Neat. Not one word was lost on how much money could be saved with the troop withdrawl to offset the new spending.

So in addition to cutting costs by withdrawing *some* troops (since Obama dances around withdrawing with nebulous statements about leaving forces to combat terrorism), he still wants to increase taxes in ways that have failed in the past. History shows that the more you tax, the more people adjust their actions to avoid them. If businesses are faced with increased taxation, they will start laying off workers and seeking shelter somewhere more tax friendly. Their point about Democratic control of Congress and the White House taxing the living hell out of this country is true. The economy under Obama is going to be higher unemployment, higher gas prices, and higher taxes. Congress has an approval rating so low its almost negative and is setting a historical record. We are already spending ourselves into oblivion, why the hell do we need to take even more money to increase it further? While I dislike him for many other reasons, at least McCain recognizes the need to cut spending.

You know, the thing about businesses leaving the country when raising taxes is only half true. If at that. When the iron curtain dropped there was woe and gnashing of teeth when the western european gouvernments raised taxes. All the jobs would be going into the east! Businesses would leave! And they did. Some silently, some loudly, trying to blackmail the gouvernments.

A couple of years later and guess what? Most businesses are coming back. Lost cost countries lead to lower quality production in most cases. And in lots of cases lower quality isn't acceptable to companies who try to sell their products at the same old prices and who have a quality image to lose. Also selective consumption, by punishing those businesses that leave with your wallet, can help.

Increase top marginal income tax rate.

Boo-hoo. Rich people have to pay a little more in tax.

The end is near....

Oh! And I especially love to hear more Fox News bullshit as if I couldn't turn around and see it everywhere I go.

Yes, because Democrats only ever tax the rich. Yup, nothing bad ever happens when you try to take more and more of someone's money. They wouldn't actually try and find a way out of it. That would be crazy. It's a good thing they brought in windfall profits taxes in the 70's. That really worked. Soak the rich! They should be ashamed for having money! To each according to his needs! All praise be to class warfare!

Economic tax theory has 3 concepts of taxation: flat, regressive and progressive.

Flat taxation is basically a fixed amount everyone pays, this is hardly if ever used.

Progressive taxation is where you tax the least to the lowest income earners and tax more on the highest income earners.

Regressive taxation is where you tax the lowest income earners the most and loosen the taxation as the income is higher. This is essentially what is in place right now in the US.

Income surveys shows that the largest amount of US wealth is centered in the top 1% of income earners, declining exponentially to the lowest income holders of which control far less wealth on a larger population base.

The theory dictates that economic growth is best with an emergent middle class, progressive taxation allows low income earners to move up the middle class. This is because this segment pays more of their income as a tax then the higher income earner. The middle class has been declining in the last 10 years.

20 dollars of tax on say a 100 dollar salary is a large percentage of your income. However 100 dollars of a 1000 dollar salary is less, the burden is far smaller, your standard of living does not get affected.

Remember that those who earn more already have access to alternative finical institutions and accounts that already circumvent the taxation scheme put forward, they can readily transfer income out of the nation into lower tax deposits internationally or even tax heavens. Leading to a rise of international companies basing their HQ in tax heavens, allowing them to escape corporate taxation.

The Bush idea of reducing taxation is fallacious as it only benefits those who are already rich, while still taxing more on those who are poor, pushing more people into low income segments of the economy.

Also cutting taxes has been possibly because of high taxation previously, we can afford to cut taxes on roads upkeep, sewage upkeep and other social services because the infrastructure has been heavily invested in by the government back in the 40s to 60s. Of course cutting those taxes leads to bridges collapsing and pipes exploding in the city.

Handing over upkeep to corporate sponsors, like selling pieces of road and social infrastructure is detrimental as companies seek profits not positive social externalities.

The economy under Obama is going to be higher unemployment, higher gas prices, and higher taxes.

Moving this video to Lurch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

I have to disagree with you on a few points. The idea that lower income earners bear the greatest tax burden in the US is false. The top 50% of wage earners in this country pay more than 95% of income taxes collected. The top 1% is paying at least 10 times more than those below 50%. These numbers are coming straight from the IRS as of September of 2002.

The idea that tax cuts only benefit the rich is also false. Numbers from the Treasury Department have shown the effect cuts have had on low income earners from 2001 all the way to estimated values in 2011. They are substantial compared to the tax estimates when the cuts lapse. It most certainly does not push more people into a lower segment. Numbers from the tax foundation detailing income tax rates from 1913 all the way up to 2008 demonstrate that the idea of cuts only for the rich is a myth. Low income earners experienced substantial decreases. In fact, a family making less than 30K a year is saving more in taxes than a family making 100K a year.

As for the Clinton surplus, that is completely false. Just check the US Treasury. Cooking the books and claiming a surplus does not make it true. At the end of Clinton's last fiscal year in 2001, the deficit was $133.29 billion with a national debt of $5.8 trillion. However, there was a point when we came somewhat close to a balanced budget. Funny enough, it was Republicans that controlled congress at the time and pushed for the spending cuts that decreased our deficit. You just can't keep a low or non-existant deficit if you don't stick to decreased spending though.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/reports/taxrelief_20012011_052708.pdf
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np