Excellent Job, President Obama!

Provide evidence for your claim that I want to increase taxes by 100%.

- deficit is about half of the revenues
- top 2% pay half of taxes
- double their tax and deficit is wiped out.
- increase their tax by half and deficit is cut to half

Again with the hyperbole. Math says if you double their taxes, the deficit is wiped out.

Link to this equation that you mention, please.

Here are the numbers for 2011 in $T.

Deficit = 1.3
Revenue = 2.5

top 1% pay 38% of income taxes.

So now tell me which is the 4 items you are not so sure about.

I spelled the math in a 4 step claim. Which step(s) are you disputing?

Here is the claim again: increasing taxes on the super rich would not put even a dent in the deficit.

I think both sides are polluted with blind partisans. Sure, I can get partisan at times, but I'm pretty reasonable (at least I'd like to think so). The "game" forces us to choose a team and too many take this too far. My "team" is imperfect. I just think it is the better of the two.


I will say I see a lot of dems around here turning on other dems who say/do something stupid/crazy/illegal. Thankfully TP deleted the "someone said something crazy" threads. There are too many loons on every side. They should be mocked, not used to brand those who share the same political party.

You have suggested throughout this thread, that raising taxes on the top 2%, will eliminate our deficit....

Why are you repeating that "dent" hyperbole over and over?
Obviously, that would put a band aid on our deficit, doing that alone is not practical or sustainable.

Do you read your own posts?


--------

You didn't read this post of yours, either?

-------

Link to this 4-step claim that you mention, please. I hope it's not this one:

1. deficit is about half of the revenues
2. top 2% pay half of taxes
3. double their tax and deficit is wiped out.
4. increase their tax by half and deficit is cut to half

because if you're relying on those statements, then no wonder you refuse to answer my question about your post with the "1.3 trillion deficit" and "38% income taxes" in it.

What math says doubling 38% of income tax revenue equals 1.3 trillion dollars?

And here you go again and being so excited with some kind of gotcha to prove the definition of "dent" that you can't see the forest through the trees. Let's say you raise taxes and that lowers the deficit by 20%. You still have 80% deficit left. Now what? Let me guess, raise taxes on the rich 80% more, right?

* Here is the phrase again: raising taxes on the super rich does not put even a dent in the deficit.

But it's probably crazy popular amongst poor and uneducated voters!

EDIT: And if you think Libya was about anything other than oil and money, you need to do your homework. There were already US trained rebels on the ground a week after the rebellion started... coincidence... I think not.

And those rebels you love in Syria are muslim brotherhood...

I have no idea what this post means. Or how it is in any way related to my comment.

Maybe you clicked on the wrong "Reply"?

I do not "want" to increase the tax on the super rich by 100% or confiscate every dime that they make.

What is your plan to balance the deficit and debt?

I do not have all the parts but my plan includes increasing taxes on the super rich.

Does your plan include giving the super rich yet another break in taxes?

Yes but surely you can admit that, that alone will not do it.
Any other ideas in addition to that tired talking point from the Left?

Do you really think that anyone here, who is serious about cutting the deficit and balancing the budget, truely believes that can be accomplished by giving the super rich a tax cut?

1. I admit.......nay agree......that that alone will not do it.

2. I said "include"? So does it or does it not?

I suppose if Obama had conducted the campaign the way Bush conducted the Iraq War, we'd have spent $1 Trillion, lost thousands of American lives and facing down armed Libyan fighters. But costs of the Libyan campaign were minimal, no Americans died, and we even fought alongside our allies.

“A Caldwell billboard is raising questions in the Treasure Valley as it compares President Obama to accused Colorado killer, James Holmes,” reports KBOI, a television station in Boise.

“James Holmes allegedly killed 12 people, while Obama is responsible for the murder of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and other nations targeted in the global elite’s GWOT, or global war on terror.

Presidents, however, are never equated to mass murderers by the establishment or its corporate media. War crimes perpetuated by the state are invariably papered over by intellectuals and the establishment media and characterized as noble efforts to gift backward peoples with democracy or practice humanitarianism in response to thugs and dictators preying on the innocent.