I will never give credence to a self-confessed Obama voter!

Good grief, she voted for Obama and is surprised that he takes his election as a mandate to raise taxes? That is what he said he was going to do if re-elected.

OK, let me get this straight, Susan. You voted for Obamacare but that´s it. Sorry, but when you voted for him, you voted for him to tax the rich(you), you voted for him to do whatever he wants. And he´s gonna do it. Thanks, Susan. NOT.

Susan, Susan......please see my post on the Warren Buffet thread and KNOW that I hope he is holding YOU in his arms as my dream plays out........

I don´t even know what to say about this. That she could have voted for Barry for all of her reasons given; and yet somehow not connect the dots that those very programs must lead to higher taxes, just boggles my mind.

Obama, as well as the Republicans, would be wise to listen to Susan Estrich. What she says here represents the line of thinking I have heard often from women who voted for Obama.

Frankly, I do not understand why the Republicans think it is more palatable to cap deductions than to raise the maximum income tax rate. Limiting deductions for charitable contributions will gravely injure nonprofits, and this country depends on nonprofits to provide many services. Without those nonprofit services, there would be even more clamoring for taxpayer dollars.

Now, there could be categories of nonprofits - for example, it is far more worthwhile to give $100,000 to the Salvation Army to feed the hungry than to Harvard to add to their billion-dollar-plus endowment.

She said she voted for obama because of obamacare, and in the same sentence thanks Kaiser for the insurance policy she was able to purchase for her nanny.

That was not Susan´s most brilliant statement.

Sorry, Susan. Barry was the whole package. You voted for him; you voted for higher taxes.

We as voters should have a line item veto. /s

Buyers remorse?

Guess what? When the Bush tax cuts expire - it will raise taxes on the MIDDLE CLASS. It won´t just be the RICH.

Obama want all taxpayers to pay more for more goodies for non-taxpayers.

Prof. Susan Estrich (USC Law School) was the manager of the Dukakis presidential campaign and a frequent contributor on Fox News. She has likely never voted for a Republican, and doubtless would have voted for Barack Obama if he had strolled naked in high heels through the streets of Washington. That said, her comments are interesting.

Well isn´t she special. She loves all things liberal except when they try to reach into her pocket. That´s the whole point of liberalism sunshine. Suck it up.

The impulse to soak the rich is as old as politics. I imagine our Stone Age ancestors practiced their own primitive version of it with the same gusto modern liberals and Democrats do. It is a perennial feature of the human mind, a manifestation of, among other things, emotional immaturity. Whenever one hears people preaching about "fairness" in politics there is a better than even chance that the speaker is arrested at the infantile stage of development, is resentful, envious, and brimming with malice. Liberals disguise their disowned and quite unpleasant feelings and hide behind claims of altruism and concern for social justice, but 99 times out of a hundred the actual motives are simple malice and moral vanity. Obama is typical of those who think that some people have enough, indeed too much money. How much money is enough, how much is enough? He did not say. But he wants to play Robin Hood to steal from the rich and give to the poor. If he would take a Saturday special and mug rich people in dark alleys and immediately hand over the proceeds to people who are genuinely in dire need through no fault of their own, I might have a little sympathy for him. But no, he wants to use the government´s monopoly of force to confiscate the property of others and depot it into the vast maw of the U.S. Treasury where, as everybody knows, the vast majority of it will be wasted, misappropriated, used for corrupt deals, and wind up disappearing and doing very little good to anyone.

#6 it is more palatable because it is in fact already the law of the land. Raising rates will take money from everyone. Period. It also leaves a lot of room for future tinkering to "close loopholes" to increase revenues.

I would rather see deductions cut way back and rates lowered so our system approaches a flat tax than see deductions tinkered with while base rates are raised through the roof.

Deductions are alreeady limited for many of us. Its called the Alternative minimum tax and it basically states that above a certain income threshold you only get X dollars of deductions and you lose all of your exemptions. It was enacted to punish 11 taxpayers in 1969 (Bill of entendre anyone?) and now hits millions. Oh, and it carries a HUGE (read about $6,000 added tax) Marriage penalty as well.

wht a ditz...but then she has always been one

Susan, you really are dumber than a box of rocks. You voted for Obama because you were concerned about how hard it is for a person to get insurance with a pre-existing condition but then you are happy because Kaiser was able to sell you the insurance anyway??? Ugh...

Well, I see Susan is still as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Exactly, #5. She´s not very good at connecting the dots, is she?

I think Estrich was Dukakis´ campaign manager.

Susan must pay her fair share.

The Congressmen in the House have a mandate to NOT raise taxes. So there.

If I had to listen to her whiney voice for longer than about ten minutes, one of us would decease...

Something to think about.

Dividend tax is increasing to 43%. After Tax Yields on dividends will decrease, thus causing the price of stocks to go down. That makes other financial instruments more desirable.

Debt instruments will not have to yield as much, to compete. Their prices should go up.

More of ´the rich´ could start looking overseas...

Michael Dukakis. ´Nough said.

This is nothing but class warfare...the takers taking from the makers!

This will come around ´in spades´ when the takers are identified by the makers and the makers fire all of them...How´s that class warfare working out for ya now?

Ms. Estrich makes some good points but she also shows her emotional side. We´ve been told time and again that women are more inclined to vote emotionally. I am a woman and that is not how I vote but it is very common. There is a comment at the end of her article by someone who tries to justify why Ms. Estrich should have her taxes raised. They talk about never having made more than $107,000 (she and her husband) and they managed to live in nice neighborhood, send their children to nice private institutions, etc. and about who really suffers. The whining is incredible. Just for a moment, throw out the discussions about who can afford what, deductions, etc. We all have different ideas along those lines and what may or may not be a good idea. Bottom line - I am a middle class married female - however, I DO NOT think ANYONE - and I don´t care how rich you are, should ever have to pay 39.6% of their wealth for federal income tax. Add to that whatever state taxes they are paying (depending where they live) and they may well be paying over 50% in income taxes. That is criminal. I also think EVERYONE should pay something - even if it is a mere $25.00 a year. No skin in the game - no reason for you to see why tax increases are not the answer.

FTA: But beginning a new term with what will look to many like a class war is not the way to fulfill the real mandate of this election, which is to bring us together, not turn us against each other.

What cave have you been living in Miss Susan??? He´s been fanning the flames of class warfare for the last two years! Geez

Yo..yo...Well...at least Susan doesn´t have SNAGGLE TEETH like. DWS!!

I´ve got an idea, Susan, let´s just raise taxes on registered Democrats!
That way they can practice what they preach.

He has no mandate!!!

#15- I think you mean "Bill of Attainder", entendre.

"Bill of Attainder", NOT entendre, I meant to say.

"I voted for Obama. I voted for him because I know how hard it is to buy health insurance for a single person with even a minor pre-existing condition."

Thanks, Susan. Thanks alot. "Romneycare" was much like "Obamacare" in how it was claimed to handle pre-existing conditions.

Regardless of any ´conservative credentials´ she might have, S.E. is a bona fide bitsy ditch, as far as I´m concerned. (Lucky for her she has her looks and singing voice to fall back on....)

Thanks a lot #34. I just spewed wine all over my keyboard. Oh well, it was cheap wine. I´m trying to sample what the future holds for us.

Susan you´re a dummass. Anybody who would vote for a criminal dictator, an unqualified child, a hate-filled moron for such a selfish reason does not have the right to call herself an American. Here´s a finger salute to you and to the millions of other sheep who stupidly rationalized their vote for an illegal president.

Susan and the obamaphiles should put their money where their mouths are and pony up and pay extra taxes voluntarily.