Yes you can, JIm. That’s what George W. Bush did and Reagan and Bush One before him—-Reagan and Bush One were at least smart enough to start paying down their VISA when they saw the handwriting on the wall. George W. Bush was not so astute. Fortunately, O’Bama is.

I don’t see Obama doing anything but charging more.
When the debt ceiling is reached, his solution is to raise it.
If someone tries to say “no more”, they are accused of obstruction.
Spending like this needs to be obstructed.
Congress has been paying the Mastercard with the VISA for decades. It needs to be realed in.
Higher taxes aren’t going to work. Giving more money to congress is like giving liquor to alchoholics. They will not pay down the VISA. They will just squander it and say they “need” more.

RESPONSES IN CAPS AND (PARENS)

I don’t see Obama doing anything but charging more.
(OPEN YOUR EYES—THE DEBT HAS INCREASED AT A LOWER RATE UNDER OBAMA THAN UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH)
When the debt ceiling is reached, his solution is to raise it.
(THAT’S WHAT ALL OF THE3M HAVE DONE FOR YEARS)
If someone tries to say “no more”, they are accused of obstruction.
(THOSE WHO REFUSE TO LOOK AT ENHANCING REVENUE BY RAISING TAXES ON THOSE WHO DON’T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE ARE THE OBSTRUCTIONISTS. THEY HOLD THE COUNTRY HOSTAGE AS THEY DEMAND THAT THEY GET THEIR WAY)
Spending like this needs to be obstructed. (SPENDING LIKE WHAT?)
Congress has been paying the Mastercard with the VISA for decades. It needs to be realed in.
(YES, BUT THE REVENUE SIDE HAS TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST)
Higher taxes aren’t going to work.
(SURE THEY ARE—LOOK AT THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS)
Giving more money to congress is like giving liquor to alchoholics. They will not pay down the VISA. They will just squander it and say they “need” more.
(NICE RHETORIC, BUT THAT’S ALL IT IS)

RBT, The debt didn’t increase by 1.5 trillion a year under anybody (including Bush),but Obama.
Just because the debt ceiling has been raised when reached for years doesn’t make it OK. For any of them.
Define FAIR SHARE.
Spending like what? You believe EVERYTHING tax money is spent on is needed?
Solindra,NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood,HUD, bureau of Indian Affairs. Pick any, and even more.
The budget cuts need to be adressed FIRST. Find out what you really need. Then how to pay for it.
Give the money first and there is no incentive to budget.
Higher taxes won’t work until you get the budget under control.
I wouldn’t call enableing taxaholics just rhetoric. It’s just human nature to want more.
I want to keep what I earned and they want what I earned too.

That should be easy. Just enforce the 22 Amendment. Oh wait……

RBT, You didn’t refute my statement about if I spend money or if the government spends tax money it all goes back into the economy. So I’ll take it you agree.It doesn’t really need to be government spending to get an economy going.
How does my not wanting an elitist telling me how MY money should be spent, prove that I”m repeating something somebody else told me to think? How did you come to that conclusion?
If the tax cuts to “job ceators” were not set to expire and were made permanent, the job creators would be more confident to go out on a limb and expand their business. As it stands now it is uncertain. They don’t know if they make the commitment, that they may have the rug pulled from under them in the near future. There is nothing “dead” about that idea.
Trickle down is a sound idea, if given the opportunity to work. It isn’t a “dead” idea.
We have seen how government stimulus, bailouts and deficit spending in the last half of a decade hasn’t worked to lower unemployment or “stimulate” growth. If there is any idea that is ‘dead’, would be government overspending causing economic growth.
Your final statement about how taxation and how government spending is how it would work in an ideal world.Unfortunately we don’t live in ideal world. See how much influence your letter to your congressman has. The elitists are messing it up.
When you use tax money, it is taken from someone who would have spent it and is given to the government to spend it. It’s like taking a bucket of water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it into the other end, to raise the water level. It didn’t work.
Just some more to think about, to draw your own(?) conclusions.

JimH. There is one important difference. When you spend your money instead of government spending your money, its your money and not other peoples money.

You are much more careful with your money than government is with other peoples money.

Jim says, “RBT, You didn’t refute my statement about if I spend money or if the government spends tax money it all goes back into the economy. So I’ll take it you agree.It doesn’t really need to be government spending to get an economy going”.

No, Jim, I don’t agree one bit. Your premise is faulty in that government “spending” and your “spending” do NOT go back into the economy with equal impact. The two “categories” of money are spent on different things and will have very different impacts on the economy because of that. I will carry it to an extreme and say that the money you and Romney may spend on your dressage horses and car elevators does NOT get the economy going as much as the government spending that same amount on the SNAP program (Food Stamps) will.

You ask, “How does my not wanting an elitist telling me how MY money should be spent, prove that I”m repeating something somebody else told me to think? How did you come to that conclusion?”

You need to look at your entire comment to fully see all the reasons why I reached that conclusion. You said, “I would rather I choose what part of the economy gets supported by MY money, than have so elitist decide for me” First, you are a citizen of the United States with a duty to support the government monetarily—you do NOT have the right to “CHOOSE” how the government spends the government’s money beyond what I outlined—the right to petition, vote for your representatives, and speak out in various ways. Second, it is not YOUR money once you pay your taxes but belongs to all, to be spent as the elected legislators decide. Thirdly, there are no ELITISTS involved, just legislators and government employees doing their jobs.

So, when I see CHOOSE, MY MONEY, ELITISTS, in the context within which you used them, I say “Aha, I’ve heard this same tired old conservative dogma before” and conclude that you are a parrot, like so many others on this site. If that line of reasoning IS original with you and not something you have been “told to think” in the figurative sense in which I spoke, I will apologize.

You also said, “If the tax cuts to “job creators” were not set to expire and were made permanent, the job creators would be more confident to go out on a limb and expand their business. As it stands now it is uncertain. They don’t know if they make the commitment, that they may have the rug pulled from under them in the near future. There is nothing “dead” about that idea”
It is not dead in the sense that it is one of the same old tired talking points that we constantly hear from the right, therefore it “lives”. As to the truth of it, it has never really been alive but was merely a smokescreen to further the real purpose behind the “no tax increase” refrain—to shelter the wealth and incomes of the plutocracy and the corporate oligarchy and exempt them from paying their fair share.

You say, “Trickle down is a sound idea, if given the opportunity to work. It isn’t a “dead” idea”.
No? Seems to me it died a couple of deaths after being given “the opportunity to work”, once under Reagan and once under George W. Bush. Never worked, never will—and economists of ALL stripes recognize that now..

You say, “We have seen how government stimulus, bailouts and deficit spending in the last half of a decade hasn’t worked to lower unemployment or “stimulate” growth”.
Really? How about talking instead about how they kept us from entering The Greater Depression?. That they stopped the huge and rapid increase in unemployment that the Bush years brought on. That they DID in fact stimulate growth, and if anything, should have been bigger? You are once again parroting the right wing view, the view that Ryan and Romney campaigned on, and that the voters resoundingly rejected.

You say, “If there is any idea that is ‘dead’, would be government overspending causing economic growth”
Guess what? I agree with that completely. The overspending of the Reagan and Bush years are the foundation of most of our present debt problem. For a couple of supposed conservatives, they sure did a lot of BORROWING and spending—-thereby kicking the debt can down the road to us. In comparison, O’Bama actually looks like a true conservative in that he realizes that revenue is the other side of the debt “coin”. He is not adding to the debt as rapidly as George W. Bush did.

You say,” Your final statement about how taxation and how government spending is how it would work in an ideal world. Unfortunately we don’t live in ideal world. See how much influence your letter to your congressman has. The elitists are messing it up”.
So in YOUR “ideal” world we should do it HOW? Let the lobbyists and the plutocracy just have their way—-the 1% sucking the wealth out of the pockets of the 99% as is happening now? I have been involved in many “actions” over the past few years that have resulted in positive outcomes re: legislation, election of candidates, promulgation of rules and regulations by government agencies, etc. and am happy about the results of my efforts (usually as part of larger interest groups). Yes, it could work better, but it’s all we have and it’s “the American way”..

Finally, you say, “When you use tax money, it is taken from someone who would have spent it and is given to the government to spend it. It’s like taking a bucket of water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it into the other end, to raise the water level. It didn’t work”
Another tired “talking point” that sounds “cute” but means nothing. Your premise and analogy are again false. We’ve already talked about the first sentence (and there’s those clue words TAKING and GIVING showing up—parrot talk). And swimming pools and buckets of water are just that—the water level is a function of gravity. The two sentences together really mean nothing.

You close with, “Just some more to think about, to draw your own(?) conclusions”
You betcha, as the Angel from Wasilla used to say. I’ve just given you a bunch of my OWN conclusions. If you respond with YOUR OWN thoughts we might be able to continue this discussion. .

RBT, You say you look at the facts and draw “your own” conclusion.
I question the validity of your sources.
You didn’t refute anything I said with anything but a long winded version of “is not”.
You ask if my ideal world is to let the lobyist and plutocracy have their own way.
I would say giving them MORE money(what you seem to want) instead of making them budget better(what I want) is the way lobyists and a plutocracy would be supported.
Food stamps according to you support an economy( pardon me while I laugh at you).
People spend money they earn on groceries or food stamps on groceries. The grocery store doesn’t grow because of food stamps.
Rich people hire people and buy products. This keeps people EMPLOYED.
We can show those evil rich people what fer and take that money and use it for unemployment extensions for the people that would have been hired by rich people. Or people that produce and sell the products they would buy.
Why is the premise of my swimming pool analgy false. You don’t really refute it. I put money into the economy or government takes that same money and puts it into the economy. There was no MORE money put into this economy. Just like water was taken from one end of the pool and poured in somewhere else. It didn’t raise the water level, just like no more money was injected into the economy to “stimulate” it.
I just think you don’t like the ‘same old tired’ talking point because it points out to you that the conclusion you drew, all on your own was wrong.
You worry about Romneys car elevator. Construction workers were hire to do that.
Private jet owners hire pilots, flight crews, pay to have hanger space, fuel and mantainence crews. The people that produce and sell aircraft have a job. They in turn take their wage and purchase goods and services. People build and sell yachts. The yacht needs a slip. someone earns money on that rental.
Or your solution, get more tax money to pay the unemployment and food stamps for those laid off guys. Paychecks are always better than unemployment checks.

JimH says: “I question the validity of your sources”
I’m sure you do, Jim, since that’s the last refuge of someone who has no real “sources” of his own beyond the tired old dogma that he parrots from his “masters”. Sorry that you feel so beaten down that you have to go there but many others on this site are already hiding there—-you won’t be alone.

JimH says, “You didn’t refute anything I said with anything but a long winded version of “is not”
Again, you can delude yourself into thinking that, but I actually refuted virtually EVERYTHING you said. Since what you said was basically “opinion” based on the deluded groupthink of the right, all I had to do was state opinions that are better supported by fact and better reasoned than yours. I stated that my opinions were based on facts from sources over many years—-good sources, not horsepucky wing nut sites of the circular firing squad on the right. I have cited them on other threads, as have others. The fact that you call my comments “long winded” tells us all that either you don’t comprehend what I said or you are in a state of blind denial and just can’t accept the truth because it doesn’t agree with what you WANT to believe.

JimH says, “You ask if my ideal world is to let the lobbyist and plutocracy have their own way. I would say giving them MORE money (what you seem to want) instead of making them budget better (what I want) is the way lobbyists and a plutocracy would be supported”
You ARE really confused—-I advocate giving the lobbyists and plutocracy LESS money and influence, not more. Reread my statement until you really understand it .

JimH says, “Food stamps according to you support an economy (pardon me while I laugh at you)”
How smug and condescending of you, Jim. (Pardon me while I chuckle at YOU). You are a complete fool if you don’t understand that a program that puts “money” in the hands of 47 MILLION people ALL OVER the country and is spent IMMEDIATELY has more impact on the economy than the folks that install car elevators or own private jets and yachts. The many hundreds of thousands or even millions of people involved in the “grocery pyramid” all benefit from the passage of the money. Rich people hire accountants, financial advisers, and tax lawyers so that they can beat the system and suck wealth out of the pockets of the 99%—-that’s the part of the economy they stimulate.

JimH says, “Why is the premise of my swimming pool analogy false. You don’t really refute it”.
Did too, read my comments again. I will try to “improve” on it to make it perhaps more meaningful and reflective of the truth than your weak attempt. Imagine a big pool that has a separate smaller hot-tub/jacuzzi right next to it. The 99% inhabit the big pool and they may move buckets of water around as you suggest—the water level doesn’t change because of that and the “mixing” of the water IS good. The 1% that inhabit the smaller pool are constantly bailing water out of the big pool, making the “water level” for the 99% decline. The 1% are filling their little pool to overflowing while some of the 99% are “hitting bottom”, but the 1% won’t share any of their “water” because they need it for jets, yachts, and dressage horses.

JimH says, “I just think you don’t like the ‘same old tired’ talking point because it points out to you that the conclusion you drew, all on your own was wrong”.
NIce try, Jim, but you are a motivated reasoner (look it up) whose cognitive dissonance (look it up) and confirmation bias (look it up) all blind you to any real “truth”, thereby making it quite impossible for you to even consider that anything that doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions could be “right”. I.E., if you WANT to believe it, it’s “right”—-if you DON’T WANT to believe it, it’s “wrong”, and facts and rational analysis be damned

JimH says, “Or your solution, get more tax money to pay the unemployment and food stamps for those laid off guys”.
I never said ANY SUCH THING in this whole string of comments. Nor did I say anything even close—-you are reading what you WANT to believe about what I said, not what I actually did say. And that proves my point that you are a motivated reasoner (look it up) whose cognitive dissonance (look it up) and confirmation bias (look it up) all blind you to any real “truth”.

And we DO AGREE on “Paychecks are always better than unemployment checks”.

RTB, You really believe you’ve refuted ANYTHING is said? You may have responded,but not with any thing but rhetoric.(That you like to say I use)
I see you fall for the class envy trick. (rhetoric YOU fell for)
Yachts, jets, limos all pay people wages. I know who I work for and who our customers are.Not food stamp users or unemployment reciptients. FOOD STAMPS AREN’T STIMULUS.
Food stamps take tax dollars that could have been spent on groceries and goes through the government to be spent on “groceries”. Let the job creators do their thing and people will use their own wage and not food stamps to eat.
I think one of the things that I’m talking about is small business owners being over taxed. Their rates would go up if the Bush tax cuts expire and you are thinking I’m talking about the Romneys.
Both small business owners and even the evil rich do more to provide jobs than any stimulus package. The small business owners don’t need more tax burden to cover congresses overspending.
We aren’t in this kind of debt because we are under taxed. (not rhetoric, just fact)
That 1% you are jelous of pay 40% of the tax revenue the IRS brings in.
Fair share?
I really don’t understand how more taxation gives lobyists and plutocracy less, instead of more money.
I still question your sources.(not for the reason you believe)
Maybe if you don’t quite understand the swimming pool analogy, try cutting a foot of one end of a blanket and sewing it to the other end to lengthen it. (not rhetoric, just gov stimulus)

Eddie47d writes:
“Yet some will scream like banshees that it will ruin them. NOT EVEN CLOSE!”

Who would these “some” be? All I’ve read here is that the increased taxes on the wealthy will just cause them to be less interested in investing their wealth in ventures that would employ the rest of us.

If ruination comes it will be to the “not” wealthy.

Oh and lest you forget the obvious, taxes that are to be raised are on income, not wealth.

First of all then you have to get the wealthy to claim their income. Hedge Fund managers can make 1 billion dollars a year and only pay a 15% tax. On top of that they still get deductions and also are caught doing illegal Insider Trading deals after hours.