ZWICK 4 PREZ;1295938 wrote:It doesn't, it adds to paying off debt.

Your math has got to be funny as it wouldn't pay a dime off the debt.

You see, we are running trillion dollar deficits, and everyone's estimates of raising the rich's taxes only, will "only" net about $56-85 billion per year (depending on who did the analysis and how many years it was estimated for).

So, you just changed the deficit by about 5-8%, we would still be hitting near trillion dollar deficits.

You can't possibly tax the rich enough to close the deficit gap, let alone get to the point of paying on the debt.

The math just doesn't work.

CBO budget projections, especially years out, are historically complete crap.

And would you rather trade $90B/yr in revenue for half a point in GDP growth? Maximizing govt revenues isn't necessarily what is best for the people and the economy. Just look at Europe's anemic growth and persistently higher unemployment if you want to know what high taxes mean for our future.

And I'm not even sure why Boatshoes cares about taxes. In his word, deficits don't matter - so why not 0 rates then?

gut;1295944 wrote:And I'm not even sure why Boatshoes cares about taxes. In his word, deficits don't matter - so why not 0 rates then?

Spectacular. :laugh:

Government Waste vs Fair Share

Democrat, Liberals and Zwick talk about “fair share” but in reality government has its “share” but waste it.

16 Billion on failure investment in green Energy
19 Billion in wasteful spending detailed by the Senate

But the Obama Administration still want more but waste more that what additional taxing the Wealth would bring to the table.

Fix the waste, evaluate the situation before …. Demanding more Taxes from anyone.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/15/coburn-waste-book-details-1-billion-in-eye-opening-government-expenses/

It's amazing, really. The more I see and hear, the more I'm convinced liberals/Dems mostly don't care about the deficit. Yet they still beat the "tax the rich" drum. I never really believed it, but it's getting harder to deny that it ISN'T about punishing success.

I mean, if you're going to vote for a guy running $1T+ deficits as far as the eye can see, then well you can't really justify being all that concerned about the revenues coming in to the lockbox. C'mon, focusing on a revenue problem when it's mostly a spending problem - that would be called a distraction.