Barack Obama Vs. Mitt Romney: 10 Big Differences Going "Forward"

** When money is taken and given to the Gov't, we all lose because Gov't is overhead cost.**

Well, government wasn't "overhead cost" on this day 11 years ago when the Twin Towers collapsed and government workers --known as first responders -- died trying to save trapped workers.

Some overhead costs are essential. Some are a waste, some are marginal, some are counter-productive. Taxing for the essential overhead costs is justifiable, it is all of the waste and unconstitutional spending that needs to be cut.
Taxing people at a higher rate just because they have more is not Fair or Just. Regardless what the taxes are spent on.

It should not matter how much any individual makes when it comes to federal taxes. All citizens should be treated equally under the law. I support a flat tax, no exemptions, no deductions, no exceptions. A liberals cry "that's not fair". Fair to them is trying to level income by taking wealth away from the rich and giving it to the poor.

If you confiscate every cent of net worth from every billionaire in the US, you'd have enough to cover the Obama deficit for one year. The trillions in debt would still be there, and there'd be no more Warren Buffets to cushion the blow or to employ the millions that they do currently.

And oh, by the way, a great many of the "Wealthy" have little to no actual income. They don't need it. High taxes on upper-level incomes means hurting people who work to earn their money by employing others. That means taking on fewer employees and THAT means unemployment doesn't get better. And THAT means that there's less tax revenue to go to Washington. I know it doesn't make sense if you think (as most liberals do) that there's a certain amount of money in the economy, but history has shown that lowering taxes - yes, even on the "rich" - actually increases government revenues because the economy improves.

I know. Truly frightening, isn't it....

Well, they'd have to have some income in order to pay property taxes, sales taxes, etc, unless they simply drawing down their assets.

Anyway, I'd like to see some colorful chart or bar graph depicting the tax revenue potential of the middle class versus the wealthy, along with some reliable supporting data. [Note: I'd rather see the terms "middle class" and "wealthy" replaced with a series of income ranges because it's more specific.]

Somebody must have crunched the numbers on this. AEI? The US Chamber of Commerce? I'm surprised the author didn't include a link.

...and you can only visit that well once. After the government goes through the money confiscated from the rich, what then?

Grace-Dan and Happy Jake have explained it well enough. I know that they no longer tell the chioldrens' tales that had good, conservative, messages. Perhaps it was the universities that made them unpopular as the first step towards accomplishing their "great paradise commune?" Anyway, there was once this golden goose. In fact, America had more golden geese that any other place in the world. One by one, the Morlocks emerged from their undergound haunts to slay these geese before our very eyes. Our smart people (Who were actually Morlocks disguised as democrats) told us that the Morlocks loved the "liitle people" (Americans) and were saving them from the horrible golden geese who had led them into undeserved affluence. cont'd

Soon enough, that last goldden goose was slain. Then, the Morlocks began to consume the "little people". Their new victims, in all of their ignorance , were shocked and terrified. But the disguised Morlocks(democrats) assured them that they were actually wealthy and needed to simply be more agreeable to their inevitable fates. Grace-Are you a Morlock?