Correct me if I'm wrong, but did not Obama simply NOT let Bush's tax cuts expire? I haven't heard any noise that he's planning on giving anyone relief down the road, after all Obamacare has been declared a "tax", has it not? I really don't see how this counts as any concession on Democrat's part. I think the OP is looking for more than that, is he not?

Never the less, All this talk of "taxing the rich" is simply playing the class warfare card. All Obama and his corporate buddies are going to do is tax the wrong class of rich and not the uber-rich who own global corporations using governments to foist arcane regulations to stifle the wealth creating entrepreneurs out of the picture.

Personally, I like capitalism, but I hate corptacracy, which has evolved into a bizzare looking collectivism. Although I agree with the Occupy's movement against corporatism, they'd only have it replaced with another form of collectivism. I see the tea party as the other hand clapping against the onerous government, but they miss the corporate dictators behind the curtain.

I don't think that's where the founding fathers wanted us living - on some collectivist estate, whether its owned by corporate shadowy government types or marxist-socialist union thugs.

Jul 19, 2012 -- 5:09PM, Kairos wrote:

Here is a perfect example of the word games and semantics that get played..."cutting taxes" is equated with "reducing etitlements" mainly because the whole "worldview" of wealth creation is at odds. To those on the left, any time one "cuts taxes" you're not getting as much money for your pet etitlement. To those on the right, tax cuts actually helps to put more wealth into the system, but for some strange reason, economics isn't supposed to work that way in leftist la-la land.

The strange part about it ... is that everytime we have a tax cut, the revenue to the treasury increases.  Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue ... the 94 Congressional tax cuts signed by Clinton increased revenue, the Bush tax cuts increased revenue.

Now .. we all know that the increase in revenue is the result of increased economic activity.  No doubt, bubbles have played a part, the Tech Bubble for Clinton, the Housing Bubble for Bush.  But none-the-less ... the increased activity resulted in increased revenue to the treasury.  From that, one, I say any smart person, would come to the conclusion that increased economic activity equals increased revenue to the treasury.

Obama has it all wrong.  Increasing the Welfare State does not equal increased revnue to the treasury.  In fact, it forces the Government to either raise taxes or borrow money.  As the study posted GC's post has noted .... raising taxes will decrease jobs.... and decreasing jobs will result in further decreased economic acitivity and lower revenue to the treasury.

Further, Obama also has it wrong on taxes.  Increasing taxes will not increase revenue to the treasury, especially not in todays global economy.

All I'm asking is for the Democrats to fullfill their previous promise of granting the spending cuts that were agreed to during the Debt Debate of last year.  Rich people feel the same way!!  The message that the Democrats have sent the market community is we are going to keep increasing spending, and we're going to raise your taxes to increase our spending even more, even though we're already running over a Trillion Dollar Deficit .. ie., we're already spending a Trillion Dollars MORE that we have .. every year.

Seriously ..the Democrats have no intention of cutting the necessary spending.  I"ve already spelled it out for everyone.  You can cut ALL spending, including the Military, ... ALL .. except S.S., Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Education/training .. and we will still have a deficit in the 100s of billions of dollars.  Raising taxes will not cover that deficit.  AND ..if the pattern holds true, raising taxes will decrease economic activity, and actually lead to less revenue to the treasury, and more deficits.

I really don't see what is so damn hard to understand about this.  It's basic economics. [for which the Idiot in Chief has never participated, and knows nothing about].