Can you name one democratic party solution that would not cause an increase in the taxes we pay?

Question

I'm sure there have to be some, but I'm looking for specifics. If you can think of one, which senator, representative, governor or presidential candidate is the strongest supporter?

Answer 1

demoncrats = higher taxes

Answer 2

Notice how all the people answering this question say that taxes need to be raised to pay off the debt and not one of them suggest cutting spending to accomplish the same thing? I agree that when Republican presidents have cut taxes they made a huge mistake in not cutting spending--they in fact increased it. However, when taxes were cut, revenue to the Treasury increased. I have seen on this forum examples that revenue to the Treasury increases every year whether or not taxes are cut. If this is true, then shouldn't we be cutting taxes just because this is the morally correct thing to do? I believe it is wrong for the government to take money (stealing) from the American people that it does not need. We should instead cut all wasteful spending--and there's a lot of it. No politician seems to get this, however--spending just keeps going up and up. I hope that Americans come to realize this and finally elect some people who will do what they promise. I, for one, am tired of government spending.

Answer 3

First, it is the DEMOCRAT party. There is nothing democratic about that socialist party.

Second, bringing the troops home and pulling out of Iraq would actually increase our taxes. Many of those soldiers would come home to not being hired by the many liberal run companies who would not hire them and thus they would have to go on welfare till they found a company run by a real American.

Third, increasing the size of government has historically increased the amount of taxation in one form or another. Usually at a fairly dramatic rate.

Fourth, Bush will not be in office after the next election, so please enlighten me as to how spending money on oversight of an administration that is not in office is going to help reduce or not increase taxes?

Finally, the budget would be balances except for all the pork that the democrats consistently add to it for their own personal gains. And please note that these are gains solely benefiting the democrat and his cronies and not his constituents.

Conclusion: There is nothing in the Democrat party that will not cause an increase in taxes. Oh and history has prooven that as well.

Answer 4

Generally the Dems tend to correct or try to improve things by collecting and throwing money at issues. The repubs get money by cutting spending on other programs. I don't think either one is really doing the most they can to raise money. IMO there are some programs that should be drawn down (as the repubs do to excess at times) and some that should be given more. IMO raising taxes is not the answer but being more responsible for budgeting is the real solution. Why should we send money to countries like Saudi, and why are we still sending funds to Japan for rebuilding from WWII? Why do we allow our taxes to be spent on illegal immigrants and why should we provide inmates with gyms that I can't even have as a law abiding citizen. Then there are all the think tanks and research groups that never accomplish anything or come up with findings that have been known since the 1800's. Taxes also go to things like minority groups such as Hispanic, African American, Islamic, and countless others when they should go to one group only Americans. People are allowed to collect welfare even though they are able to work. Why shouldn't they be made to do jobs for the state in order to collect on welfare (this would also help them to become marketable) such as janitor at the court house or trash pickup on the streets?

Don brings up some nice talking points. I hear often how the rich get tax breaks but in truth they pay a larger % of their income than does the average Joe like me. Like them or hate them big busness pays most of the bills for our country as well as giving the rest of us jobs so we can pay our bills.

Answer 5

Regardless of who is in the Whitehouse taxes are going to have to be raised. Somehow the cost of this war must be paid for. Then we have the cost and care of the vets. These costs are going to be around for a very long time. So get ready here it comes. To say Dems= taxes is incredibly naive. Or how about we take those tax cuts back from Bush's rich buddies? That might help. Regardless the cost of all this is going to fall on us and generations after. How do you feel about that?

Answer 6

Getting the current "spend and spend some more" administration out of office may go a long way towards easy our economic woes.

Answer 7

Withdrawing our troops from Iraqitnam would save taxpayers about 500 million per day, getting rid of the prescriptions drug benefit and replacing it with a program not written by drug companies for profit and replacing it with a program that would actually make sense, balancing the budget would mean that instead of 5% of all taxpayer funds going to many countries we don't agree with in the form of interest(meaning no discernable benefit to the US)

Answer 8

Do yo actually think that this President can run up record deficits year after year and no one will have to pay?

Democrats have been left to clean up the messes Republicans have made of the economy time after time

sure taxes may go up National debt will go down

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

Answer 9

fund a $1 trillion war

Answer 10

End the war - it would save 8 billion a month. that is a lot of tax money saved.

Answer 11

the democrats are going to raise your taxes any chance the get. they love to hand out money to everyone, they want free programs for everything. democrats believe the government should take care of people instead of people taking care of themselves.