Good post - I think we can all agree that we need to pay some taxes - police, fire, roads, etc., but as you noted, taxes are now being used by politicians to garner votes by "bringing home the bacon" to their district.

I think it all started to unravel when we started giving people money who do not work (I'm not talking about social security that was paid into, I'm talking welfare) - I do believe we are a rich nation that should give a helping hand when needed, but not in the form of $. We can give "poor" people beans, rice, veggies, but not money. If you want money to buy a chicken or go to a ballgame, cut someones lawn for $ or sweep out the front of a business for $. But handing money to people who do not work is a bad idea - again, don't let them starve, but make them earn money if they want to buy something.

That is part of the deal......the other part is austerity.......asking rich people to pay a slightly gigher marginal tax rate will not end the world......there is a consensus that new revenue is part of the solution.....

The problem with the Bush cuts were they went overwhelmingly to people who did not spur the economy....look around you......
Probably after the elections some type of deal will be reached to raise these taxes (actually raising is not the proper term) it is just restoring the status before 2001-2003......

Agreed but the problem we have today is pols think in two year (or less) cycles......and answer to special interests of all kinds.......how about us? Who speaks for us?

"Who speaks for us? "

We do lake...and apparently we have to speak much louder.

On the other hand, you have Democrats making all these entitlement programs but don't pay for them first and that's fiscally irresponsible. They then have the nerve to ask to raise taxes to pay for the program(s) after the fact when it's nearly impossible to get rid of it even if it has been a colossal failure.

<<On the other hand, you have Democrats making all these entitlement programs but don't pay for them first and that's fiscally irresponsible. >>

Such as? Obama included the individual mandate for this very reason... other than this, you pretty much only find Republicans greatly increasing entitlement spending. MA of 2003? Bush 's relaxation of welfare requirements? Archie, you have to seriously delude yourself to believe a word you say.

nevermind, don't respond, I won't read your ridiculous tripe. too much work to pick it apart.

That's a lot of mock outrage even for yourself.

Obama included a means to pay for the bill that isn't even constitutional. Sounds very fiscally responsible. Then what happens? Oh great, we have another Medicare on our hands that costs about 1,000,000 times more than what was originally claimed by the Democrats.

And you don't have to look any further than California to see what I'm talking about. You don't know that there are Democrats outside of D.C.? Well, with how things have been going for the Democrats lately, I don't think that should be much of a surprise. Most Democrats are going underground to get shelter from what looks like a complete carpet bombing campaign by the GOP of the Dems in November.

Yes, continue to use Bush as a representative of the GOP. You realize how silly that sounds? Keep talking. Romney appreciates it, lol.

Taxing the rich is no way to pay for things. Obama wants to tax the rich at the tune of 5 billion a year (Buffett Rule). That's his idea of paying for things that soak up more than half the budget? That won't buy more than a single day of debt for the US under Obama's watch. Democrats have earned the spend and THEN tax meme completely.

Exactly.... and , of course, his statements must be about an alternate universe. The 3 biggest expansions in wealth distribution/entitlement spending of the last 30 years were:

1) reagan's expansion of the EIC
2) the medicare Act of 2003
3) Bush's relaxation of entitlement spending, coupled with the crash of the economy on his watch

These guys honestly think things suddenly become "true" when they spill out of their mouths!

Did you read today how much it is going to cost the average American if the Republicans repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act? (aka Obamacare) Do the Republicans care? No, they are just anti Obama at ANY cost. Yet people are still dumb enough to vote for them. I just don’t get it.

i get it!

they appeal to people's worst instincts. These are strong forces, ba

Did you read today how much it is going to cost the average American if the Republicans repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act? (aka Obamacare) Do the Republicans care? No, they are just anti Obama at ANY cost. Yet people are still dumb enough to vote for them. I just don’t get it.
.............

Even though I doubt obamacare is controlling cost like pelosi says,it is really irrelevent whether it does or not.

By your argument government can jump in anytime and do things if it can claim its saving money. Heck,I can ,maybe argue government can outlaw all trucks be cause it will save money on gas. Why should you have a truck or suv? Outlaw it and financially you will be better off.

The problem with obamacare is it infringes on my right to choose. Something I thought you folks claim you care about. I guess you are only for the right of choice as long as it doesn't cost more.

Yes,appealing to liberty is bad to you.

"When is it a good idea to raise taxes?"

"how about when you're $16T in debt? does it finally make sense then?"

Well we are $16T in debt and Bill Clinton (one of your heros because he has a "D" after his name), just came out and said it is a bad time to raise taxes. So are you saying Clinton and Obama are wrong - since we are $16T in Debt, we should raise taxes - you better look out, you're not consistent with what your masters are saying.

And no, it does not make sense to raise taxes just because we are $16T in debt - step one is to cut spending and stop wasting $. Once Govt stops wasting the taxes they already collect, then I will rethink my position.

<< just came out and said it is a bad time to raise taxes. >>

With the implication that they SHOULD be raised as soon as the recovery strengthens. Weird how you left that out. ;)

he also said the stimulus should have been TWICE as large, at least. Agree with that too, do ya?

<< step one is to cut spending and stop wasting $>>

Why has nobody thought of this?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The stimulus should have been twice as large so it could have failed twice as hard? The stimulus did not address the root problem of the financial crisis and hence why it wouldn't matter how big it was.