posts, it's far less selfish than "Tax them.  They can afford it."   I'm saying "Tax all of us.  Let's do our fair share."

The Repubs have moved past no revenue increases.

The question is what has Obama given in on? He actually wants to increase some spending. He wants a large increase in revenue and almost no cuts.

The Republicans need to get the message out that Obama has not made a deal since he got there. He talks a big game, but never actually makes a deal.

Pubs are offering large scale loophole removal that are not revenue neutral, a concession.

What has Obama offered?

Hope and change?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/6/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):
Hope and change?

Little hope, and loose change.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/6/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):
Hope and change?

 The only change Obama gave us in his first 4 years was an even greater amount of reckless spending then what we already had.

The next 4 years the dollar amount of the deficit will continue to go forward, not backward.

So, there you have it.... Obama's 2 campaign promises = Change and Forward.

Taxing the small guy is going to cause problems, but if small business owners can't pay they should go out of business.  Problem is, these are the same people.

These aren't the same people in the least. The "small guy" is someone who doesn't earn much money, which means far less money than any small business that is even moderately successful would earn for its owner.

So they should go out of business since they appear to make more money than they actually do, but low to middle-income families who just happen to work for somebody else deserve tax relief?

Those who earn less deserve more tax relief. Most small businesses if even moderately successful earn more than people who struggle to get by (or else they probably would go out of business). My guess is your parents earn enough they don't struggle to pay the bills, as anyone with a small business is usually able to do unless it is failing or on the verge of failing.

I'm saying "Tax all of us.  Let's do our fair share."

Then we agree on the principal, just not on how to achieve it.

I say the "fair share" means the more you earn (and even the more you have) the more you should pay, with those who make very little paying very little. I'm all for taxing people more as long as it is the people who earn more.

Poor people are burdened enough. Your idea of taxing them more only means more of them will end up using government programs to survive and at a greater rate than before, which means ultimately the government is losing and so are the people.