Why is Obama so hell bent on taxing the rich?

[ttk]

there are less rich voters than poor voters?

[nowincal11]

Originally Posted by LaTrang

No, nobody has to pay more. Congress to spend less, parasite citizens and non-citizens need to demand less.

Then tell Southern politicians to stop taking significant amounts of federal aid. CA gets $0.68 back for every dollar it sends to the Fed. Louisiana gets $1.78. Not fair!

[LaTrang]

Originally Posted by nowincal11

Then tell Southern politicians to stop taking significant amounts of federal aid. CA gets $0.68 back for every dollar it sends to the Fed. Louisiana gets $1.78. Not fair!

Agreed.

[Coachgns]

Originally Posted by arrgy

Because well Obama is a socialist, who supported gay marriage. If he was more like our founding father John Quincy Adams, he wouldn't have the devil in him keeping him bondage, because you know he wasn't born in the United States.

Debating tax policy is one thing. It's healthy.
But Logic like this really makes me worry about the future of this country.
"Gay marriage?" "bondage?" "devil in him?" "Born in the United States?"
All totally relevant to the issue at hand.

[Miborn]

Originally Posted by zz4guy

Or is that his excuse for not allowing spending cuts? Seems like this whole debt crisis would be over if we had a new president who was able to control spending. You really have to wonder why, by his own admission, he does something that could single handedly take down his presidency.

What is this guy hiding? What is his obsession with taxing the rich? The rich and corporations already pay the most income taxes by far than any other group and there isn't nearly enough money to make a dent in the defecit.

Because it is pitting the rich against the poor and will get him votes from the uneducated.

[floridasandy]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

You don't mind repeating your rhetoric with regularity yet, backing it up to engage in a debate is something you want to do only once and done? Let me ask you, how did you figure out $2 Trillion in revenues is just right?

i can trot out charts all day long. you have essentially 2 sides-the government (taker) side and the private sector (giver) side.

what i figure is that we aren't going to be able to keep collecting a disproportionate amount of revenue because, if the government keeps taking more from the private sector as a whole, the private sector ceases to function effectively. we know for a fact that government has gotten bigger, but where are the small businesses that are the engine of growth? are there more or less of them? has the FSA gotten bigger or smaller?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...OPGPA?cid=3000

imports going up, looks like nothing fixed there, and we devalued our dollar for this?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...s/IMPCH?cid=17

big government isn't the answer for anyone except those at the very top of government who then get to make all the rules. (which probably explains why we have such a corrupt congress which doesn't mind pulling from the private sector, or the excessive spending either)

ask yourself, is america getting better with the government side growing? are our lives improving? are things getting easier or harder? have you noticed more intrusion into the rights of citizens? will the new cap and trade scheme help or hurt working americans? will it help or hurt the connected wealthy?

the more the government pulls from the private sector the harder it will get. the answer has never been more government and more big corporations currying favor with the government. the answer (if it comes) will be american entrepreneurship and small businesses flourishing across america. look at how the appropriated stimulus money was just FLAT OUT WASTED.

The world needs more basic productivity. Instead, we are getting more bailouts and government programs that will benefit people and firms of dubious productivity. That's not capital creation. That's capital destruction.