Rave this if you know that the 'tax the rich' meme is B.S.

It is just as asinine not to have a fair tax rate (raise taxes) on the richest Americans as it is not to cut spending.

Why do those claiming American citizens are the problem are mute on corporate welfare?
http://www.welfareinfo.org/co...

Why don't we start by stopping all corporate welfare since we all can agree on that, then after corporate welfare is gone, then address social welfare?

Oh, I totally agree. I do not support corporate welfare . Didn't support the bailouts at all.

Cool, We are in agreement on that one. It troubles me though that those opposing welfare do not differentiate between the welfare-for-lifer and the family guy who got laid off that needs a little support to get himself retrain and find another job. Do you see a difference? Should welfare cuts hurt the guy who has given to society by working most of his life and once back on his feet will work again? Since unemployment is earned by those employed, and then paid by those that employed him or her, should not benefits for those who have lost their jobs not be cut? That is where I start wondering. I'm all for cutting off the people who spend their entire lives on welfare, its the guy or gal who wants to work and just needs a little help getting back on their feet that gets me thinking.

hummm.. Why don't we do then BOTH at the same time??? NOW...Social welfare can still exist for those TRULY in need and a caseworker can check on the homes that receive it.. making sure the number of people that are collecting are actually the ones IN the home.. the kids are taken care of .. etc.. the way they USE to do it.. when not everyone and their brother was on it. I think it only fair that those receiving benefits get drug tested also.. Know to many people getting paid to get high,, scamming the system and believing they deserve it.. go back to making people not so comfortable betting FREE stuff that taxpayers pay for..

Lets face it .. the left wants what they HAVEN'T earned.. doesn't matter much.. either way the MIDDLE CLASS will be footing the bill since we don't have enough rich to do any difference..

Cut 99% of military spending.

Still not enough and then we're pickings for our enemies.

the FIRST thing that is important in any SPENDING is NATIONAL SECURITY.. without it you put your country in DANGER.. well more danger than we already have with the GOVERNMENT we have ..

I'm sure many of you know this already but it doesn't matter who's in office; we always end up with the shttiest 2 to chose from and they never change anything.

We should cut the military. That solves plenty of problems. Those unemployed former military men can now find a new workplace via the tax cuts that are being used to create jobs.

The military is the best place for those young people that can't find a job!

I disagree, I served twice now because I couldn't find a job that paid as well, but they pay too much. For people like me who took the shortcut out of finding a proper job that actually benefits society, shame on us.

I am proud of my service and believe I was paid appropriately. My generation stood up to the world bully (USSR) and eventually won? Why shouldn't I be feelin' anything but proud?

Was that first question mark intentional? Either way I'd like to point something out. The military has a strange way it pays the soldiers. First, everyone gets paid the same based on time in service rather than your job field and expertise. I was in training for 28 weeks to learn my job the first time while other soldiers had 2 weeks training to be a truck driver, but we all got paid the same. For many MOS's like cooks, mechanics, and laundry specialists, they were always working while others like us got to chill in our barracks because there was no work to be done half the time. Secondly, married soldiers get paid more just for being married; and even more if they have a kid, but we had the exact same job. Do you know of any civilian jobs that pay you more because you're married? When we get deployed the married soldiers get paid even more through 'seperation pay'. Additionally, when a married soldier gets promoted with more pay their amount for being married also goes up! The whole point is that the US military seems to have some sort of socialist system going on, completely defying the capitalist system we fight for. What's strange is that the lifers completely love military system because they get paid outrageously in contrast to the suffering masses they "defend". To prove my point you should take note of how military personel are always buying new vehicles.

Many support jobs can, and are, being privatized. Good. You may be right about retirement, I believe you should have so much time in the field before retiring. Let's just privatize all support jobs, and keep the warriors! What I am saying is that right now, any young person without a job ought to get in the military, get some real life experience, and see the world, and even experience a little (real) danger. Boot camp would help a lot of youngsters grow up!

I feel the military should pay less, it's costing the taxpayers and our nation too much. The military should be more of a period of servitude for which when we get out we still get all the benefits they offer us as veterans, but not get paid great AND get a bunch of benefits.

One last thing, you were in at a different time where I believe but not certain that you indeed got paid about appropriately. Not to mention you joined for a better cause at the time whether you knew it or not. I think you have a right to be proud, more so than today's soldiers. Granted when I joined I had no idea how much they paid until I found out, so more shame on just me for joining a 2nd time.

If you think the military service members are overpaid, have you looked at the rest of the government payroll? Everything is relative, their pay is pathetic compared to the rest of the "government servants", including our elected representatives! Just would like for you to start thinin' about that!

Okay, you're right. However, case in point. Government jobs pay too much. I'm sure I've heard it enough "you should try to get a government job". Why does everyone say that? Because government jobs pay the most. If civilian jobs aren't cutting par then why should government be forking out more for their employees? It all adds up to our debt as a nation.

My point exactly, Obama wants the government controlling every aspect of our lives, and is willing to bankrupt the country to do it. I honestly believe he wants bankruptcy, the crisis will need government intervention, and he can blame it on the Rupubs. It's a win-win for him. Just what I'm thinkin', how about your?

Just more money obama can add to his petty cash fund. Would be very interested to see tax returns on the folks that are so free with other people's money. IHTLB

nearly every economist and even Warren Buffet has very clearly stated increasing taxes on the rich is the only viable solution. The only BS is from those claiming cuts will solve everything.

Well, there you go, warren buffet and a whole slew of liberal economists said it so it must be true. Sort of like the global warming bullspit. Liberals may rant louder but we know from experience they rarely know what they are talking about.

I might be inclined to listen to what buffet has to say if he weren't fighting paying $1 billion in back taxes he owes.
It a very simple concept. If you spend more than you take in you go into debt. The solution of which is to spend less than what you take in to pay off that debt.

85 billion ? how many average joe would it take to raise that money . 85 billion sure go a long way.

But, it wouldn't put a dent in the amount they overspend now.

How do you know how much they spend?

It is a simple populist ploy - Burn The Castles!!! Steal thier Livestock! ..... If we raised taxes to 100% for all the billionaires - it wouldn't fix it......the populist socialist would celebrate in the street, but the nations fiscal issues would be no better of.

Once again the Democrats are holding out the "carrot" of tax reform, if the republicains will raise taxes now.....time and time again the Democrats have doen this and never have they held up thier side of the bargin........even Mr. Regean and Mr. Clinton fell prey to this tatic - don't do it again please........ Such silliness needs to be exposed as class warfare and not serious policey.

Yes! Cut spending. Thank you. All of us, rich and poor, need to be willing to sacrifice.

Set aside the plundering of the wealthy, clean house in Washington and our state governments. It could be done if we would pull together!

"Plundering of the wealthy" !! Is your memory so short mary? It was the wealthy that plundered the rest only a few years ago, and then were bailed out by taxpayers dollars AND THEN paid themselves bonuses of $150 billion out of those handouts.
The wealth distribution in the US is the most uneven in the industrialised world and the most uneven in the US's history.
It is well past time that the super-rich started paying their fair share.

Raising taxes on the rich will cause them to shift their wealth in the direction of securing it, rather than expanding it through investment and entrepreneurial endeavors. This will actually probably have an adverse consequence rather than boost revenue by $85 billion! The economy is NOT a zero sum game. Progressives (Regressives) always sell this tax hike as if it is. Less money being invested in the economy will result in fewer jobs for the poor and middle class. But, this will accomplish their goal of greater dependence on government! Goodbye, America!

We're talking about 3 cents on the dollar for incomes over $250,000 in most cases. That's not going to far to change anything.

Most of those investments your talking about today are in existing stocks and bonds and have no affect on the economy.

Really, and when they pull that money out of the bond market, just what do you think will happen. Economics should be required in grade school.

If money is pulled out of the bond market or stock market the prices will go down. However, That would also increase the money supply. Since money just sitting under the matress just looses value presumably the money would quickly go back into other investments.

Keep in mind that the bonds themselves would have already provided the issuers with their funds so no effect on them. Also no affect on the interest being paid. That would just go to the new owners.

I would expect the affect on the bond market to be minimal. Stocks might take a bigger hit, but since that market is dominated by tax differed institutions and investors wouldn't look for much affect there either.

It will for some people and besides, who has the authority to reach into one persons pocket and take what that person "doesn't need"? Do you? Do I? Since when does the government, which is simply an extension of our power have the ability to wield power that you and I do NOT have?!

"Who has the authority?" The government does, because the people have given them that power.
It's not a case of taking "what people don't need", it's a case of taxing at a fair rate to benefit society as a whole.
"Since when does the government ... have the ability to wield power that we don't have?" ... well, since the US became a nation in its own right as you know. As is the case with every other nation in the world.
Are you really advocating anarchy Andrew, suggesting that the government should have no powers to raise taxes? Isn't that the very issue that drove Americans to create their own nation in the first place?
Where does the favored treatment of those with obscene amounts of money end? Let's not forget, they are the ones who've had the power to influence government decisions to their own benefit for so long.
During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. I think it's about time to redress that repulsive imbalance.