It's not really about whether it's raised or who raises it so much as by how much it's raised and in relation to increases in GDP. In a way, it's akin to an individual who requests more credit cards or increases their credit limit as their earning potential increases. Whether they pay off their current debts is another matter. However, the risk of increased debt limits is mitigated by the increase in earning power.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...g-jan-2011.jpg

I agree and the long term solution requires that we address the debt in a manner that can most effectively begin to pay it down.

IMO, that would be a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reform AND tax increases,

And that should be separate from the current need to raise the debt again, which, if we fail to do so, could have significant adverse economic impacts just as the economy is slowly recovering.

For the Republicans to complain about raising the debt again after having done so four times as a result of the impacts of the Bush 01 and 03 tax cuts, the 03 Medicare prescription drug reform enacted w/o a revenue offset, 10 years of war spending in Iraq, etc. is a playing politics with the debt and a bit hypocritical.

Who are you trying to be all sensible?

But I aspire to be a robber baron.

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare...100Tyranny.png

you don't remember the "George Bush tax cuts"

I clearly remember getting a check for a tax refund of around $3-500 and prior to GB, I usually got $300-400 dollars back in my tax returns, now I get around $1200 +/-

and no, I didn't vote for him, either time, I remember the distinct feeling he was bribing the general "I don't pay much attention to politics" type of people.

I'm just a lower middle class work a day guy. I'm fine with putting more money into the kitty if we can afford better beer for the keg party. but I'd prefer it if the alcoholic Military Industrial Complex doesn't crash the party and drink it all up.

Some flyers may not see savings from expired taxes - Yahoo! News

Why do I have a feeling that more tax breaks and reduced spending will just be going towards increased profits?

It sucks that democracy spends a lot of time pandering to the lowest common denominator. Leading up to an election it is all about promising short term gain for everybody in order to get voted in. Tax cuts as mentioned in this thread are exactly that - politicians with no will to do "the right thing".

i dont really remember it. im only 30. and i just started getting into politics in the last 5 or 8 years so i understand whats happening. i dont like to be left in the dark.

ok Ralphie...I think I paid a bit more attention than you when you were...23 or so. but I don't read near as much as alot of the people here. it's hard reading, I think anyway. NPR, PBS news, BBC news on PBS and reading the debate here is about all I can take. and I don't think that's really enough, it doesn't deal with the local level of politics. being a truly informed voter is really alot of homework. to me it's unrealistic for the average person to really get ahold of it all.

I don't mean to sound like I was being snarky with you.

no, youre good. im sure you did pay more atteention than i did. youre right it does take alot of homework to know all the goods and the bads. some people know it and others dont.
sont worry, were good:thumbsup:

I like this, nice.

IIRC, Federal Income Tax around WWII was around 90%. So much for 'taxed enough already' and 'our greatest generation.'

For the highest earners, yes. In 1944 the tax rate for those earning more then 250K a year was 94%. The highest rate stayed pretty high until 1980 when it went from 70% to 35%.

And the deficit spending of the 80s was born.