Perhaps this silly son of a Birch Bayh needs an object lesson in game theory (per John Nash).  He holds a common silly opinion about debt, big debt.
From Big Tent's link:

Washington borrows from foreign creditors to fund its profligacy. The amount of U.S. debt held by countries such as China and Japan is at a historic high, with foreign investors holding half of America's publicly held debt. This dependence raises the specter that other nations will be able to influence our policies in ways antithetical to American interests. The more of our debt that foreign governments control, the more leverage they have on issues like trade, currency and national security. Massive debts owed to foreign creditors weaken our global influence, and threaten high inflation and steep tax increases for our children and grandchildren.

Actually, when other governments loan money to the USA they lose leverage. Any skilled negotiator may, can, will tell them to keep their "leveraged" opinions to themselves if they want to get paid, otherwise . . . they can hang on to those T-bills & T-bonds until the 22nd century.

If I have your billion dollars & you have my IOU, guess who has the leverage?

[Corollary: if you have oil & I need to heat my home, who has the leverage?]

Interesting question would be: "Would you still want your federal taxes to decrease if it meant your state income and, possibly, property taxes would be going up?"

We all have two pockets, and what Uncle Sam puts into one, the state often takes out of the other; if it's a net gain for people, that's great, but I don't think people should be looking for any kind of net windfall, unless the states decide to deliver the second punch to those over-$250K earners, as well.

The states are hurting, and those that won't directly raise income taxes will be resorting to hidden taxes: higher fees to register cars and obtain licenses, and the not-so-hidden things like increases in property and sales taxes, and so on.

And yes, my taxes will go up under Obama's plan, and yet I am completely in favor of it. In fact, I volunteered for his election. Money can't buy happiness.

Having the rich pay a little more for the good of the country is entirely accepted in most other countries. And it's entirely normal, and has certainly had no negative effects in the past. Show me some proof if you say that it did.

Rich people: you can spare the change. Quit whining.

Washington borrows from foreign creditors to fund its profligacy ...

The solution going forward is to stop wasteful spending before it starts. Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet -- and Washington should too.

What decade does he thinks this is?

Yeah, absent the "profligate spending" of the Government, we wouldn't be in this financial crisis.

Never mind what they'd answer on cap and trade taxes being passed on in energy pricies.

Or that the corporate tax rate will be the highest in the world and will also result in more job losses.

What a silly question.  Not suprised by the answer.  Mr. Bayh's job is to realize that higher taxes can have bad reactions, namely continuing economic downturn, inflation and further loss of jobs.

Still, three times as many people think raising taxes in an economic downturn is a bad idea (69 percent) as say it is a good idea (23 percent). Majorities of Democrats (58 percent), Republicans (86 percent) and independents (66 percent) agree on this issue.

That is also Bayh's point and my point all along.  We can't afford to hamper our economy when it's already in a massive downturn.

Since only a few percentage of people make over $250,000, why wouldn't more people be in favor of raising taxes for those over $250,000, and lowering taxes for the rest?

Does the middle and upper middle class realize how much the Bush tax cuts lowered their taxes?