I thought the rate was lower than 250k... i thought at one point it was around 120k.

Taxing the rich is not gonna help growth at all. In fact its these rich people that create jobs.

Is it that hard to balance a budget? I mean really most americans with a brain do it on a weekly basis...

But dont worry BO has pretty much thrown out the idea of balancing the budget... yet another thing he promised along with the "change" to DC... hes 2 for 2 at fail already cant wait to see what else is in store.

Right now we need JOBS and not more spending... take more money form people is not the answer.

Yep and how much do we really trust politicans to actually spend the money wisely? I cant think of to many times its happend. All its going to do is line yet more pockets of the already rich so your not really solving any problems just moving wealth from one rich person to anoter

An interesting ancillary point.

Given that Obama has made it apparent he will let the tax cuts enacted by Congress expire; thereby increasing taxes for everyone (well I suppose those not paying taxes won't see an increase), can one assume he will simultaneously or perhaps pre-emptively lower tax rates on all but the 'rich' to not only offset the increased tax burden as a result of expired cuts but to also lower those rates even further in order to follow through on his campaign promise to lower taxes for all but those making over $250K, $200K, or $150K, whichever may be the actual figure?

Some folks aren't going to be happy until they get their next depression. But I totally agree with your plan as that would get the Democrats out of office very quickly, please hurry up Obama!

That said I think the author is just stirring the pot and doesn't believe what he wrote himself. Are you lonely this weekend and need some attention? Come on now there are better ways than this.

No he just failed basic economics, assuming he bothered to study it at all. Only a total moron could actually believe that higher taxes is good for the economy. When you raise taxes on businesses they cut jobs, slow or stop growth, and more often than not move their production to countries with lower labor and tax rates. It's a great plan for reducing the US to a third world nation.

Ireland finally figured this out. When they slashed taxes on the wealthy and especially businesses their economy experienced a boom unlike anything they'd seen in a very long time and the government saw tax revenues skyrocket.

As in since the potato famine.

Of course I'm against higher taxes, my point was that some folks see that as the answer (taxing the rich or killing the golden goose, same thing). The sooner they get schooled in how disastrous that would be, maybe we can stop hearing about it. So I want them to commit political suicide. The only flaw is I don't think Obama is that stupid (at least not his advisor's) because he wants to be around for a while. So the choice is simple, abandon his campaign promises (and show his supporters that "change" was a BS election stunt) or destroy the economy by taxing the job creators out of existence, or somewhere in the middle politics as usual (so much for hope).

Higher or lower taxes, I'll weather the storm. I would like to see the folks that had little idea why they voted get what they asked for. It's just a pity those that that knew what to expect will suffer with the rest. The big question is can Obama pull it off far enough before the next election so that the persons of short memory will forget their suffering or will he convince them that the job isn't finished and he needs four more years? I can see many of his hope and change ads coming back to haunt him, just like Bush Sr.'s "Read my lips" statement.

That is because they work.

Does anyone believe that taxing the rich, while hurting the economy overall, preserves the middle class and promotes social mobility? To me, creating a more humane economy is a greater ideal than creating a perfectly efficient economy.

Let's be honest. Many of the super rich do not work as hard as many in the poorer classes. Redistributing wealth is not about taking from the people who worked hard. Many other factors besides work ethic go into determining income.* It is important to me that we preserve an economy that is not so top-heavy that the American people at large do not have limited opportunities.

*This is not to say that work ethic does not play a definate role.(http://www.scottcrumpler.com/documents/workethic.pdf  [Also, keep in mind that some people who do not make as much might think that hard work is not as important because they work or worked hard and they are still not succcessful. Again, not to totally discount these results.])

And how does owning a company that employs workers produce, exactly? A better argument is that you should be rewarded for the risk you take with your money when investing in said company. But, then, how did you get that money in the first place?

Firstly, that is not a very patriotic opinion. But I will not press that issue right now except to point out that, while this may be true, people would really rather not hear it.

And to answer how, taxation removes money from the economy that could have been invested or could have been used to create supply and also demand (Say's law, or the converse proposed by Keynes). It lowers GDP. However, while targeting the rich in particular will probably reduce supply, or cut production, at the same time, the money taken from the economy can be used by the government to, say, improve school systems or to ensure medical care for our nation's less fortunate. And to top it off, the social ladder is shortened because the super rich are closer in income to the working class.  

But another key issue with McCain is that he wants to cut corporate taxes. The idea is that this allows corporations to generate profit more easily and thus produce more. More companies will come, more risky investments will be made, etc. Basically, there would be greater supply and thus greater demand. However, while there is greater supply, it can be argued that workers in these companies would not benefit as much. The CEO's would be making a lot more profit, but wages would be dictated by the amount workers are willing to work for. Unemployment might drop even, but ultimately, workers lose buying power compared to the rich (I am not entirely sure about this, but it is an argument that has been proposed to me.). Altough, an interesting idea is that their buying power might exceed what it would be if the economy were weaker. Who knows? It really boils down to people rather having a poorer country in which people are closer together economically over a country that is very rich but that exploits its workers.

[I really ran past my knowledge with this one. Feel free to prove deductively how something I said is wrong. I would be interested in seeing how.]

It is called brains.  The brains to have the idea, know how to implement and market it, and then to hire the right people to enact your plan.

And you cant invest in something that does not exist.  If no one has the ideas, then no one can invest in them.