Mr. Stephanopoulos: "So even if we're in a recession next January, you come into office, you'll still go through with your tax increases?"
Senator Obama: "No, no, no, no, no. What I've said, George, is that even if we're still (emphasis added for LOLz) in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts. That's my priority.
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But not the increases?"
Senator Obama: "I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. ..."
In his interview with George Stephonopolus, Barack Obama said that he would NOT go through with his tax hikes on the rich if the economy were still hurting. Why? Because he knows that raising taxes on the rich would discourage investment, hurt job creation, and that, in a struggling economy, that would be a bad thing. Ok, so it appears Obama has half seen the light. He now knows that 'taxing the rich' is an absurd policy... but only when the economy is bad, or struggling. But when the economy is good, it's OK to decrease incentive to invest, to hurt job creation, to hurt revenues to the government etc.? Make sense, please.
The absurdity of Obama's economic policies weren't only being exposed (perhaps unknowingly) by Stephanopoulos, but also in O'reilly's interview with the Senator. Bill pointed out that under Bush's tax cuts revenue to the government increased by 20%. Anyone who understands economics knows why this is; cut taxes, people have more money to spend, to invest, to hire others if they are business owners, etc. and the economy grows, and therefore, even though the rates you're taxing at are lower, the growth of the economy more than makes up for that. When confronted with this fact Obama had no response. When you increase taxes, it's lose-lose, for both tax-or and tax-ee. You ultimately hinder economic growth, standard of living, job creation etc., and in so doing, you hinder the government's own ability to generate revenue, even though you're collecting at a higher rate. On the surface it's counterintuitive, but it's the absolute truth. Of course, there is a lower limit to this... we can't just tax 1%, for example. There is a theoretical point where taxes could be too low that government couldn't take in enough $ to do it's essential functions. But, in practice, this point has never been reached, or even approached, and as a nation, at least in modern times, we have ALWAYS been overtaxed, which is why lowering taxes is ALWAYS a good thing. Because they are, and always have been, too high. Don't believe me? Don't have common sense? Are a toe-tag, braindead liberal? Turn to one of your party's gods, and he'll tell you the same thing:
JFK "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy, which can bring a budget surplus."
Furthermore, beyond the mere question of whether a highly graduated tax system is a good idea in terms of the economic effects it would have, we have the question of what is right and just. And what is right and just is that what belongs to me, belongs to me, and what belongs to you, belongs to you. And it's not the government's place to take from one party and give to another, which is what a highly graduated tax system does. We don't need to graduate the percentages you owe the government, because that's the whole purpose of taxing based on a percentage of your income in the first place. 10% of $50,000 is $5,000, 10% of $5,000,000 is $500,000. The person who makes a lot more has to pay a lot more... the person who makes a lot less has to pay a lot less. Which is just, fair, and righteous. Even if you feel, as I do, that it's the moral obligation of someone who makes a lot more than they need, to give generously to those who need help, why is there a need for government in this equation? Needy person + wealthy person = wealthy person gives to needy person. We don't need government to force or facilitate this transfer. "But what if the wealthy don't feel like giving?" That's their prerogative. And many individuals are greedy and won't give. But, as a whole, we live in the single most generous nation on the planet, and have one of the least needy, least destitute populations on the planet. And it's not because our government takes care of us so well; it's because we take care of each other so well. Indeed, if government does anything it's hinder us by it's massive intrusions into our lives and our pocketbooks. Intrusions Barack Obama is fully intending to make more massive.