Why can't every income level be taxed at Clinton era levels? Do you honestly think we can dig out of this hole by only taxing the rich?

No, probably not, but it's a start, and a start is something that Repubs can't even achieve.

If you only want to tax the rich, at least redefine what "rich" is. Making $250,000 is not rich. Maybe bump it up to $1,000,000.

hq - as any politician knows (L or R) campaign $$ and influence lies more with the wealthy and well off than the lower income groups. While the dollars do add up from the lower income groups and they can espouse practical concerns, one has to ask...

Why hasn't any president made "joe average" a member of the official cabinet or other ranking government position? Would their insight be any less valuable than one of wealth?

As some posters have said in the past, "how many low income people create jobs?" Yes it has happenned, but not even close to the extent as those already in business or seeking ways to invest have done.

We can't tax enough to get out of this situation that the Republicans put us in . It is not over spending by the Administration of Obama . It is the over spending of the congress during the Reagan and Bush 1and Bush 2 these congresses gave the Presidents more than they ask for because the congress had their little pet projects of their own . like the engines that they built for the pentagon that the pentagon said they did't need . but John Boehner wanted it for his district. So will built engines after engines for planes we didn't have . It is called waistful spending. Clinton did not get this extra spending and you see what happened we balanced the budget. These three President added 12. 4 Trillion dollars to our national debt The best President we have had for our economy and our country in over 75 yrs , has been BILL CLINTON . Bill Added 18,000,000 to the national debt yes 18 billion dollars,But in reality he didn't add a dime the amount he added was interest on the amount already in there . George W Bush added more than any other President in history. That includes President Obama who has added 2.2 trillion to prevent us from going into a depression . If you don't believe I am telling you the truth then look it up at history of the National Debt by Presidents.

amy b - and yet corporate taxes are the second highest in the world next to Japan. Better to reform the tax codes and broaden the tax base.

Come on now american, its all in the news about just how little taxes companies pay, regardless of what the tax rate is. Why do you insist on spreading the falsehood that American companies are paying the highes taxes?

The Republicans don't want to tax the wealthy . The reason is the wealthy is them . they don't want to tax themselves . I don't understand why they would want to tax the poor because you get more from the rich if you tax them . if you tax a family making 1,000,000 10 % you get a 100,000 dollars . but you tax a man making 100,000 you get 10,000 I don't see their reasoning . Dumd Republicans .

laurie - Right, they are bent on destroying our economy so all our domestic and overseas businesses will fail because no one in america will be able to buy the latest gizmo to keep up with the jones. <end sarcasm>

Regardless of what you think of the right, do you really think we can afford paying interest on an ever increasing debt? An even better question may be is why have politicians historically taken the view of "look, our revenues are up or this program (SS) has to much surplus, lets create a program to spend our new found $$$"?

I understand the need to also increase revenues to pay down debt, But let's create the cuts first to show our willingness to get our debt under control, then do tax reform to broaden out tax base and raise revenues. After all our tax codes could easily be used as a doorstop for any powered door.

What have dems done since 2008 to create jobs?

what have they been ALLOWED to do?

Republicans have blocked 4 jobs bills. That's a fact.

job - any piece of legislation is ultimately a "job bill" the real question lies within the ability of that bill to generate sustainable jobs. A good example is trying to entice multinationals to bring back jobs to the US by offerring a reduced tax rate on profits earned overseas. If the costs of manufacturing will be higher in the US than overseas by what measure would tax savings on overseas profit justify higher costs and potentially lower sales. The investors, pension plans, 401k, 501k and IRA owners aren't going to like seeing the value of their investments drop.

Drive by... "what have they been allowed to do?"

They controlled the house and they only were what 1 vote shy of absolute control of the senate? Was obama and democrat lawmakers so incompetent that they couldn't find one or two votes in the senate to pass legisltion? Perhaps they thought the right wasn't needed and could be ignored. Yep the right sure stopped them.

fieldon - you sound just like a freshmen congressman I heard on bloomberg TV this morning, only he was encouraging boehner to not cave on tax increases.

the following might enlighten you on your attitude as well as the freshman congressman.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/70166506/

Yellowdog-Mark D, I think your idea of a conclave would be a great one, if we were talking about normal Republican conservative politicians (say, Repubs from the 1960s and 1970s) or even relatively reasonable Repubs from the 1980s, but we're talking about extremists who would be happy to let the conclave not end until the debt ceiling deadline had passed. These people's concept of compromise is having the Democrats do all the compromising.

right jerry, just like the democrats and obama compromised on the FY 2011 budget and a fake cut of $38 billion.

Greetings yellowdog - would we also have white or black smoke coming from a stack? lol!

Not really all that bad of an idea, but some liberals might call that cruel and unusual punishment.

One interesting perspective in all of this drama is that sen coburn left the gang of six because the left wouldn't put medicare on the table, even thou coburn was more than willing to raise tax revenues.

Another point is that I have noticed that the media and some politicians spout off on a variety of tax increases, tax revenue, tax this and tax that or we have to single out the wealthy.

Each mention of any thing relating to increasing taxes has a different definition. Like raising income taxes is not really the same as raising tax revenues. revenues increase with both but the mechanisms are different. It seems that neither side really understands what the other is saying, just that it came from you so it is bad.

When ryan presented his FY 2012 budget and debt reduction plan he explained how he was going to reduce the tax rates for the top 2% and corporations + maintain the same revenue stream as before (according to obamas state of the union address, this would be acceptable). However we both know that this little tidbit was quickly lost in the buzz from obama and others that this was just another attempt by the right to favor the top 2%.

My own opinion would be that both sides do a better job on defining exactly what they mean. Does boehner really mean no tax increases or no income tax increases? Does he really mean there should be no revenue increases, period. or does he mean that since he found ryans plan of eliminating/minimizing deductions acceptable in the proposed FY 2012 plan he could support it as well in increasing revenue that way.

I trust you and your family are enjoying the summer, and I truly wish I could send some of our excess water here in iowa down to texas.

It is hot American. We finally got rain a couple of days ago.

I was speaking with Mixed Bag the other day about the same thing. Yes increase revenue is acceptable by reducing deductions on everyone, including the middle class - biggest group.

They need to both cut spending and raise revenues, by tax increases or reduction exemptions in the code.

For the 2006 federal tax year, Dick Cheney paid the equivelent of a 20% tax rate based upon the tax exclusions, loopholes, etc ... most eveyone knows Dick Cheney was considered the highest income earner in Washington DC. It makes NO difference whether the added revenue comes from closing down these loopholes for the wealthy, or if you increase the tax RATE back to the pre-Bush levels ... a dollar is a dollar regardless of where it comes from. If Democrats cut $2 trillion from spending, however, at least another $1 trillion (50 cents on the dollar) needs to come from increased revenue ... PERIOND!

Personally, I would prefer Repubs hold firm and prove to the taxpayers just how stupid and selfish they are. Come 2012, with their investments lost (the rich will be the big losers when their investments crash to NOTHING and the rich are pounding on their doors and ringing their phones) the Repubs won't be electable to a Home Owners Associaton ... and they can go back underground and rub noses with their LESS-RICH wealthy buddies and the bankrupting corporations.

So hold firm REPUBS ... hold your ground ... some of you will likely join the rest of us in this cesspool you've created over the past 30 years of trickle down theory ... its time we RID ourselves of you in another 18 months.