Paul Ryan

[asindc]

Based upon a 'hunch', I quickly tried to see how much a couple of those CEO's in the article make a year. Fred Smith has a net worth of $2 billion. David Hess seems to make about $6 million a year, Dawne Hickton about $3 million a year, and Randall Stephenson about $20 million a year. These are people who can afford the lawyers and accountants to take advantage of every gimmick available to avoid paying most of any increase. However, the guy making $260,000 a year in New York City, raising a family of four and trying to send his kids to a private school (just like Obama did), will be the poor sap that actually gets hit with the full increase. I didn't see anyone like that in the article saying yes, please raise it on me.

It's sort of like Costco founder, Jim Sinegal, saying at the democratic convention, that we all need to contribute our share. But then uses a gimmick himself recently to avoid the higher taxes coming up in January. Apparently he did all he could to contribute as little of his share as possible.

The "full increase" on $260,000 will be an increase on the $10,000 over $250,000, not on the entire $260,000. As Warren Buffett says, there's a class warfare alright, and his class waged the war and is winning it.

 

[Kevin]

The "full increase" on $260,000 will be an increase on the $10,000 over $250,000, not on the entire $260,000. As Warren Buffett says, there's a class warfare alright, and his class waged the war and is winning it.

Makes one wonder why Buffett fought the $1 billion in back taxes his company had owed for so long? I'm not sure if it isn't still owed. Buffett has a long history of oral and written statements concerning taxes as a businessman, which contradicts what he is currently saying in the political arena. Like I said, he and others like him have the lawyers and accountants to hide their money. It's those 'rich' who don't make the multi-millions that Buffett and his friend make that will pay their full share of the increase.

 

[Len44]

What his proposed 'tax on the rich', does exactly, is reduces this past years deficit from $1.1 trillion to $1.02 trillion. Which is why, were I in the republicans position, would be tempted to offer it to him. There is a good portion of society who feels that their current predicament is because the 'rich don't pay their fair share', after all, they have heard it over and over again. The president to this day is still out 'campaigning' using this issue. Take it away from him, and let the public see for themselves just what a hollow line it is.

I doubt the Tea Party has either the brains to figure this out or the guts to go with it. Very rigid, single-minded folks, from what I can see.

 

[Kevin]

I doubt the Tea Party has either the brains to figure this out or the guts to go with it. Very rigid, single-minded folks, from what I can see.

Some of those in the Tea Party, were elected into office by their constituents, to reduce spending and to not cave on raising taxes. Don't you think there are a few democrats, from highly liberal districts, that will never sign a bill offering any meaningful spending cuts? You earlier mentioned the president having a mandate. But a mandate to do what? He ran his campaign saying we need a 'balanced approach'. But what he is currently offering to the republicans, to avoid the fiscal cliff, is an increase in taxes of $1.6 trillion. Which is more than what you get by merely raising the tax rate on the 'rich' to pre-Bush levels. On top of that, he wants the power to raise the debt limit all by his lonesome. What does he offer as a 'balance' to these demands? A small spending cut which is less than another stimulus package that he also wants.

 

[Len44]

Some of those in the Tea Party, were elected into office by their constituents, to reduce spending and to not cave on raising taxes.

Any citizen who is opposed to raising taxes, especially in light of the wild-eyed, drunken sailor like spending by George and the Republicans from 2000 -- 2008 is completely irresponsible. BTW, being re-elected to a House seat is not much of an accomplishment, since nearly all of them achieve this "distinction." Much more of an achievement for a President to be re-elected. So, any notion that this "was a status-quo election" is simply more nonsense from Rush and Karl and Sean and Fox "News."

Don't you think there are a few democrats, from highly liberal districts, that will never sign a bill offering any meaningful spending cuts?

NO! Where on earth did you get such a crazy notion?

You earlier mentioned the president having a mandate. But a mandate to do what? He ran his campaign saying we need a 'balanced approach'.

He ran his campaign most notably on re-balancing the tax burden and making the playing field a bit more level. The Bush / Republican tax cuts (which caused the national debt to skyrocket) were a windfall for the top two percent of extremely wealthy citizens. And blatantly unfair to everyone else. That President Obama was re-elected by a far greater margin than Bush -- when Bush stated he had "earned political capital" and was going to spend it -- means that President Obama (using logic here, not meaning to confuse) has a far greater "mandate" than Bush ever had. Geeze, Bush squeaks by, is barely elected (2004) and somehow has a mandate. Obama crushes Romney, and yet the Republicans act as if the election never even happened. They are, by and large, a most shameful bunch.

But what he is currently offering to the republicans, to avoid the fiscal cliff, is an increase in taxes of $1.6 trillion. Which is more than what you get by merely raising the tax rate on the 'rich' to pre-Bush levels. On top of that, he wants the power to raise the debt limit all by his lonesome. What does he offer as a 'balance' to these demands? A small spending cut which is less than another stimulus package that he also wants.

See above. Please note, as several notable Republicans have stated, "Elections have Consequences." Last time when President Obama naively sought to negotiate in good faith, the Tea Party idiots wouldn't budge an inch. To them, there was not to be any negotiation whatsoever. They refused to negotiate in good faith. They acted in a completely irresponsible manner. They were Tea Party folks first and foremost, NOT willing to act in a manner that was best for their Country. It's like, to them, it's "I pledge allegiance to the Tea Party and Grover Norquist, and to hell with everybody else."

Regarding the debt limit, this was a routine matter supported by both parties on numerous occasions. Until, of course, Obama was elected President. Then this routine event suddenly became a Big Deal. Really? The National Debt, which was exacerbated as a direct result of actions taken by G. Bush and the Republicans, was now an "O'mgosh, the sky is falling" event. Remember "Chicken Little"? Same thing. Irresponsible Republicans running around saying "the sky is falling" seeking to score cheap political points. Oh, the Hypocrisy!

I just wish these folks would grow up and realize they are supposed to be acting in the bet interests of their Country. What a bunch of disgusting hypocrites!