Toldya...trade in one bad guy for another...and it was gonna be so great! Ha!

[Plane]

That is exactly the conservative menu plan for after President Obama's financial success.

After his program is enacted and fails , there will be plenty of crow for everyone , because we do not expect it to be anything like a success.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What Boehner proposes in taxes raises only half as much as what the President proposes, so the Republican solution is inferior for those who understand arithmetic.

[sirs]

It's called compromise.  Where's the President on his supposed "balanced approach"??.  It's AWOL, demonstrating that the Democrat solution is not only inferior, but actually flunks arithmetic

[Plane]

What Boehner proposes in taxes raises only half as much as what the President proposes, so the Republican solution is inferior for those who understand arithmetic.

I think you have this more than backwards.

Nevertheless I see that we can both agree that neither of these plans is a serious plan for reduction of debt.

The other question is , which one is more destructive of the economy and employment?

[sirs]

That'd be the one that does largely squat on bringing down the debt, but saddles those who are largely the job creators the ongoign disincentive to do anything in the way of expanding or hiring, because of the higher taxes they'd be mandated to pay.

But boy, are we going to stick it to "the rich"

[Xavier_Onassis]

A measly 4% increase in taxes on income over $250K is not sticking anything to anyone. Don't be an idiot.

[sirs]

And since it won't even begin to dent the debt, even a measely amount, WHY DO IT, when the repercussions are to stagnate job growth and unemployment all the more....if it's not about "sticking it to 'the rich'"?

Did you flunk  economics 101 as well as arithmetic?  You did Ace classwarfare, I'll grant you that

[Plane]

A measly 4% increase in taxes on income over $250K is not sticking anything to anyone. Don't be an idiot.

4% is more than the profit margin of an oil company.

It isn't just the amount or the rate that matter , the context matters too.

If the top 2% are responsible for ten times as many hires as the next 2% lower is , then, a subtraction from the top two percents resorces makes ten times the diffrence to employment that a subtraction from the second 2% would.

This is probly the reason that no one is talking about the increase in payroll taxes that is coming down the road, although it will steal a bit from the workingmans standard of living , it is mostly going to bother the people who don't hire anybody.