But it is like a Mexican Standoff while standing on a sinking ship. Just waiting the other person out is not the optimum solution.

It is like playing "Hand Grenade Chicken" it does not matter who throws first, but who throws last. :shifty:

one side is compromising and the other isn't, that's pretty much the core as i can see. IMO, I think the republicans getting their way would be much more of a disaster than some very very rich people having to pay a little more in taxes.

But some very very rich people paying a little more in taxes won't even scrape the paint, let alone put a dent in the problem. If you take 100% of everything every millionaire and billionaire has it won't even come close. Then who do you tax?

well the point is, we need cuts yes, and those have been offered along with some pretty substantial cuts. but as far as i know republicans are bent on no more taxes on the rich and steeper cuts

And my opinion is that the "tax the rich" thing is a diversionary game played by liberals to try to level the playing field, and has nothing to do with the economy or the Federal Deficit. At the height of his wealth Bill Gates had 60 billion dollars. If we stripped Bill Gates of his entire fortune and distributed it equally, every man, woman and child in America would recieve...$200. Yep, two hundred dollars. If we stripped every single billionaire in America - all 385 of them - of everything they have, we would gain a total of $1.3 trillion (yes, I pulled out my calculator and did the addition), so a little less than five thousand dollars for each of us. And then they would all be broke, and then who would you complain about?
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400#p_1_s_arank_-1_

$1.34 trillion. $1,340 billion. Last year's Federal Budget Deficit was $1.29 trillion, so breaking all of them might just pay off this year's deficit. Then what?
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...ing-1-trillion

Oh, great! :rotfl2:While I was looking at this I just stumbled on a site which already did the work I just did, so I did it all for nothing!
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Anyway, every time someone brings up "Tax the rich more" or "make them pay their fair share" I have to wonder if that someone has a clue what they are talking about, or is just parroting another party line.

My rationale behind it is that the effective tax rate on the top taxpayers in this country has steadily declined over the past 20 years, yet the proportion of the country's total wealth that they own has increased over that same time period.

The rich are not job creators. Demand is a job creator. And demand is not created by 2% of the taxpayers in this country. Demand is created by the other 98%. That's why I'd raise taxes on those most able to pay it before I'd raise it on the middle and lower classes.

Steve, there is a big difference between individual wealth and corporate wealth that should be taxed yearly.

Not to mention all the shelters, loopholes and unfair deductions the get.

Let me just go on record to say, and I speak only for myself on this one, but suspect that my sentiments are echoed by Americans regardless of party at this point:

F$#@ CONGRESS.

Both sides could care less. They're still going to collect their paychecks and keep their taxpayer supported lifestyle, while the rest of us are left to twist in the wind. Regardless of the outcome, we the people - lose.

I'm so sick of the hypocrisy in Washington - across the board - that it makes my head spin and my heart hurt.

That's very true, especially the corporate part. Of course they'll pass the taxes on to whoever pays their bills, but what the hey?

But I was responding directly and only to the constant cry that taxing the rich would solve our problems, or even help. There is a segment who seem to want to blame everything on the rich, and they mean individuals, not corporations. The problem lies with Congress, and I disagree with anyone who claims that Congress can solve the problem by soaking any individual. Except themselves, of course.

corporations ARE rich. and get the most tax breaks. we cant "just" tax the rich (along with corporations), we have to cut spending.

we do, however, have to try Everything BUT default. Defaulting wont help anything.

There are some rediculous projects that the government is pouring money into. hit them before we hit our crucials like medicare. One of the most rediculous is the war. If after a decade these people cant fight for themselves, then why bother spending billions on keeping troops stationed to "help the afghans fight for themselves".

Maybe, just maybe, this will be the last war we fight on foreign soil against suicidal maniacs fighting a guerilla war. Oil? maybe you should increase our trade instead of pouring trillions into a war. we went in to get saddam and Osama. and now theyre gone and we still arent leaving for Years to come.

my take on it?

Balanced approach. oh...and tax the rich...why? because the last 10 years has been really, really good to them and really they are the only ones who can afford a tax increase of any significance. I am not actually talking raising the rates, but closing all the loopholes that let them slide from 35% down to 18%.

Maybe, maybe not. Sadly, because of law many corporations do pass the buck, face it, the medical industry and insurance are basically monopolies, but with fair laws, trade, loopholes, etc..coporations still have to compete.
But it's crazy to say rich people are soaked, they do pay high taxes, but get a lot of it right back through shelters and loopholes

When I ran my business, I paid myself around 200K a year, not rich, but good. Be surprised how accountants can spin and what loopholes apply. I paid a great deal less taxes percentage wise than I did when I made 70K working for someone else.

Now that I can get behind. I don't like taxes on general principles, but if you're going to have them at least keep people from cheating.

War is an industry for the US. Thousands upon thousands work in some capacity towards war and war materials. It is in some part the fabric of our economy.

The GOP screams about entitlements, but they created an elite class resulting in a large amount of poverty.

FACT...about 10% now control 80% of all real wealth..That didn't happen because americans got lazy. Anyone can see the result of that is poverty. As the government increased the elite, they threw bones of entitlements to the dying middle class, if they didn't chaos would evolve.

The same with blacks, for years they were denied equal rights resulting in poverty. For decades, instead of giving true equal rights the government threw entitlements at them, resulting in even more harm.

I agree, the answer isn't entitlements, it's going back to the system of laws and regulations that built the strongest middle class in history and based on real money, the gold standard, not worthless paper today. With a strong middle class, you need few entitlements. The GOP doesn't understand this, they want to continue in the same mess that has destroyed the middle class. Any fool can see "trickle down" Reagan economics won't work in a global economy. Since US corporations can move to anywhere in the world, using unfair US laws, loopholes and regulations to get rich there, that's where they will stay.

Believe it or not, US corporations use to have to work for the US, now they operate in a global world at will for themselves. Yes, US corporations are creating jobs and a strong middle class, in India and China..but when they fail, they still want taxpayer bailout.

You want to get rid of entitlements, study the tax code, trade laws and regulation between 1940-1980 as we built a strong middle class.

Entitlements are just the rich paying to keep the poor from revolution.