Thanks Obama, just add on more taxes to the already over taxed rich people?

your employer will be paying about the same taxes as he did during the clinton adminstration. If his business is unable to survive during the conditions that plenty thrived under from 1992-2000, then you're already in trouble, regardless of what taxes you pay.

richer: I'm 14 feet tall in real life. It's true because I say so on the internet.

While we're looking at history, the national debt always skyrockets whenever republicans are in control of both the white house and congress. It goes up substantially more under republican presidents than under democratic presidents.

Mark: If he needs to fire people because of an incremental tax increase, his profit margin must be lower than that tax increase, or he doesn't know how to run his business. There are two possible situations:

1) He's doing well enough to keep all his capital and employees for the duration of the economic downturn. It's much cheaper to keep it all, as you avoid the cost of paying severance, finding new employees when things are better, reducing production rate and then increasing it when things are better, etc...

2) He's not doing well enough to keep all his employees and capital for the duration of the economic downturn (tax increase included). This mean his profit is less than the tax differential, in which case you should have been looking for another job already.

Just because he had the benefit of having lower taxes than under Clinton for the past 8 years, doesn't mean that it's a catastrophe when he no longer gets that extra money.

Mark: I don't know where you're getting the facts. Here are some national debt figures with sources:

2000: $5.5 Trillion

2008: $11 Trillion

2009: $11 Trillion + money allocated for stimulus (not yet spent = not paying interest yet)

For obama to have tripled our national debt, he would have had to spend $22 trillion. Do you think this is accurate?

Perhaps you mean our DEFICIT, the difference between our government's spending an revenue (when we spend less than we take in, it's a surplus). Bush's deficit in 2008 was $1.081 Trillion. Obama would have had to spend $2.162 trillion + everything he took in from taxes to triple our deficit. Do you think this is true?

By your logic, when costs go down, businesses hire more people. This is clearly not true. Really, when demand increases, the need for production increases and companies choose to invest in more capital and personnel. When costs go down and demand is steady, profit increases.

Cutting jobs is cutting production, which decreases revenue. If this is NOT true, it means that your job does not add to the production of your company. You should be fired anyway.

You can't simply multiply today's cost by 10 and arrive at $24 trillion. This leaves out important factors like the time value of money, and probably doesn't take into account taxes collected during those years. It makes a big difference if the economy is doing well, as more sales/income taxes are collected, and less benefits are paid out. My guess is that you either have no source for this number, or it's someone who oversimplified to the point of total inaccuracy.

I cited my source for bush's $1.081 trillion 2008 deficit. Where's yours saying it's only $500 billion. Maybe you know something the US Treasury doesn't know?

Let's agree right now that I don't regard anything hannity says as fact, and you don't have to regard anything michael moore says as fact.

One thing you're not seeing in the senate documents is the cost of the war. That's not part of the budget, but it does add to our annual deficit (while NOT adding to the budget deficit -- since bush never budgeted an appropriate amount for the wars)

If you read the Forbes article you will see they are talking about effective tax rates combining the income tax (high rates) with capital gains taxes (taxed at a lower rate). The top 5% of wage earners- and BTW I am not one of them- still pay the majority of taxes in this country. Just how much is enough? How much more do you want to discourage people from being successful?

why would you think that eliminating tax loopholes would cost jobs? It didn't create jobs when they were introduced. No jobs trickled down, no money trickled down, no tax breaks trickled down. the rich seem to be pretty water tight ,no trickling or do I have it wrong, is it perhaps "trickery"?

ADDED: you commented on the Iraqi war budget. do you understand that GWB ran the whole war using emergency funds. he went to congress every 6 months for more money. When calculating the deficit they ratio the expenses in the budget to the taxes collected thereby yielding the short fall. those emergency funds were never in the calculation so it artificially made the deficit look better although it didn't change the fact it was part of our debt. It sounded like you were unaware of this little slight of hand with the budget.

I have a rich client who owns about 12 houses. He told me his taxes were going up maybe $20,000 a year. No big deal for him, He even said so. We are just going back to the Clinton years when we actually had a SURPLUS. My Client couldn't be happier with all the for-closers around. He is picking up cheep houses left and right. Poor over taxed rich people. Give me a break. As for the national debt it is the Republicans fault.

My we have an angry little Republican. I would like you to consider this $20,000 my client will have to pay extra in taxes. What if maybe it meant 5 of my neighbors( I live in a modest neighborhood) spent 4,000 less on their health care. What if it meant their employers cost for health care went down as well. Perhaps my neighbors may be able to remodel their bathroom with this money, or go on vacation, or eat out once a week or send their kid to community college. Wouldn't that stimulate the economy and create jobs. I think it would. If you walked up to your boss right now and asked him what his biggest expense is he will most likely say health care costs. That is our biggest problem. It keeps me from hiring permanent workers. My family paid 14,000 $ last year for health care. Over 20% of our income. I would be more than happy for Obama to raise my taxes 5% if it meant Universal health care.

If you look at Croaker's profile, the last comment is "grower of fine weed".

I just thought you might want to know that in this particular case, the preposterous comment actually is probably due to that and does not come from an educated source. He also states to have had some type of military training, which probably had an undesirable effect on his ability to function as a productive citizen.

Top 10% pay 80% of all income taxes. Obama will raise that to 90%, already has socialist banking system, soon socialist health care, and soon the number of workers will shrink by 40% and the rest will receive welfare.

Everyone is paying more taxes. THe rich are the only ones being given a head up about it.

ADD: Croaker - please show a link. I simply dont believe you. Not even a little bit.

you people kill me so you actually think that mccain would have done better after you people i quote elected a president twofold who ruined our economy with his greed for 8 years but you want to criticize obama cause he is trying to break that trend d you realize that as long as we don't pay the extra taxes we stay in this type of economy. yes it is going to take sacrifices but if everyone is for themselves then your going to get this type of economy have not you people learned anything the last 8 years. bush was greedy he not only took a surplus that we had but he made this deficit to begin with but it seems to me that you want to blame obama and think that mccain would have done better. that's funny cause every president comes in saying that they are not going to raise taxes but they lie and usually raise them but at least he is trying and he is willing to compromise not like bush who ran an no holds bared white house.he also said that things are going to have to get worse before they get better, so give the man at least 2 years before you bring down judgment and by the way i do fall in the category that will have to pay more every year. but i maintain and i do understand that no job is guaranteed but that is you for deciding to get a job in the first place try running a real business and doing it on your own and let things be for now and your talking about a deficit are you serious mccain talking about buying up all the bad mortgages in the us would have easily put us in a far more deficit then what we are in now then he would have to deal with health care that alone would give anyone with a real brain chills so be appreciative that he is trying to do the will of the american people and not trying to hide behind being the president give him 2 years and then after that swipe away but now is entirely to early to go after someone who have not even been in office a year. but bush was your savior and now you complain about not having this and that because the economy is doing so bad well bush relaxed efforts got you here.

I make over the 'allotted amount' of the Obama Regime. Its not fair to penalize the hard workers and reward the people who decide to have 10 kids and cry poor. I cant see the fairness. I have always made good choices, worked my butt off, and now Im being penalized?? Its not worth it to be in my tax bracket. I should sell my company and put out my hand too. "Mr. Obama-Lama-Ding-Dong, Im poor and oppressed too". WAAAAHHH!!

the top 400 wage earners in 06 only paid 17% rate in taxes.

that is half what i pay. overtaxed .... during world war 2 the rate on the wealthiest tax bracket was 90%.

get real.

there you go...learn it.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

you have the truth staring you in the eye and yet you refuse to see... doesn't surprise me really...yes I work as a Pet. Eng in the oil & gas industry. Last year was very good.

To Lisa K.... a bit more than 17%... roll it back to 1995. Even Warren Buffett stated at one point that it was troubling that he paid less rate than his secretary.