[SeekAndFind]

[Paladin2]

The ‘Rats need to invite Art Laughterer(sic) to ‘splain and predict the future for them, LOL.

[ClearCase_guy]

I see two options:

1) We go back to 1978 and have the original lineup of The Clash reunite
2) We have a civil war

(BTW: Joe Strummer is dead.)

[Christian Engineer Mass]

They won’t. Those people are dem voters now.

They’ll hit up the middle class republucans some more, while **talking about** “sticking it to the rich”.

[Red Badger]

A surtax?
They already have a ‘surtax’.
The AMT.............

[skeeter]

If Democrats are going to demogogue medicare, etc, why the hell won't the republicans demogogue the income tax issue?

That strategy would have the added advantage of being true.

[scooby321]

With this hanging out there it should inspire more and emplyment and investment.

Just when I the GOP is dead they bring it back.

[Bean Counter]

We will be heading back to 20% Prime rates again like it was under Carter as well. I have a friend who bought a small house, and got a great deal (at that time) on his mortgage at only 16.2%...

[Texas Eagle]

Media reports in recent weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues.

Yeah? One smarr probrem, Glasshopper. House Republicans.

[kosciusko51]

From the Department of Numbers:

Total US Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

So, no matter the tax rate, tax revenue remains at roughly 15 to 20% of GDP over the last 60 years. After 60 years of empirical evidence, our government should realize that its expenditures should not exceed 20% of GDP.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Going.....going...Galt!

[bilhosty]

Since they voted for him and 80% of Wall street cash went to Obama. I would say they deserve to pay it. Obviously lib rich deserves to pay. But since what is left of Conservative money wont pay for media I think they deserve it as well.

But, on the other hand when those rates go up their will be attempts for loopholes and the Dems will stand there with their hands out to allow the GOP to let them go through. If that happens I will oppose it until their campaign contributions and the lack of propensity for wealthy conservatives to invest it in media changes.

[wayoverontheright]

Whenever we try to combat the argument for higher taxes, we tend to dwell on the harm it will do to investment. This is incontrovertibly true, however, the more powerful argument lies in the fact that the CONSUMER will end up paying all of these increases. The "rich" happen to be composed of investors and employers. Employers and corporations will attempt to maintain profits, and since everyone in their respective markets will have the same expense increase, they will raise prices in unison, and the poor consumer ends up paying the tab....read inflation.

Liberal fiscal arguments always leave the consumer out of the equation. There are more votes among consumers than investors, so that's where our pundits and politicians should make their case, IMHO.

[griswold3]

I guaran-damn-tee that the recession started when Charlie Rangel, chairman of the ways and means committee in 2007, proposed a 3% surcharge on incomes over $1M. (Meaning the tax is paid from gross receipts.) Of course, the ‘Progressives’ believe that they are subsidizing businesses and that the businesses OWE their very existence to the government.

Black market, ho!

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Media reports in recent weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues. This would come on top of the higher income tax rates that President Obama has already proposed through the cancellation of the Bush era tax-rate reductions.”

..because they know Republicans will block them and they want to muddy the deficit issue for the 2012 election.

My argument AGAINST these taxes would be different than the standard arguments that are popular here and that talk radio has repeated a million times(which are not working anymore BTW) :
If tax increase on the rich are such a great idea then why didnt Obama and Pelosi do them in 2009 and 2010 when they had 59 Senators and only needed 50 to pass it like they did the Obama-care budget reconciliation? In fact they could have raised taxes on the rich and extended some of the Bush middle class tax cuts and still used reconciliation as long as it's scored deficit neutral, and still protected 9 Democrat Senators who could vote against it. Why (Democrats) did you wait till Republicans got power to demand what you could have done yourselves easily without them but what you (Democrats) refused to do yourselves?

Hopefully by now you understand why they didnt raise taxes themselves: to keep this an issue for 2012. Republicans are losing on this issue which is sad, and I don't think Rush is giving them political advice that will win the argument.

[JerseyHighlander]

Even a 240% real effective tax rate on the top tier won’t balance the budget.

So... good luck with the progressive wealth transfer programs for f’ing Marxist Democrats.

[Siena Dreaming]

Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million

The steady stream of left-wing ideas now coming out are to keep the left-wing voter base satisfied.

During election season, the WH doesn't want a return of -23 disapproval which happens when the left gets mad at Bozo & Friends.

[Vaduz]

If the democrats could stop their retail therapy problem they wouldn’t have to increase taxes.But that would be akin to asking a wino to give up his Night Train Express.

[Condor51]

'Democrats', not only the politicians, are all certifiably INSANE. Each and every one should be put in an Insane Asylum asap as they're a danger to themselves and society at large.

The bonus from this is that it would create millions of new jobs -- from Construction of the Asylums, to the equipment suppliers, and the Doctors, Nurses and general staff required for all the new Loony Bins. And since we'd now have millions of new workers, Bonus #2 is the Tax Base increases and the gubmint would rake in gazillions in new tax revenue. And Bonus #3 is this would also create millions of new Jobs from the openings at the Universities, High Schools, and Elementary Schools when all the Leftist-Democrats there go bye-bye to a padded cell.

In ten years our $14 Trillion dollar deficit would be zero.

And all we have to do is institutionalize all Democrats.

This is Hope and Change I can believe in.
:-)

[unique]

Hmmmm....when did America become a nation that has a government (at all levels) with the primary goal of taking from the rich and giving to the poor?

I suppose the rich should pay extra to protect their wealth, e.g. common defense of the nation, but rich people don't really use more government services because they are rich so why charge them more?

It seems to me that for 40 years or so our government has developed and implemented lots of programs for poor people but they are still poor and now their next generation is poor with a few exceptions. We really should stand back and look at what in hell we are doing with the trillions of dollars that poor people receive each decade, supposedly to elevate them to 'rich' so that they can pay the poor, also.

I wonder how much it costs all of us, on average, to support one poor person for life? Is it $1 million or more? Also, how much is needed, say double? Of course, the more than passingly strange thing is that we have no input as to how poor people make decisions that impact their lives, we simply pay for a lot of those decisions.

We seem doomed in America, except poor people.