GOP should call Obama's bluff on "Tax the rich"

[bucs90]

How about this for a strategy:

GOP says "OK President Obama. We'll tax the rich. Tax the shit outta them. You say we obstruct you? Ok. You say the rich dont pay their "fair" share? Ok. Americans....listen to this. We, the GOP, will trust President Obama on this. It's HIS to own. We'll vote for his big tax hike on the rich. We'll trust HIS leadership and ideals on this. We'll pass this immediately. We'll see the results in the economy and debt by next November."

Go ahead. Pass it. Hike taxes on the rich, right now. See what happens. Let Obama run on the results of it, not the idea of it.

I suspect he'd shit his pants when he realizes he'll have to run on the results.

 

[oreo]

How about this for a strategy:

GOP says "OK President Obama. We'll tax the rich. Tax the shit outta them. You say we obstruct you? Ok. You say the rich dont pay their "fair" share? Ok. Americans....listen to this. We, the GOP, will trust President Obama on this. It's HIS to own. We'll vote for his big tax hike on the rich. We'll trust HIS leadership and ideals on this. We'll pass this immediately. We'll see the results in the economy and debt by next November."

Go ahead. Pass it. Hike taxes on the rich, right now. See what happens. Let Obama run on the results of it, not the idea of it.

I suspect he'd shit his pants when he realizes he'll have to run on the results.

Here is BARACK OBAMA on video August 5, 2009 stating he will NOT raise taxes on anyone because of the economy. The GOP has WMD on this.

It's campaign season and he's out there threatening the "evil rich" and CORPORATIONS in this country with higher taxes and then wonders why they move operations overseas>in return business in this country has tucked in like a turtle and are waiting for the threat to leave.

BARACK OBAMA ON VIDEO--STATING THE REASON HE WOULDN'T RAISE TAXES ON ANYONE.

Obama: "The LAST THING We Want to Do Is Raise Taxes During a Recession" - YouTube

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obamas bitch tax warfare is DOA. Have no worries

 

[auditor0007]

How about this for a strategy:

GOP says "OK President Obama. We'll tax the rich. Tax the shit outta them. You say we obstruct you? Ok. You say the rich dont pay their "fair" share? Ok. Americans....listen to this. We, the GOP, will trust President Obama on this. It's HIS to own. We'll vote for his big tax hike on the rich. We'll trust HIS leadership and ideals on this. We'll pass this immediately. We'll see the results in the economy and debt by next November."

Go ahead. Pass it. Hike taxes on the rich, right now. See what happens. Let Obama run on the results of it, not the idea of it.

I suspect he'd shit his pants when he realizes he'll have to run on the results.

Wrong, it's what needs to be done. On top of that, all of the Bush Tax Cuts need to come to an end. As revenues increase, some of that money can be put into infrastructure spending. What many conservatives don't understand is that a great deal of government spending ends up in the private sector. Cutting that spending will take money out of the private sector and slow growth. While building a bridge to nowhere does not make sense, it does employ people and put money into the economy. We just need to concentrate on the bridges to somewhere rather than the ones to nowhere. There is good government spending and bad government spending.

 

[oreo]

How about this for a strategy:

GOP says "OK President Obama. We'll tax the rich. Tax the shit outta them. You say we obstruct you? Ok. You say the rich dont pay their "fair" share? Ok. Americans....listen to this. We, the GOP, will trust President Obama on this. It's HIS to own. We'll vote for his big tax hike on the rich. We'll trust HIS leadership and ideals on this. We'll pass this immediately. We'll see the results in the economy and debt by next November."

Go ahead. Pass it. Hike taxes on the rich, right now. See what happens. Let Obama run on the results of it, not the idea of it.

I suspect he'd shit his pants when he realizes he'll have to run on the results.

Wrong, it's what needs to be done. On top of that, all of the Bush Tax Cuts need to come to an end. As revenues increase, some of that money can be put into infrastructure spending. What many conservatives don't understand is that a great deal of government spending ends up in the private sector. Cutting that spending will take money out of the private sector and slow growth. While building a bridge to nowhere does not make sense, it does employ people and put money into the economy. We just need to concentrate on the bridges to somewhere rather than the ones to nowhere. There is good government spending and bad government spending.

The Bush tax cuts end in 2012. What revenues do you expect to increase? What spending has ended up in the private sector? The 1 trillion dollars in economic stimulus bill that was shoved down our throats in fire department speed--was promised to create millions of private sector jobs--and keep unemployment from rising above 8.2%. It went from creating private sector jobs--to saving government workers jobs.

Barack Obama is living in a different century. He didn't know what to do so he did an FDR. Back in the 1930's we needed roads and bridges--today--we have super highways that criss-cross this nation--and if we needed a bridge we built it. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can now be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What permits were done overnight in the 30's now takes YEARS of engineering and design. And what was a work force of primarily men in the 30's is now 1/2 women who typically do not do road and bridge work.

Mitt Romney couldn't have said it better: "Obama keeps plugging .25 cents into a street corner pay phone-(expecting it to stimulate the economy)-when we live in the smart phone century."

 

[Kuros]

How about this for a strategy:

GOP says "OK President Obama. We'll tax the rich. Tax the shit outta them. You say we obstruct you? Ok. You say the rich dont pay their "fair" share? Ok. Americans....listen to this. We, the GOP, will trust President Obama on this. It's HIS to own. We'll vote for his big tax hike on the rich. We'll trust HIS leadership and ideals on this. We'll pass this immediately. We'll see the results in the economy and debt by next November."

Go ahead. Pass it. Hike taxes on the rich, right now. See what happens. Let Obama run on the results of it, not the idea of it.

I suspect he'd shit his pants when he realizes he'll have to run on the results.

Yes. Exactly. Let the party in power pursue a goddamned policy, and let's see the results. The GOP can even say, "Hey, we didn't want to do it, but we acquiesced."

$2 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. You'd think Obama were collectivizing agriculture from the response on this board.

 

[auditor0007]

How about this for a strategy:

GOP says "OK President Obama. We'll tax the rich. Tax the shit outta them. You say we obstruct you? Ok. You say the rich dont pay their "fair" share? Ok. Americans....listen to this. We, the GOP, will trust President Obama on this. It's HIS to own. We'll vote for his big tax hike on the rich. We'll trust HIS leadership and ideals on this. We'll pass this immediately. We'll see the results in the economy and debt by next November."

Go ahead. Pass it. Hike taxes on the rich, right now. See what happens. Let Obama run on the results of it, not the idea of it.

I suspect he'd shit his pants when he realizes he'll have to run on the results.

Wrong, it's what needs to be done. On top of that, all of the Bush Tax Cuts need to come to an end. As revenues increase, some of that money can be put into infrastructure spending. What many conservatives don't understand is that a great deal of government spending ends up in the private sector. Cutting that spending will take money out of the private sector and slow growth. While building a bridge to nowhere does not make sense, it does employ people and put money into the economy. We just need to concentrate on the bridges to somewhere rather than the ones to nowhere. There is good government spending and bad government spending.

The Bush tax cuts end in 2012. What revenues do you expect to increase? What spending has ended up in the private sector? The 1 trillion dollars in economic stimulus bill that was shoved down our throats in fire department speed--was promised to create millions of private sector jobs--and keep unemployment from rising above 8.2%. It went from creating private sector jobs--to saving government workers jobs.

Barack Obama is living in a different century. He didn't know what to do so he did an FDR. Back in the 1930's we needed roads and bridges--today--we have super highways that criss-cross this nation--and if we needed a bridge we built it. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can now be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What permits were done overnight in the 30's now takes YEARS of engineering and design. And what was a work force of primarily men in the 30's is now 1/2 women who typically do not do road and bridge work.

Mitt Romney couldn't have said it better: "Obama keeps plugging .25 cents into a street corner pay phone-(expecting it to stimulate the economy)-when we live in the smart phone century."

What spending ends up in the private sector? Are you serious? Ask any medical provider who counts on Medicare/Medicaid payments. Ask any construction company that works on our highways. Ask any retiree who receives a Social Security check. Ask Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and any company that has contracts with our our military or Department of Defense. Christ, one way or another, almost all of it goes back to the private sector one way or another.

Do we have too much of it? Yes, the federal government is too big. But it is also currently horribly underfunded. Cutting government spending is not going to help this economy one bit. But we have to pay for it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Doubt Boener has the balls not to cave.

I'd just get all of our troops out of the middle east...We can cut a lot that way. Maybe work on cutting the waste throughout the government...

 

[Cammmpbell]

How about this for a strategy:

GOP says "OK President Obama. We'll tax the rich. Tax the shit outta them. You say we obstruct you? Ok. You say the rich dont pay their "fair" share? Ok. Americans....listen to this. We, the GOP, will trust President Obama on this. It's HIS to own. We'll vote for his big tax hike on the rich. We'll trust HIS leadership and ideals on this. We'll pass this immediately. We'll see the results in the economy and debt by next November."

Go ahead. Pass it. Hike taxes on the rich, right now. See what happens. Let Obama run on the results of it, not the idea of it.

I suspect he'd shit his pants when he realizes he'll have to run on the results.

First...taxes are lower than they've been in 50 years. If they call his bluff they're history. Multiple polls show that more than 60% of Americans believe it's the right thing to do.

 

[zonly1]

Wrong, it's what needs to be done. On top of that, all of the Bush Tax Cuts need to come to an end. As revenues increase, some of that money can be put into infrastructure spending. What many conservatives don't understand is that a great deal of government spending ends up in the private sector. Cutting that spending will take money out of the private sector and slow growth. While building a bridge to nowhere does not make sense, it does employ people and put money into the economy. We just need to concentrate on the bridges to somewhere rather than the ones to nowhere. There is good government spending and bad government spending.

The Bush tax cuts end in 2012. What revenues do you expect to increase? What spending has ended up in the private sector? The 1 trillion dollars in economic stimulus bill that was shoved down our throats in fire department speed--was promised to create millions of private sector jobs--and keep unemployment from rising above 8.2%. It went from creating private sector jobs--to saving government workers jobs.

Barack Obama is living in a different century. He didn't know what to do so he did an FDR. Back in the 1930's we needed roads and bridges--today--we have super highways that criss-cross this nation--and if we needed a bridge we built it. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can now be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What permits were done overnight in the 30's now takes YEARS of engineering and design. And what was a work force of primarily men in the 30's is now 1/2 women who typically do not do road and bridge work.

Mitt Romney couldn't have said it better: "Obama keeps plugging .25 cents into a street corner pay phone-(expecting it to stimulate the economy)-when we live in the smart phone century."

What spending ends up in the private sector? Are you serious? Ask any medical provider who counts on Medicare/Medicaid payments. Ask any construction company that works on our highways. Ask any retiree who receives a Social Security check. Ask Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and any company that has contracts with our our military or Department of Defense. Christ, one way or another, almost all of it goes back to the private sector one way or another.

Do we have too much of it? Yes, the federal government is too big. But it is also currently horribly underfunded. Cutting government spending is not going to help this economy one bit. But we have to pay for it.

So the solution is to get more people to work or more new taxpayers to work in the private sector to fund the utopia of endless gov't dependence.

 

[auditor0007]

The Bush tax cuts end in 2012. What revenues do you expect to increase? What spending has ended up in the private sector? The 1 trillion dollars in economic stimulus bill that was shoved down our throats in fire department speed--was promised to create millions of private sector jobs--and keep unemployment from rising above 8.2%. It went from creating private sector jobs--to saving government workers jobs.

Barack Obama is living in a different century. He didn't know what to do so he did an FDR. Back in the 1930's we needed roads and bridges--today--we have super highways that criss-cross this nation--and if we needed a bridge we built it. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can now be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What permits were done overnight in the 30's now takes YEARS of engineering and design. And what was a work force of primarily men in the 30's is now 1/2 women who typically do not do road and bridge work.

Mitt Romney couldn't have said it better: "Obama keeps plugging .25 cents into a street corner pay phone-(expecting it to stimulate the economy)-when we live in the smart phone century."

What spending ends up in the private sector? Are you serious? Ask any medical provider who counts on Medicare/Medicaid payments. Ask any construction company that works on our highways. Ask any retiree who receives a Social Security check. Ask Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and any company that has contracts with our our military or Department of Defense. Christ, one way or another, almost all of it goes back to the private sector one way or another.

Do we have too much of it? Yes, the federal government is too big. But it is also currently horribly underfunded. Cutting government spending is not going to help this economy one bit. But we have to pay for it.

So the solution is to get more people to work or more new taxpayers to work in the private sector to fund the utopia of endless gov't dependence.

It has nothing to do with government dependence. Conservatives need to get off that train. There are some things that government does well and should continue to do. Providing a safety net through some social programs, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, does not constitute dependency. Americans decided a long time ago that they like and wanted these programs and were willing to pay for them. The fact that the biggest ones are running out of money has more to do with the fact that people are living longer than anything else. So now, we must decide if we want to pay more to keep them as is, or maybe we should reduce benefits by delaying when people may begin collecting. There are many options, but very few Americans like the option of dismantling these programs.

 

[zonly1]

What spending ends up in the private sector? Are you serious? Ask any medical provider who counts on Medicare/Medicaid payments. Ask any construction company that works on our highways. Ask any retiree who receives a Social Security check. Ask Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and any company that has contracts with our our military or Department of Defense. Christ, one way or another, almost all of it goes back to the private sector one way or another.

Do we have too much of it? Yes, the federal government is too big. But it is also currently horribly underfunded. Cutting government spending is not going to help this economy one bit. But we have to pay for it.

So the solution is to get more people to work or more new taxpayers to work in the private sector to fund the utopia of endless gov't dependence.

It has nothing to do with government dependence. Conservatives need to get off that train. There are some things that government does well and should continue to do. Providing a safety net through some social programs, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, does not constitute dependency. Americans decided a long time ago that they like and wanted these programs and were willing to pay for them. The fact that the biggest ones are running out of money has more to do with the fact that people are living longer than anything else. So now, we must decide if we want to pay more to keep them as is, or maybe we should reduce benefits by delaying when people may begin collecting. There are many options, but very few Americans like the option of dismantling these programs.

Um apparently you haven't been paying attention to the unemployment numbers the past 17+ months and the housing bubble that was create by gov't intervention(brought on by political correctness), namely the CRA. The invisible hand of gov't said we need more affordable housing, no down payment, again NO down payment(high leverage loans), low interest, and you don't have prove your income. How did that work out? Layoffs(lose of taxpayers gubermint revenue), foreclosures(loss of property taxes gubbermint revenue), construction workers out of business...and on and on and on. Conclusion loss gov't revenue..............

Quit being naive of what is happening around you. What you're yammer about is the after affect which is too late in your case. You keep missing the unintended consequences and your lame solution is raise taxes. Prepare yourself for the after effect...no jobs ...no growth....broken schools, hospitals, streets and bridges.

Revenue must come from new jobs in the private sector to support your utopia dependency for gov't

 

[auditor0007]

So the solution is to get more people to work or more new taxpayers to work in the private sector to fund the utopia of endless gov't dependence.

It has nothing to do with government dependence. Conservatives need to get off that train. There are some things that government does well and should continue to do. Providing a safety net through some social programs, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, does not constitute dependency. Americans decided a long time ago that they like and wanted these programs and were willing to pay for them. The fact that the biggest ones are running out of money has more to do with the fact that people are living longer than anything else. So now, we must decide if we want to pay more to keep them as is, or maybe we should reduce benefits by delaying when people may begin collecting. There are many options, but very few Americans like the option of dismantling these programs.

Um apparently you haven't been paying attention to the unemployment numbers the past 17+ months and the housing bubble that was create by gov't intervention(brought on by political correctness), namely the CRA. The invisible hand of gov't said we need more affordable housing, no down payment, again NO down payment(high leverage loans), low interest, and you don't have prove your income. How did that work out? Layoffs(lose of taxpayers gubermint revenue), foreclosures(loss of property taxes gubbermint revenue), construction workers out of business...and on and on and on. Conclusion loss gov't revenue..............

Quit being naive of what is happening around you. What you're yammer about is the after affect which is too late in your case. You keep missing the unintended consequences and your lame solution is raise taxes. Prepare yourself for the after effect...no jobs ...no growth....broken schools, hospitals, streets and bridges.

Revenue must come from new jobs in the private sector to support your utopia dependency for gov't

We've lowered taxes and continued to lower taxes, and look where we are. We have the lowest tax rates in 60 years and the highest deficits ever along with a fucked economy with no growth, and your answer is to continue cutting taxes. Are you really going to stay on that train until the tax rates are zero?

BTW, US companies are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. They're not creating new jobs with that money and you want to give them more in the form of tax cuts so they'll use it to create more jobs? Can't you see how that isn't working? If not, you're blind.

 

[zonly1]

It has nothing to do with government dependence. Conservatives need to get off that train. There are some things that government does well and should continue to do. Providing a safety net through some social programs, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, does not constitute dependency. Americans decided a long time ago that they like and wanted these programs and were willing to pay for them. The fact that the biggest ones are running out of money has more to do with the fact that people are living longer than anything else. So now, we must decide if we want to pay more to keep them as is, or maybe we should reduce benefits by delaying when people may begin collecting. There are many options, but very few Americans like the option of dismantling these programs.

Um apparently you haven't been paying attention to the unemployment numbers the past 17+ months and the housing bubble that was create by gov't intervention(brought on by political correctness), namely the CRA. The invisible hand of gov't said we need more affordable housing, no down payment, again NO down payment(high leverage loans), low interest, and you don't have prove your income. How did that work out? Layoffs(lose of taxpayers gubermint revenue), foreclosures(loss of property taxes gubbermint revenue), construction workers out of business...and on and on and on. Conclusion loss gov't revenue..............

Quit being naive of what is happening around you. What you're yammer about is the after affect which is too late in your case. You keep missing the unintended consequences and your lame solution is raise taxes. Prepare yourself for the after effect...no jobs ...no growth....broken schools, hospitals, streets and bridges.

Revenue must come from new jobs in the private sector to support your utopia dependency for gov't

We've lowered taxes and continued to lower taxes, and look where we are. We have the lowest tax rates in 60 years and the highest deficits ever along with a fucked economy with no growth, and your answer is to continue cutting taxes. Are you really going to stay on that train until the tax rates are zero?

BTW, US companies are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. They're not creating new jobs with that money and you want to give them more in the form of tax cuts so they'll use it to create more jobs? Can't you see how that isn't working? If not, you're blind.

It's clear you are confused and don't know where to start. Just for FYI purposes taxes per capita in the 50's were much lower today but on record we are at high taxes per capita. Meaning the gubermint, that your in love with, is siting on that cash b/c pf the stimulus and their uncertainty. lower taxes as you proclaim is a myth..the gubermint is still receiving revenues at an all time high or did you miss that facto Uncertainty creates savings from a conservative approach.

 

[auditor0007]

Um apparently you haven't been paying attention to the unemployment numbers the past 17+ months and the housing bubble that was create by gov't intervention(brought on by political correctness), namely the CRA. The invisible hand of gov't said we need more affordable housing, no down payment, again NO down payment(high leverage loans), low interest, and you don't have prove your income. How did that work out? Layoffs(lose of taxpayers gubermint revenue), foreclosures(loss of property taxes gubbermint revenue), construction workers out of business...and on and on and on. Conclusion loss gov't revenue..............

Quit being naive of what is happening around you. What you're yammer about is the after affect which is too late in your case. You keep missing the unintended consequences and your lame solution is raise taxes. Prepare yourself for the after effect...no jobs ...no growth....broken schools, hospitals, streets and bridges.

Revenue must come from new jobs in the private sector to support your utopia dependency for gov't

We've lowered taxes and continued to lower taxes, and look where we are. We have the lowest tax rates in 60 years and the highest deficits ever along with a fucked economy with no growth, and your answer is to continue cutting taxes. Are you really going to stay on that train until the tax rates are zero?

BTW, US companies are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. They're not creating new jobs with that money and you want to give them more in the form of tax cuts so they'll use it to create more jobs? Can't you see how that isn't working? If not, you're blind.

It's clear you are confused and don't know where to start. Just for FYI purposes taxes per capita in the 50's were much lower today but on record we are at high taxes per capita. Meaning the gubermint, that your in love with, is siting on that cash b/c pf the stimulus and their uncertainty. lower taxes as you proclaim is a myth..the gubermint is still receiving revenues at an all time high or did you miss that facto Uncertainty creates savings from a conservative approach.

You, my friend, are obviously off your rocker if you think tax revenues today are at an all time high. Just because we are collecting more money than in 1950 does not mean jack shit, because that money isn't worth nearly as much, and our population has more than doubled since then. That is why revenues are calculated based on the percentage of GDP. Christ, this isn't rocket science. Well, maybe for you it is.

 

[Sarah G]

How about this for a strategy:

GOP says "OK President Obama. We'll tax the rich. Tax the shit outta them. You say we obstruct you? Ok. You say the rich dont pay their "fair" share? Ok. Americans....listen to this. We, the GOP, will trust President Obama on this. It's HIS to own. We'll vote for his big tax hike on the rich. We'll trust HIS leadership and ideals on this. We'll pass this immediately. We'll see the results in the economy and debt by next November."

Go ahead. Pass it. Hike taxes on the rich, right now. See what happens. Let Obama run on the results of it, not the idea of it.

I suspect he'd shit his pants when he realizes he'll have to run on the results.

I'd think the House would consider Obama's plan and do it now. Bush's last term and Obama's first have left this great country reeling and to blow it off as class warfare would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

Cutting taxes didn't work, cutting spending and raising taxes will. The GOP needs to begin thinking as individuals rather than Grover Norquist sheep. It's really ridiculous and not what the voters want. I hope Obama continues taking this to the country.

 

[zonly1]

We've lowered taxes and continued to lower taxes, and look where we are. We have the lowest tax rates in 60 years and the highest deficits ever along with a fucked economy with no growth, and your answer is to continue cutting taxes. Are you really going to stay on that train until the tax rates are zero?

BTW, US companies are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. They're not creating new jobs with that money and you want to give them more in the form of tax cuts so they'll use it to create more jobs? Can't you see how that isn't working? If not, you're blind.

It's clear you are confused and don't know where to start. Just for FYI purposes taxes per capita in the 50's were much lower today but on record we are at high taxes per capita. Meaning the gubermint, that your in love with, is siting on that cash b/c pf the stimulus and their uncertainty. lower taxes as you proclaim is a myth..the gubermint is still receiving revenues at an all time high or did you miss that facto Uncertainty creates savings from a conservative approach.

You, my friend, are obviously off your rocker if you think tax revenues today are at an all time high. Just because we are collecting more money than in 1950 does not mean jack shit, because that money isn't worth nearly as much, and our population has more than doubled since then. That is why revenues are calculated based on the percentage of GDP. Christ, this isn't rocket science. Well, maybe for you it is.

Well Math and understanding isn't your strong suit.
ALSO Deflection noted. You can't even acknowledge loss revenue base on my analogy of current us financial history but keep ignoring those facts. TAX THE RICH crapola

It's the NEW JOBS in the private sector that support gov't dependency for your touchie feely programs.

I will keep repeating these fundamental until you say it in your sleep.

Lastly: Robin Williams.......... Reality what a concept

 

[DaGoose]

How about this for a strategy:

GOP says "OK President Obama. We'll tax the rich. Tax the shit outta them. You say we obstruct you? Ok. You say the rich dont pay their "fair" share? Ok. Americans....listen to this. We, the GOP, will trust President Obama on this. It's HIS to own. We'll vote for his big tax hike on the rich. We'll trust HIS leadership and ideals on this. We'll pass this immediately. We'll see the results in the economy and debt by next November."

Go ahead. Pass it. Hike taxes on the rich, right now. See what happens. Let Obama run on the results of it, not the idea of it.

I suspect he'd shit his pants when he realizes he'll have to run on the results.

I actually agree with you 100%. It's the smart thing to do.

What's the worst that could happen?

1) It works and the economy and number of jobs start to grow. (Win for everyone)

2) It fails and it would be the final nail in Obama's coffin. Nothing would save him after that.

.

 

[editec]

The pandering servant class sure is freaking out, isn't it?

Now you know that I do not think a tax increase is a good idea right now, right?

Still some of you act like this modest tax increase is going to destroy your rich masters.

They're survive and continue to thrive, kids.

 

[nolebrakai]

12 to 15 different polls show the American Public agrees with Obama on this topic, some are in the 70% area.


also, the GOP needs to tell ME why this grover Norquist fells has so much power w/o being elected by WE THE PEOPLE.

Guys, this is a no briner, the close to 3 out of 4 Americans want a better tax structure for the rich. the writing is on the wall GOP. Now do as you were elected to do and govern for and by the people.