Um…no. Your taxes won’t be going up. Why are you concerned about the next tax bracket? They certainly don’t care about you. Listen to them on here promise to cut their income so you don’t get a single cent of their tax dollars.

Mr Burns: “I am betting against Obama and the dollar , they are both going to collapse.”

If that’s true…then never claim to be a patriot.

As for this nonsense…”Neither bet is against the United States” Please. Obama is the president of the United States and the dollar is the currency of the United States. Yes, it’s a bet against the Unite States.

And you will lose.

Why conflate the country and it’s current leader ? If Obamas policies are ruinous and he needs our tax dollars to enact these policies then is paying more taxes good for the country ? I am betting against Obama and the dollar , they are both going to collapse . The dollar first because of Obamas’ policies and then Obama because of the dollars collapse.

Neither bet is against the United States . I hope we emerges from this depression a far a better country than we are now . After Socialism collapses here we will have a much easier time than the USSR did because all we have to do is return to the limited government, states rights, hard money country specified by the constitution .

You seem to be arguing that it is the capitalists duty to provide the rope that will be used to hang him.

YES they do!

Is my Dad, who works two jobs and still only pulls in five figures, lazy and unambitious?

Your father isn’t a welfare recipient. I also pull in five figures and am not lazy and unabitous. But when it comes time to pay for all of this spending, your father and I will be the ones paying it!!

I wasn’t trying to impress you.

I don’t think that. And I don’t think that’s what’s happening. Why do you assume that everyone in the top tax bracket “have worked smart and hard?” And why do you assume that everyone who is poor is “lazy and unambitious?”

Does Bernie Madoff count? He’s wealthy. (And he has ideas about spreading the wealth, too…) Does millionaires Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, George Soros, and Oprah count?

Is my Dad, who works two jobs and still only pulls in five figures, lazy and unambitious? Sorry if your overgeneralizations don’t impress me.

Herb: Why do you think it’s fair that people who have worked smart and hard should have their wealth spread to those who are lazy and unambitious? You said that taxes were our civic duty…I agree, but for things such as defense and infrastructure not to spread the wealth!! Poor people cannot help poor people. Wealthy people have always helped the poor without the need for the government to force it. People rebel when their government forces them to do things that they were doing already.

I believe Obama’s heart is in the right place on trying to do what he can, but the actual impact of his help is hurting America by prolonging the pain.”

No doubt your reservations are genuine, but I believe that if he did what his detractors want him to do, that too will prolong the pain.

Terry,

“A civic duty for the ‘greater good,’ Herb?”

No, a civic duty for your own good. We live in an interconnected world, a global marketplace from which you cannot extricate yourself. When the government starts taking your property and your money, then you can complain about “socialism.” If they’re just raising your taxes…vote harder next time.

therealist,

“your Uncle Sam is a not-so-silent partner that contributes no capital” Capital, no. Infrastructure, legal protection, and the very backing of your currency, yes. Don’t be naive.

55. Paul:

“Bush’s tax cuts weren’t permanent because Congress wouldn’t make them permanent. The President would much rather have made them so.” So what? Scott Norwood really wanted to kick that field goal in Superbowl 25 –I mean, he really wanted it– but he still missed wide right. In the real world, failure isn’t absolved by wishing you had succeeded.

As to this: “Clinton and Reno forced banks to write mortgages to people otherwise unqualified….” Yeah, I know. I’ve heard that one before.

The CRA of 77 was used by Clinton and Reno to ruin the lending industry, etc, etc. There’s a couple problems with that though. The Democrats, conveniently, are the bad guys. They wrote CRA. They supported it.

And yet, somehow it survived Reagan. It survived Bush. Both of ‘em.

It wasn’t a factor in the recessions of 1980-1982, or 1990-1991, or 2001…but somehow it caused the one we’re in now, in 2009, when (conveniently) another Democrat is in charge.

And let’s say it forced banks to make risky loans they didn’t want to, they sure embraced it all those years, didn’t they? They came up with all kinds of interesting loans, a whole menu of stuff they didn’t want to sell. ARMs, interest-only mortgages, reverse mortgages, all kinds of financial instruments they didn’t want to make money off of.

So yeah, I guess CRA really did cause the recession…or maybe not. Whatever it was, I know it was a Democrat!

Get real, man.

Oh, and Obama doesn’t have to raise taxes. He’s letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Which they were intended to do. By the people who passed them

Before people criticize Bush, I’d appreciate it if they verified their historical facts! Bush’s tax cuts weren’t permanent because Congress wouldn’t make them permanent. The President would much rather have made them so.