Inconvnient Truth Re Obama Deficit Plan: Country Has Shortage Of Millionaires

[highway234]

i don't know if you've noticed, but giving foot massages to the extremely affluent, the way we've been doing since reagan, hasn't worked to create jobs. they just move their jobs off shore and pour their cash into speculative investments that blow up the economy. this bromide that the affluent create jobs is bunk. demand creates jobs. put money into the pockets of the middle class, they spend it, and that's good for business.

Where does the money that you want to put in the pockets of the middle class come from?

The "highwayman" does not realize how the world has changed. Stimulating DEMAND does not beef up jobs anymore because most of our discretionary spending hard goods are manufactured by foreigners.

so the answer is more tax cuts is for the exact same people who outsourced those jobs in the first place?

USED to work -- doesn't anymore. The only way to build back up the job loss is to spur NEW innovation. And THAT does not come from DEMAND stimulation. It comes from encouraging capital to flow into high tech investment and
the creation of new industries.

Take a breathe -- look at the situation closely.. Because the macroeconomic rules have changed..

demand stimulates a service-based economy, too, obviously, as well as a manufacturing economy, so your plan to suppress demand by expanding income inequality by shifting more tax burden onto the middle class and future generations is still a recipe for disaster. but i disagree about innovation. we've had plenty of innovation in the US in the past decade, but we're still in an economic depression. the way to bring a manufacturing base back to the US is through exports. we need to address our trade deficit by providing goods and services to some of the world's rising economies. that's a big part of the reason why one of the few obama economic policies i like is his outreach to brazil. they're poised for a boom in the next decade and we can share in their prosperity if we're not stupid about it, by providing goods and services for their up-and-coming middle class.

also, overestimating the importance of "innovation" and "new industries" in an economy like ours, one so susceptible to bubbles and gold-rush mentality, is exceedingly dangerous. remember the dot-com bubble? the financial "innovation" of adjustable rate mortgages and naked default swaps? We need to go back to having an economy that makes things, not one founded on phony "innovations" that lead to endless bailouts after we learn the so-called latest innovation was just smoke and mirrors.

 

[highway234]

ALL the bush tax cuts? Or just the upper brackets?

all of them, in my opinion the bush tax cuts were a terrible idea from the get-go.


wrong again, bob.

Five myths about the Bush tax cuts

The cuts lowered tax rates across the board on income, dividends and capital gains;

Damn -- this is tiring.. The article says NOTHING -- NADA -- ZILCH that contradicts my statement above. Revenue estimates for the top bracket increase have NOTHING to do with Billionaires.. They derive almost NOTHING from wages or salary..

Ask your hero Warren Buffett. He TOLD you he pays capital gains tax and NOT income tax. YOU ARE USING THE WRONG DAMN TOOL TO PUNISH BILLIONAIRES.!!!

In fact, you will EXTEND the gap between rich and poor as the BILLIONAIRES like Warren just giggle about the top salary brackets being raised. But his Berkshire Hathaway fund will get 10,000 new investors looking for the same investment income that HE uses for income.

all the bush tax cuts, i said, not just the top brackets. but hey, you'll show that straw man.

 

[flacaltenn]

ALL the bush tax cuts? Or just the upper brackets?

all of them, in my opinion the bush tax cuts were a terrible idea from the get-go.

So you're proposing raising taxes on families making as little as $25K per year? That's rich for sure. You are certainly in a special minority with that opinion..

And I don't know of a single DEM politician that been demanding an adjustment to Capital Gains. EVEN for 'the rich'.. Because they KNOW the different economic effect that would have versus adjusting just the top INCOME bracket.

 

[highway234]

ALL the bush tax cuts? Or just the upper brackets?

all of them, in my opinion the bush tax cuts were a terrible idea from the get-go.

So you're proposing raising taxes on families making as little as $25K per year? That's rich for sure. You are certainly in a special minority with that opinion..

And I don't know of a single DEM politician that been demanding an adjustment to Capital Gains. EVEN for 'the rich'.. Because they KNOW the different economic effect that would have versus adjusting just the top INCOME bracket.

how big a debt do we need to have before you'll acknowledge that raising revenue has to be part of the equation? i want to go back to the clinton tax rates. i don't remember hearing about 25K families suffering inordinately under clinton, not the way they suffered under bush, or the way they're suffering now. what use are low tax rates if your health care bills are killing you and your mortgage is underwater?

i'm not aware of a formal democratic position on capital gains tax, i don't really consider myself a democrat, but i do know that obama and the democrats have gotten campaign contributions from those who benefit from unnaturally low cap-gains taxes just like the republicans have. i kept hearing about that from the right wing, actually. so somehow i doubt the dems' position has to do with a selfless concern for the economy. that's cool that you're now a liberal democrat though.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where does the money that you want to put in the pockets of the middle class come from?

The "highwayman" does not realize how the world has changed. Stimulating DEMAND does not beef up jobs anymore because most of our discretionary spending hard goods are manufactured by foreigners.

so the answer is more tax cuts is for the exact same people who outsourced those jobs in the first place?

USED to work -- doesn't anymore. The only way to build back up the job loss is to spur NEW innovation. And THAT does not come from DEMAND stimulation. It comes from encouraging capital to flow into high tech investment and
the creation of new industries.

Take a breathe -- look at the situation closely.. Because the macroeconomic rules have changed..

demand stimulates a service-based economy, too, obviously, as well as a manufacturing economy, so your plan to suppress demand by expanding income inequality by shifting more tax burden onto the middle class and future generations is still a recipe for disaster. but i disagree about innovation. we've had plenty of innovation in the US in the past decade, but we're still in an economic depression. the way to bring a manufacturing base back to the US is through exports. we need to address our trade deficit by providing goods and services to some of the world's rising economies. that's a big part of the reason why one of the few obama economic policies i like is his outreach to brazil. they're poised for a boom in the next decade and we can share in their prosperity if we're not stupid about it, by providing goods and services for their up-and-coming middle class.

also, overestimating the importance of "innovation" and "new industries" in an economy like ours, one so susceptible to bubbles and gold-rush mentality, is exceedingly dangerous. remember the dot-com bubble? the financial "innovation" of adjustable rate mortgages and naked default swaps? We need to go back to having an economy that makes things, not one founded on phony "innovations" that lead to endless bailouts after we learn the so-called latest innovation was just smoke and mirrors.

Relying on a Service Based economy for Demand stimulation is very iffy. What fraction of the family budget (outside of medical) is really service versus hard goods? If it's 1/2 -- then the stimulus lost 1/2 of the effectiveness that it used to. And in the lower income percentiles -- GOODS are much higher than 1/2 of the family budget.

But we've found some common ground on having some form of resurrection of manufacturing hard goods. We probably shouldn't be making socks or toasters in this country anymore. Can't do that with a global economy. So we need to do the jobs that the rest of the world can't (yet).

The DOT com boom was sheer madness,-- not innovation, and not value. But there are plenty of opportunities to the same revolution that occurred in agriculture in this country.. Areas having to do with bio-tech, materials science, robotics, artificial intelligience, ect.

These are NOT like the dotcom boom/bust. and they have potential to fill job slots at ALL LEVELS of job qualification. We need to get started, because the rest of world is already filling up our graduate schools with people who WILL start these industries. Our kids are all focused on MBAs and stuff so that they can manage foreign workers from a comfy corporate bunker in Omaha. That's a faulty view of how shit is gonna happen..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Posted on August 21, 2011 by John Hinderaker in Economy

America Suffering Shortage of Millionaires

To the extent the Democrats have a plan for dealing with the nation’s budget crisis, they intend to get the trillions of dollars they need from the country’s “millionaires and billionaires.” So this is highly inconvenient: the country’s supply of millionaires is dwindling:


ased on 2009 IRS figures,…the number of taxpayers reporting annual income over $1 million fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2009; the number of super-wealthy individuals making over $10 million annually plunged 55 percent.

The carnage wasn’t confined to millionaires. The number of taxpayers earning over $200,000 per year also decreased by 612,000 – or 13 percent.

This is, of course, the result of the recession. The trend line no doubt has continued to be bad since 2009, as the Obama Recovery has failed to get off the ground. The moral of the story is that if you want to base your fiscal strategy on soaking the rich, you had better not implement policies that decimate the ranks of the high earners.


America Suffering Shortage of Millionaires | Power Line

America has a bunch of millionairs in D.C. they are our elected officals ever thought about getting their money?

 

[flacaltenn]

i want to go back to the clinton tax rates. i don't remember hearing about 25K families suffering inordinately under clinton

Have you even looked at how significant the Bush tax cuts WERE for poor/middle working families?
Not only were the breaks significant -- but they excused so many MORE lower wage folks from paying ANY income tax -- that now it's a big f'in issue on USMB..

Don't trust me -- look it up.. Rescinding the Bush Tax cuts would cause MUCH more pain at the bottom than the top.. But don't back out on me here -- I like making you look like the heartless grinch you really are...

 

[highway234]

The "highwayman" does not realize how the world has changed. Stimulating DEMAND does not beef up jobs anymore because most of our discretionary spending hard goods are manufactured by foreigners.

so the answer is more tax cuts is for the exact same people who outsourced those jobs in the first place?

USED to work -- doesn't anymore. The only way to build back up the job loss is to spur NEW innovation. And THAT does not come from DEMAND stimulation. It comes from encouraging capital to flow into high tech investment and
the creation of new industries.

Take a breathe -- look at the situation closely.. Because the macroeconomic rules have changed..

demand stimulates a service-based economy, too, obviously, as well as a manufacturing economy, so your plan to suppress demand by expanding income inequality by shifting more tax burden onto the middle class and future generations is still a recipe for disaster. but i disagree about innovation. we've had plenty of innovation in the US in the past decade, but we're still in an economic depression. the way to bring a manufacturing base back to the US is through exports. we need to address our trade deficit by providing goods and services to some of the world's rising economies. that's a big part of the reason why one of the few obama economic policies i like is his outreach to brazil. they're poised for a boom in the next decade and we can share in their prosperity if we're not stupid about it, by providing goods and services for their up-and-coming middle class.

also, overestimating the importance of "innovation" and "new industries" in an economy like ours, one so susceptible to bubbles and gold-rush mentality, is exceedingly dangerous. remember the dot-com bubble? the financial "innovation" of adjustable rate mortgages and naked default swaps? We need to go back to having an economy that makes things, not one founded on phony "innovations" that lead to endless bailouts after we learn the so-called latest innovation was just smoke and mirrors.

Relying on a Service Based economy for Demand stimulation is very iffy. What fraction of the family budget (outside of medical) is really service versus hard goods? If it's 1/2 -- then the stimulus lost 1/2 of the effectiveness that it used to. And in the lower income percentiles -- GOODS are much higher than 1/2 of the family budget.

But we've found some common ground on having some form of resurrection of manufacturing hard goods. We probably shouldn't be making socks or toasters in this country anymore. Can't do that with a global economy. So we need to do the jobs that the rest of the world can't (yet).

The DOT com boom was sheer madness,-- not innovation, and not value. But there are plenty of opportunities to the same revolution that occurred in agriculture in this country.. Areas having to do with bio-tech, materials science, robotics, artificial intelligience, ect.

These are NOT like the dotcom boom/bust. and they have potential to fill job slots at ALL LEVELS of job qualification. We need to get started, because the rest of world is already filling up our graduate schools with people who WILL start these industries. Our kids are all focused on MBAs and stuff so that they can manage foreign workers from a comfy corporate bunker in Omaha. That's a faulty view of how shit is gonna happen..

well, knock me over with a feather, i find very little to quarrel with here. couple things: i'm not saying we should rely on a service-based economy, i'm saying that stipulating to the fact that we currently have one, and are momentarily stuck with it, stimulating demand would still be useful to pulling the country out of our current morass.

also, i get that there is good innovation and bad innovation. the trick is to know one from the other, and right now we don't, because even though there are tons of regulations on the books (something else i keep hearing from the right wing, actually, but it seems to be true) there don't seem to be any honest cops on the beat in terms of regulating the financial system to prevent bubbles. the false boom-and-bust phenomenon that's been plaguing this country for decades also suppresses genuine useful R&D of the sort you talk about (AI, robotics, etc.) because you get better short-term returns by investing in funny-money projects and then letting the government bail you out when it all goes south.

 

[highway234]

i want to go back to the clinton tax rates. i don't remember hearing about 25K families suffering inordinately under clinton

Have you even looked at how significant the Bush tax cuts WERE for poor/middle working families?
Not only were the breaks significant -- but they excused so many MORE lower wage folks from paying ANY income tax -- that now it's a big f'in issue on USMB..

Don't trust me -- look it up.. Rescinding the Bush Tax cuts would cause MUCH more pain at the bottom than the top.. But don't back out on me here -- I like making you look like the heartless grinch you really are...

that's me. i'm uncle scrooge.

one condition i do put on to reversing the bush tax cuts -- the money has to be spent on useful shit, not stupid shit like endless blood-draining wars overseas and bailouts for bankers that they subsequently hoard and mete out to themselves in bonuses. if you raise taxes sensibly and spend that money on things like making sure health care insurers and real estate moguls aren't gouging people, those 25K-a-year workers come out ahead. if the government's going to continue spending that money stupidly, then yes, by all means, let's just slash tax rates to zero and go ahead and embrace our new status as a failed state.

 

[Brutus]

Based on 2009 IRS figures,…the number of taxpayers reporting annual income over $1 million fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2009

1) gee, so why do the liberal fools want to punish the rich when the recession already eliminated 39% of them? Whats the next plan now that the numbers are out??


2) the ultimate irony is that even if the BO got all the taxes he wants from the $250k+ crowd it would barely help pay the debt at all.

3) liberals are complete hypocritical fools pretending that their precious welfare entitlement programs don't have to be cut.

The entire liberal wish list of Tax Increases:

1 ) Corporate Jets subsidies were extended by Obama administration but now he wants to get rid of them saving= $3.1 billion

2) Oil and gas subsidies saving=$40 billion

3) Hedge fund cap. gain tax eliminated saving = $20 billion

4) Wealthy above 250k pay their fair share saving=$800 billion

5) Deductions like mortgage deduction eliminated on those making over $250. Savings=$300 billion

Total saving= 1.2 trillion total 10 years
But debt is projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years even after current deal.

In sum, the ill conceived, ideologically stupid, liberal welfare, entitlement state is about to come to a crashing end but liberals can't face reality. Thankfully Pubs are there to help them and to save the country.

 

[flacaltenn]

HighwayGuy:

also, i get that there is good innovation and bad innovation. the trick is to know one from the other, and right now we don't, because even though there are tons of regulations on the books (something else i keep hearing from the right wing, actually, but it seems to be true) there don't seem to be any honest cops on the beat in terms of regulating the financial system to prevent bubbles. the false boom-and-bust phenomenon that's been plaguing this country for decades also suppresses genuine useful R&D of the sort you talk about (AI, robotics, etc.) because you get better short-term returns by investing in funny-money projects and then letting the government bail you out when it all goes south.

The most important component of getting to REAL innovation that the FEDS can contribute is to SLASH tax subsidies for corporations to make products that already exist (dishwashers, lightbulbs, ethanol, turbines, heat exchangers, weather stripping, ect) and take SOME of that "tax expenditure" and put it back as R&D incentives for NEW products, services and industries.

But the problem there is that A LOT of these subsidies are part of the "green" movement and there is little real effort being expended going after these because of the Dem party conflict with being the buyer of those faulty programs. And the stupidity of various REPUBs who can't see the diff between cutting a subsidy and a "tax increase"...

This gives you the crappy spectacle of DEM leadership absolutely screaming about corporate welfare, but knowing full well that the reason GE paid no taxes is because of THEIR OWN "green" credits programs. Lying bastards all... Just goes to show it's NOT JUST money in politics that creates these govt/corp collusions. It's also dogma and pandering to voting blocks who (in this instance) think that paying GE to build stuff they'd be building anyway is saving the planet...

 

[Brutus]

there don't seem to be any honest cops on the beat in terms of regulating the financial system to prevent bubbles. .

That of course is absurd. Capitalism took care of the bubble 2 years before Dodd Frank!!
We had 308 million regulators looking for bubbles 2 years before Dodd Frank!!

In any case, serious bubbles are caused by liberal easy funny money from the Federal Reserve. Where do you think the money came from to buy and bid up the prices on all those homes. Of course there was a huge assist from liberal Fanny Freddie too.

 

[highway234]

HighwayGuy:

also, i get that there is good innovation and bad innovation. the trick is to know one from the other, and right now we don't, because even though there are tons of regulations on the books (something else i keep hearing from the right wing, actually, but it seems to be true) there don't seem to be any honest cops on the beat in terms of regulating the financial system to prevent bubbles. the false boom-and-bust phenomenon that's been plaguing this country for decades also suppresses genuine useful R&D of the sort you talk about (AI, robotics, etc.) because you get better short-term returns by investing in funny-money projects and then letting the government bail you out when it all goes south.

The most important component of getting to REAL innovation that the FEDS can contribute is to SLASH tax subsidies for corporations to make products that already exist (dishwashers, lightbulbs, ethanol, turbines, heat exchangers, weather stripping, ect) and take SOME of that "tax expenditure" and put it back as R&D incentives for NEW products, services and industries.

But the problem there is that A LOT of these subsidies are part of the "green" movement and there is little real effort being expended going after these because of the Dem party conflict with being the buyer of those faulty programs. And the stupidity of various REPUBs who can't see the diff between cutting a subsidy and a "tax increase"...

This gives you the crappy spectacle of DEM leadership absolutely screaming about corporate welfare, but knowing full well that the reason GE paid no taxes is because of THEIR OWN "green" credits programs. Lying bastards all... Just goes to show it's NOT JUST money in politics that creates these govt/corp collusions. It's also dogma and pandering to voting blocks who (in this instance) think that paying GE to build stuff they'd be building anyway is saving the planet...

again, i don't have much of an argument with this. i think we need a green movement (here's a news flash: oil really IS going to run out. that's not a myth ) but the movement as it currently exists is largely a PR exercise engineered by the collusion of industry and government. i take exception, though, to your singling out of GE. they're not the only multinational company gaming the system to get out of paying taxes.

and yes, i agree that much of the problem america faces is cultural as well as systemic. well-intentioned liberals who want to see something done about our environment do not serve their own aims by supporting "green" programs that are actually corrupt money-making schemes. by the same token, well-intentioned conservatives who want to see honest entrepreneurship rewarded do their cause disservice when they apologize for massive multinational corporations and billionaires who earned their riches by gaming a faulty financial system.

i dunno, whatever. shit's fucked up.

 

[Oldstyle]

yeah, and if you took every dime the lower 50% of americans own, it wouldn't come close to paying for the two unfunded wars bush shoved down our throats. what's your point? why are you so bent on paying the affluent's share of taxes for them?

My point is the same as it's always been. The Federal Government is like a pail with huge gashes in it's sides and bottom that are leaking water faster than we can fill it up. Progressives like you want to take water from another pail (the Private Sector) that doesn't have a leak trying to keep your big government pail full. It isn't going to work.

My point is we need to replace the leaky pail with one that doesn't leak. We need to cut waste and inefficiency from government. We need to reform entitlements. Instead of doing that you are demanding that we pour ALL the water from the Private Sector pail in order to keep some water in your government pail. Only a fool couldn't see what that will lead to.

cutting government waste is a separate question from generating tax revenue. you want to cut government waste? start with defense. we bleed out more into "defense" than something like the next 20 countries combined, and we're going to go the way of the old USSR if we keep it up. cutting "entitlements" basically amounts to shifting yet more of the burden to the working and middle classes, since we've been paying into those programs our entire lives, and now the government wants to steal that money by cutting or privatizing our retirements. forget that. you've probably been paying into social security your entire life, too. i've got no idea why you're so eager to kiss that money goodbye just so exxon-mobil and warren buffett can continue to get by with paying criminally low taxes.

i don't know if you've noticed, but giving foot massages to the extremely affluent, the way we've been doing since reagan, hasn't worked to create jobs. they just move their jobs off shore and pour their cash into speculative investments that blow up the economy. this bromide that the affluent create jobs is bunk. demand creates jobs. put money into the pockets of the middle class, they spend it, and that's good for business.

Wow! You just refuse to accept reality. I'm not "eager" to kiss the money I've paid into Social Security goodbye. What I am, is realistic enough to understand that entitlements as they are currently structured are not sustainable. I'm not giving up something if what I'm giving up will cease to exist anyways if it isn't fixed. I know that's a hard concept for you progressives to deal with but that's reality. All your talk about the extremely affluent being the problem is just silly. With entitlements hitting 300% of our GDP inside of twenty years it wouldn't matter if you took ALL of the "extremely affluent" people's money. That STILL wouldn't pay the bill.

 

[highway234]

there don't seem to be any honest cops on the beat in terms of regulating the financial system to prevent bubbles. .

That of course is absurd. Capitalism took care of the bubble 2 years before Dodd Frank!!
We had 308 million regulators looking for bubbles 2 years before Dodd Frank!!

In any case, serious bubbles are caused by liberal easy funny money from the Federal Reserve. Where do you think the money came from to buy and bid up the prices on all those homes. Of course there was a huge assist from liberal Fanny Freddie too.

i know, i know, barney frank single-handedly destroyed the world economy. if he's that powerful, we should probably just make him king of the world and worship him. maybe he'll be merciful on us.

it wasn't the CRA that busted the economy, it was the use of those funny-money mortgages to create more funny money, in the form of speculative bundles that used those mortgages as collateral. though i disagree with the CRA as i understand it -- i don't think people have a "right" to a single-family house, i don't have one and don't particularly want one -- it did not create 14 trillion dollars in largely notional debt. that talking point only works on people who don't know the basics. which, unfortunately, is a lot of people.

 

[Moonglow]

Country has shortage of millionaires?

I'll be one. Sunshine stands on tippy toe and jumps up to be seen..... here pick me, pick me!

try this

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why is it when a thread about the rich is started and I mention the fact that America's elected officals are some of the richest people in America my comment goes ignored?

 

[highway234]

My point is the same as it's always been. The Federal Government is like a pail with huge gashes in it's sides and bottom that are leaking water faster than we can fill it up. Progressives like you want to take water from another pail (the Private Sector) that doesn't have a leak trying to keep your big government pail full. It isn't going to work.

My point is we need to replace the leaky pail with one that doesn't leak. We need to cut waste and inefficiency from government. We need to reform entitlements. Instead of doing that you are demanding that we pour ALL the water from the Private Sector pail in order to keep some water in your government pail. Only a fool couldn't see what that will lead to.

cutting government waste is a separate question from generating tax revenue. you want to cut government waste? start with defense. we bleed out more into "defense" than something like the next 20 countries combined, and we're going to go the way of the old USSR if we keep it up. cutting "entitlements" basically amounts to shifting yet more of the burden to the working and middle classes, since we've been paying into those programs our entire lives, and now the government wants to steal that money by cutting or privatizing our retirements. forget that. you've probably been paying into social security your entire life, too. i've got no idea why you're so eager to kiss that money goodbye just so exxon-mobil and warren buffett can continue to get by with paying criminally low taxes.

i don't know if you've noticed, but giving foot massages to the extremely affluent, the way we've been doing since reagan, hasn't worked to create jobs. they just move their jobs off shore and pour their cash into speculative investments that blow up the economy. this bromide that the affluent create jobs is bunk. demand creates jobs. put money into the pockets of the middle class, they spend it, and that's good for business.

Wow! You just refuse to accept reality. I'm not "eager" to kiss the money I've paid into Social Security goodbye. What I am, is realistic enough to understand that entitlements as they are currently structured are not sustainable. I'm not giving up something if what I'm giving up will cease to exist anyways if it isn't fixed. I know that's a hard concept for you progressives to deal with but that's reality. All your talk about the extremely affluent being the problem is just silly. With entitlements hitting 300% of our GDP inside of twenty years it wouldn't matter if you took ALL of the "extremely affluent" people's money. That STILL wouldn't pay the bill.

i'm willing to talk about entitlements if you're willing to talk about revenue increases and DEEP defense spending. but realistically, entitlement cuts create a host of problems. there's a reason those programs exist in the first place, which is that having lots of elderly people and people with health problems just tossed out in the street creates inevitable expenses just in terms of keeping the peace. fact: the desperately poor commit crimes to survive. you're going to have to manage that, and that also costs money. that's my complaint with the idea of cutting "entitlements," but again, it's a conversation i'm willing to have.

here's my proposal: cut defense spending to, say, twice the next biggest defense budget.

that would be china's, and spending twice as much as they spend would be around 12 percent of the world's expenditures. we'll still be spending twice as much as the next-biggest country, which is a pretty good position in terms of national security, but that would be a 75% cut in our military expenditures. you agree to that, and i'll agree to just about all the "entitlement" cuts you like.

 

[Brutus]

well-intentioned conservatives who want to see honest entrepreneurship rewarded do their cause disservice when they apologize for massive multinational corporations and billionaires who earned their riches by gaming a faulty financial system.

please keep in mind, real conservatives want a limited government and no corporate tax so there is, in effect, no system to game.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i want to go back to the clinton tax rates. i don't remember hearing about 25K families suffering inordinately under clinton

Have you even looked at how significant the Bush tax cuts WERE for poor/middle working families?
Not only were the breaks significant -- but they excused so many MORE lower wage folks from paying ANY income tax -- that now it's a big f'in issue on USMB..

Don't trust me -- look it up.. Rescinding the Bush Tax cuts would cause MUCH more pain at the bottom than the top.. But don't back out on me here -- I like making you look like the heartless grinch you really are...

I like making you look like the heartless grinch you really are.

It would work if you would have also quoted their name in the post.