http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/selwyn...

A marxist-leninist......TRUE

SarahB: Your statement is indeed true, and I personally have no problem at all for someone of low income paying nothing in federal income tax. I personally think about the the 1st $15K of income (no matter what your income is) should be TAX FREE (Right now it's about $10K if your claiming yourself as dependent and the standard exemption). The big problem I have is when the people who pay nothing, are getting huge refunds back despite having ZERO tax liability (in the form of the many refundable credits). That is simply nothing more then welfare. People don't like to hear that, but you are paying nothing in, and are getting $$ back from people who are.

@SarahB1-are you referring to yourself????

Only two comments here, one by Gandalf and one by justonepost, have seen through Krauthammer's smokescreen. Krauthammer rails, "Our current economic distress is attributable to myriad causes: globalization, expensive high-tech medicine, a huge debt burden, a burst housing bubble largely driven by precisely the egalitarian impulse that Obama is promoting (government aggressively pushing “affordable housing” that turned out to be disastrously unaffordable), an aging population straining the social safety net." He NEVER ONCE mentions absolutely out-of-control spending (by both Republicans and Democrats) on wars against "terror" and "drugs" and other ludicrous and wasteful spending on the military, which casts a HUGE shadow over the items (all codewords used by Republicans) that he mentions.
-
Krauthammer is a disingenous, intellectually dishonest wordsmith.

The writing is on the keynesian wall of failure. Barack Obama is a one term President walking.

That's pretty much all he has though.

RAF, your 'voluntary tax' line is disingenuous and absurd. You really need a new routine.

Why does every increase in revenue have a higher increase in spending? These guys in Washington think every time they get an extra nickle they need to spend a dime. If there was some way to guarantee any tax increase would go for deficit reduction I'd be all for it but that's not gonna happen.

And if you think that you should pay less,
you should start doing so immediately
if you really believe what you stand for.

Gandalf nowhere did I declare immediate. At the very least freezing levels would make a huge impact. In the mean time all those that think taxes need to go up can start paying more now, voluntarily; that is if they really believed what they stood for.

If you really want to push the 1% crap then I hope the ones that do this don't support professional sports. They are also the 1%

RAF, your illustration of spending cuts to immediately bring spending back to 18% of GDP would cause the economy to fall from a severe recession into a severe depression. It took years, if not a generation, to get us into the economic mess we're in. Likewise, it will take years to ease us out of the mess. This can only be done with a strategy that combines spending cuts with revenue increases. Spending cuts alone is not the answer.

"Raising revenue needs to be part of the nation's economic equation along with spending cuts."
-
You may want it to be part of it that doesn't mean it "needs" to be. Regardless of tax rates our national average for revenue has been ~18% of GDP, currently we are spending +24%. Where in your magic formula of "needs to be" will this come from besides more printing?

RAF, you said, 'people get out of debt everyday with no increase in pay'. that's correct, but there are plenty of people who get out of debt everyday by increasing income/revenue by taking a second job. Raising revenue needs to be part of the nation's economic equation along with spending cuts.

RAF:
A flat tax has about as good of a chance of happening as me becoming the next Pope! As it is now, almost 1/2 the country doesn't pay federal income tax (excluding FICA-payroll tax, which is $$ you get back IF you believe SS will actually be there in the future)..Not only do quite a few not pay anything at all, but actually get lots of $$$ back with all the refundable credits now. If your low income with kids, the federal governmnet (and most states) has become a MEGA ATM machine for you come tax time, in refundable credits. Once the governmnet becomes your sugar daddy, there is no way that voting block will ever vote in someone who actually wants them to pay in!

Funny Obama launches all this class warfare, when some of his biggest pals are the ultra wealthy, and wall street insiders...Warren Buffet comes right to mind (one of the most corrupt figures we have in America right now, who has BRILLIANTLY pained this magnanimous portrait of himself to the dumb public)...John Corzine was a huge Obama backer...Former CEO of Goldman Sachs, then MF Global, that was just run into bankruptcy and a cool billion or so of clients money is just "missing" some place now...Jamie Diamond (CEO JP Morgan), Brian Moyniham (CEO Bank of America)..All big Obama backers..I'm sure they are all willing to just pay their "fair share" to be benevolent to society, and expect nothing in return at all....ROLF

The answer for the last president to have balanced budget depends on what your idea of math is. During Clinton’s tenure there were claims of a balanced budget yet every year the national debt increased. The national debt is the accumulation of all deficits, so how did the debt increase if the budget was balanced? The answer is it never was. The last time the debt decreased was in the late 50’s. During that time the highest tax rate was over 90%. The most interesting part of that, that rate was in place more than a decade yet the debt only decreased one year. For the past 50+ years the national debt increased every year. So which math version of a balanced budget do you subscribe to?

I have no problem with everyone, including the rich paying taxes, but the idea of a "fair" tax rate is a subjective meaningless point; being subjective all have a different idea of what fair is. I have always been in favor of a flat tax with no deductions or tax credits for all, including business. The idea of tax laws, credits/deductions, has created a political game that politicians use based on elections and donations. I suspect taking this tool away would make congress less ineffective. Making claims that some can't afford to pay taxes is debunked everytime these same people make a purchase that is taxed.

RAF, we agree that a balanced budget is needed. Who, I'd like to ask, was the last president who balanced the budget? And, aside from that, taxing the rich has been proven to NOT stop job growth, so why can't they pay their fair share? Surely everyone understands the simple math that a family living on $50,000 a year cannot afford to pay 30% taxes as easily as a family making $500,000 a year. Those might not be the exact numbers, but you see my point, the less you make, the harder it is to give a portion away and still eat food. Food being something that costs the same no matter how much you make. And the richer you get, the less you pay effectively because of the loopholes. The current system is a punishment to the poor and a reward to the rich. Christian values?

decreasing spending does not equate to "gutting programs"-except in liberal ideology
-
So what is the plan then?

Perhaps the truth is something that scares you. You could try looking at the facts. How long could your financial status sustain itself if every $10 earned you spent $14. How long do you think credit card companies or banks would support this habit?

Or you could just sit back and make jokes about it; that will fix it...

RAF -- we can live with less and less until one day, we will no longer be able to eat . . guess that is one way to clear up obesity in America.

so it is capitalism that you want??? http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=278...

"the current deficit and debt situations can only be solved by a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases"
-
I disagree, people get out of debt everyday with no increase in pay; spending only what is available and being prudent works every time. Pretending that increasing government revenue will lower the debt sounds good, until you look at the history of spending in/by this nation. Until there are legal limits to spending, like a balanced budget amendment, those in power will always spend any pile they find. Declarations that increasing government revenue will lower the debt sounds good, until you look at the history of spending in/by this nation. Until there are legal limits to spending, like a balanced budget ammendment, those in power will always spend any pile they find.

@fishbelly-decreasing spending does not equate to "gutting programs"-except in liberal ideology

Hmm...So if they're kicking and screaming, that they refuse to increase taxes, how are they going to cut the deficit?

Many of the richest in this country DON'T pay their taxes, they have lawyers and accountants working for them to make very sure of that. IF they actually paid what they should, and IF the big corporations paid what THEY should, it would be a different story. There are two standards in this country, one for the rich, and one for the poor. We all know that. You may have a problem with Democrats not doing a good job on social programs, but at least we aren't in favor of gutting them completely and letting the poor, sick and elderly fend for themselves. Again, it's only class warfare when we fight back. The rich have always been out to stay rich, it's how greed works. We need to get some better systems in place to level the playing field. That's not us attacking them, it's us defending ourselves before the rich/poor divide gets even worse.

Class warfare has been going on for years now. The fact people are standing up against it now is what has everyone scared.

The saddest part of this is that it is a President's job to try and unite people in this country-this is the ONLY President I have ever seen that purposely goes about promoting class warfare,dissension,populism at its extreme,and pits white against black,poor against rich,blue collar against white collar,etc-all while presiding over the worst recession/depression since the 1930's and claiming to be "the only adult" in the room-he needs to stop campaigning,stop his demagoguery and start to LEAD-we at least deserve that much

It really angers me that the candidate or candidates cannot just discuss and layout their plans for turning things around. Being realistic about the time frame, not over committing. The Obama approach -- pitting people by wealth, race or anything else against each other is disgusting. This holds true for the right as well as the left, but for Obama -- who campaigned and attempts to complete a compassionate portrait. People are tired of it -- these Chicago thugs need to go.

The one area both sides of the aisle seem to agree on is the need for comprehensive overhaul of our ridiculous tax code-both on the corporate level and individual level-so what sense does it make for Obama to continually ignore this as well as ignore the recommendations of his own commission(Simpson-Bowles)-instead he focuses on promoting class warfare to aid his chances at re-election.This guy is the epitome of a politician who consistently and selfishly puts his own self interests over those of this country as a whole-and as a result is the worst President I have seen in over 40 years of voting

bebe53, the current deficit and debt situations can only be solved by a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. It is not an 'either/or' solution. For starters, Social Security collections should be applied to incomes greater than the current $106,800 ($110,000 for 2012), with no maximum taxable earnings. Spending cuts should include ending corporate welfare and subsidies, lowering defense spending, and seriously addressing corruption and fraud against the nation (which I consider to be crimes against humanity that should be dealt with accordingly).

Eisenhower-presided over 3 recessions during his 8 years in office and economic growth averaged 2.5% during that time-pretty lousy numbers and nothing to be proud of,but whatever. The current problem ,as always, is not lack of federal revenues but too much spending-and politicians on both sides know that entitlements must be addressed to solve the deficit problem in this country but Democrats consistently refuse to do this-burying their collective heads in the sand seems to be the only thing they are capable of doing

bebe53, your simplistic thinking is glaring, and you fail to recognize the fact that the federal income tax system is based on the 'ability to pay' principle. This has been the way it has worked since the very first federal income tax was instituted during the Civil War when only incomes greater than $20,000 were subject to a federal income tax. The progressive tax rates are as American as apple pie. During the 1950's the highest marginal income tax rate was 90+% for the portion of incomes greater than $1 million. That was during the Republican Eisenhower administration, a period when politicians put the nation's best interests before the narrow interests of their party and benefactors. Alas, those days are gone, but hopefully not forever. That being said, I think everyone should have some skin in the game and pay income taxes, with the lowest marginal rate starting at 1% and progessing to, say, a marginal rate of 75% for the portion of income greater than $1 million. Once the nation gets a handle on the outstanding debt and deficit situations, then the highest marginal rates can be decreased, just like they were by JFK after the WWII debt was well on its way to being paid.

Nancy Pelosi has rejected EVERY single proposal for means testing for wealthy individuals to receive entitlements(SS,Medicare)-why are you liberals not upset at her for this? If the "wealthy" should pay more of a "fair" share, then doesn't this make sense? That is not "destroying" entitlements is it??

@Gandalf the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes-the top 10%(which is an income of somewhere around $112,000 if I remember correctly)pay >70% of the taxes.Almost 50% of this country pay NO taxes-you seem to have a slanted idea of what is fair-why am I not surprised?

Janesvillecan... How then do the democrats intend to fund SS? If there really is a SS trust fund let me in on where it is. Which Republican is planning on destroying SS? All I can see is Rep programs that are intended to save SS. Democrats,however do not agree on a method,other than the current way, to make sure it is a viable program in the future. As to class warfare, it is usually the 50% that do not pay any Fed income tax that complain the rich are not paying their fair share. The top 1% earn 20% of the income in the but pay 40% of the taxes.

It's kind of funny that only the apologists for wealthy interests (like Krauthammer) spin the debate in terms of economic class envy and 'resentment' while the truth is that the vast majority of Americans do not begrudge the wealth of the few. However, a critical mass of Americans are finally recognizing that the current system is geared to benefit the few at the expense of the many. In fact, a silent class warfare has been going on for the past generation, perpetrated by a very small number of extremely wealthy individuals like the Koch brothers, with the victims being primarily the rapidly fading middle class. Americans are beginning to insist that the wealthy step-up and pay their fair share instead of being strictly purveyors of greed.

It's only class warfare when we fight back. When we just let the rich do what they want to us, that's Republican "American capitalism". And which Republican nominee is it that WON'T cut Social Security, whzbng? It's not the Democrats trying as hard as they can to destroy social programs...

The temp tax cuts Obummer is proposing to extend are the SS tax collections. SS is already on the ropes,so how is losing $1.2 billion an annual revenue with this tax cut going to help us in any way in the long run. It seems to me he is destroying the middle class and they do not even see it. Hope you are not counting on collecting SS when you retire if you support this cut.

Billionaire NFL owners get us to pay for stadiums. Billion dollar financial services firms sell us "sh1t" and then save them, but we shouldn't be resentful. All while Republicans blather on endlessly about a free market none of them actually operate in.

CK pretty much nails it on this one. NVgrf doesn't address any of the content of the article, and justonepost blames the Republicans for all that is bad. Oy!
Mr. Obama, like Michael Moore, epitomizes the "1%", while acting like he's part of the great unwashed. He better hope for a weak Republican nominee, even then I'd say his odds are no better than even. Sorry Mr. Emperor, you're naked.

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck…
What a joke you have become.
.
The dishonest and pathetic part of this article is the unwritten accusation that this is only a move done only by our current President, a Democrat.
.
Who is really committing class warfare? The Republicans refuse do anything with the TEMPORARY tax cuts for the upper wage earners while HOLDING HOSTAGE the extension of a payroll tax holiday for middle-class Americans.
.
So, yes Chuck, President Obama may be pointing out the class warfare being committed by the Republicans on the MAJORITY of Americans but how is he behaving differently.
.
BTW, why is there a demand to pay for the payroll tax holiday extention?
George W. Bush….
"You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase."
.
John McCain…..
"The fact is the tax cuts have dramatically increased revenues."
.
Mitch McConnell…
"There's no evidence whatsoever that the tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy."
.
When did this "fact" change?
.
You talk about selling out to Solyndra and that is a fair accusation but what about the sell-out by republicans to the no tax increase pledge; the refusal of the republican candidates to make a 10 for 1 deal; the military machine; etc…?
.
All the people talking about the debt; where were you during GW’s administration? Where were you when VP Cheney said, “Reagan proved deficits doesn’t matter”? I am not trying to blame GW; just pointing out the hypocrisy and dishonesty from Republicans, including our friend Chuck.
.
When posting on a similar topic I made the mistake of using $1,000,000,000 instead of $1,000,000. Not sure how I did that but I did. I wonder, would republicans take a deal that raises taxes on those making over $1,000,000,000 to help pay for a middle-class tax cut extension?
.
Class warfare is being used. Republicans are protecting the top 1% while taking a middle-class payroll tax holiday extension hostage for an oil pipeline. Democrats are attempting to protect the middle-class payroll tax holiday by having those Americans who make over $1,000,000 more on their income over $1,000,000…that means those making $999,999 wouldn’t see a tax increase.
.
There is a class war in this country. The question is Chuck, what side are you on?

NVgrf, for your saviors track record go to the debt clock, the proof is in the pudding.

@NVgrf-yeah how about that economic rebound in the great state of Nevada! Your President sure helped your neighbors out with all those shovel ready projects,cash for clunkers,etc-didn't he?? What a joke we have for a leader-maybe Harry Reid should run-whaddya think?

Once again a highly critical right winger with no solutions. blah blah blah
Obama 2012 YES

Great article! And all Obama wants to do is continue the payroll tax holiday. What a loser! This debt will be our downfall. He is the consummate politician. He is not a leader. Oh that's right..he is going on another 14 day vacation to Hawaii. Too busy vacationing and campaigning to actually do the job he was elected to do.