Raising taxes will not solve our problems.- aspenstreet1717

Nobody said they would though.

They will HELP though.

Spending cuts alone won't solve the problem either.

We need both.

Refusing to do one thing because it only fixes SOME of the problem is pretty silly.

It'd be like saying you have an unreliable car, so you won't fix the brakes because the radiator would still leak.

You need to do more than one thing to fix the problem. One of those things is raising taxes.

Another is cutting spending.

neither alone fixes it. Together, along with growth, they can.

Hey Nighttrain, Reagan didn't cut tax's?????Pfft President Reagan lifted remaining domestic petroleum price and allocation controls on January 28, 1981,[6] and lowered the oil windfall profits tax in August 1981. He ended the oil windfall profits tax. Reagan followed his 1981 tax cuts with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which sought to eliminate deductions, lower marginal rates for the wealthy, and significantly raise taxes on those earning less than $50,000[7][8] In 1982 Reagan agreed to a rollback of corporate tax cuts and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. The 1982 tax increase undid a third of the initial tax cut. In 1983 Reagan instituted a payroll tax on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance

Raising taxes will not solve our problems. It sounds good but it won't work.

They'll do something, but it'll most likey not be what's good for the average citizens. Also, the cuts that will happen will put more burden on the states and local goverment, who'll in turn raise your taxes one method or another. This is what'll hurt the middle class and lower.

these out of touch old guys need to go back to the rest home because nothing they say is going to motivate anyone to do a thing. the best thing that can happen to this country is to go crashing right over the cliff. after we all pay a few thousand more in taxes and see what Obamacare is going to do for our doctor trips maybe then we'll wake the spit up.

Literally- as the top tax rate has dropped, more and more of the total wealth accumulates in the hands of the ultra wealthy.

Envy gets you nothing- mep

Again, you seem to be confusing envy with...ya know... math.

Every nation that has seen its wealth accumulate in a very tiny fraction of the population has come to ruin, over thousands of years of history. It's a very bad thing to let happen.

This is something the founding fathers understood, and you clearly do not.

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others." — Alexander Hamilton

Sadly, you have no facts to back this up.- mep

well, except actual facts, which back it up... unlike all of your posts I actually support the things I say.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/17/eddie-bernice-johnson/texas-congresswoman-eddie-bernice-johnson-says-soc/

"By the best available measures the rate in 1935 was, as she stated, more than 50 percent."

Further, before medicare, over half of seniors were uninsured... here's proof of that too-

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

So why do you want grandma to be poor and without medical care?

mep- "Sadly, you have no facts to back this up.... poverty was not defined nationally."

Are you kidding? Data clearly shows that social security currently keeps about half or nearly half of elderly Americans out of poverty. And while we don't have a definite number from back then as there was no official poverty threshold, it is easily estimated that about half of all elderly citizens would have been in poverty. The great depression wiped out life savings and millions of people wrote to the government asking for help.

urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/Ch6SocialEG0404.pdf

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/19/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-said-social-security-keeping-older-a/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/20/has-social-security-stabilized-poverty-among-elder/

Half of elderly NC would be in poverty using census records.:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3851

Ain't gonna work. Obviously the voters of this country don't see anything wrong with the status quo, since they put the same "more rons" (sic, thanks GOLO) back in office. The only thing that will fix it is when we do go off the fiscal cliff and the world does indeed collapse. Of course, by then it will be too late.

Prior to social security about HALF of all elderly lived in poverty. That's what you want to return to apparently. junkmail5

Sadly, you have no facts to back this up.... poverty was not defined nationally. Americans had a far better standard of living that a vast majority of others in the world... and still do. Americans are the only ones where those in poverty also suffer from obesity. LOL.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
<prev	next>

sort order: oldest first | newest first