Why is Obama so irrationally obsessed with raising taxes?
2012-12-06T17:03:34Z
Your answer epitomizes the misinformed and economically ignorant view of left-wingers.
Cutting taxes does not decrease revenue--in fact it has in most cased *increased* revenue by stimulating the economy. President Bush's tax cuts brought in more revenue, and had *absolutely nothing* to do with the deficit, which was the result of the Democrat supported sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Raising taxes on the rich will, by all rational analysis, yield enough revenue to run the government for about eight and a half days. It will have no economic benefit, and will, in fact, slow down economic recovery because of its negative impact on many small businesses.
The wealthy already pay more than their fair share--the top 1% pays almost 40% os all income taxes, and the wealth of the vast majority of rich people is a just reward for what they have contributed to society. Obama's insistence on higher rates for the top two percent has no economic justification. It is rather a product of his lef
Anonymous2012-12-06T16:58:29Z
Favorite Answer
Liberals are all about emotions. Even though he admitted during the debates with Hillary, he knows raising taxes = less revenues. But he also knows his groupies believe raising taxes equates to more revenue. It is more important for him to maintain his rock star status, than do what's best for the country.
Tax experts, including one who supported Romney’s plan said say the his promise to cut individual income tax rates without either favouring the wealthy or losing revenue wasn't mathematically possible. Extending the tax cuts to those earning $1 million a year would cost the government $366 billion in lost revenue over 10 years, compared with extending the tax cuts only to those making less than $250,000 a year. That amount would have to be made up by cutting federal spending in critical areas like Medicare, Medicaid, education and food safety.
The rich don’t create jobs because it’s good social policy, they do it to make money for themselves, if they can get a product made cheaper in Asia, they will do so, they do not care about the unemployment, poverty and homelessness in the US. Even Fox News seems be admitting that the math isn’t there. Fox Business host Stuart Varney, a stalwart conservative who openly cheers for Republicans, admitted on Fox and Friends that he can’t explain how much revenue Romney’s plan would work.
The U.S. Census Bureau figures released 12 September 2012 underscored the struggles of American families in a sputtering economic recovery. The report also showed the income gap between rich and poor people grew to the widest in more than 40 years in 2011 as the poverty rate remained at almost a two-decade high.
Nearly 15 million children in the United States – 21% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level – $22,350 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses.
President Obama is right on fairness and the facts, it all comes down to maths and caring about all Americans not just the rich ones, that's why he is "obsessed".
He probably is the first President who is not afraid to address the unfair tax situation in a long time. Most people don't realize just how bad the tax system favors the rich at the expense of the middle class, and the poor. And yes, I will say I feel he spends too much taxpayer money.
because as any liberal he does not believe in stop spending and the bad evil rich people are a good group to blame for the entitlement society.... by the way... unfair tax situation ?? Yes since about 50% do not pay any income tax at all, i agree that is not fair
Why are you so irrationally obsessed with trashing Obama.
I know you idiot cons have trouble with the concept, but when you have bills to pay, you don't cut your income. Bush cut our income and gee, our deficit grew massively under Bush (yes, way more than Obama, Bush just hid the wars and didn't put them in his numbers.)
Obama just wants the rich to pay their fair share. It doesn't make sense that those who go rich off the work of the rest of us and the consumption of the rest of us, who benefit from massive corporate welfare, pay less tax than their secretaries.
I guess you think the rest of us should pay more so the rich can pay less.