The Buffet Rule, fair share, greed and stupidity

[edthecynic]

The Politics Of Envy at work. The trick will be to convince the people of the United States that the people who earn twenty per cent of the income, but pay 40 per cent of the taxes, are not paying their fair share.
We already know he has the lady who was screaming "He's going to pay for my groceries!!!!" at the top of her lungs in 2008 convinced.

The people who pay 40% of the taxes do not earn 20% if the income, they earn 20% of the WAGES. The GOP counts on the ignorance of its sheep in not knowing that wages are not the only type of "income."

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

[Oldstyle]

So let's rewrite the tax laws. While we're doing so however I'd like to suggest that we rewrite them so that EVERYONE has some skin in this game even if it's a small amount. We've got millions of Americans who are perfectly content to vote for higher taxes and more benefits because quite frankly...someone else OTHER than themselves will be paying for it. When people who pay no Federal income tax can in large part determine what that tax will be and how that revenue will be spent...then we're headed down a path to fiscal disaster.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Most of the enlightened wealthy realize that the way the society works is that it depends on good schools, good roads, healthy persons, etc... Educated persons get good jobs and are paid well to buy their products that travel over good roads.

They understand that having 5,000 (just to pick a number) persons who have more disposable income is better for them than having 250 (just to pick another number) mega rich. There is only so much consumption the mega rich can do.

Anyway, thats the way it works. Back to the hemhawing and profanity.

So it's better to have 5000 people spend 2 dollars than it is to have 250 people spend 40 dollars?

How exactly? The same amount of money is being spent is it not?

And how is it better if the government takes my money away from me and gives it to some slacker to spend than if I spend it myself?

Yes but what is not in your equation is that the 250 people don't need to spend all $40. In your small scale it makes no sense since we're talking about 40 bucks. But having 5,000 persons who are well off is preferable to having 250 people who have more money than they know what to do with.

Lets take toasters. If you own a factory that makes toasters, you can sell 250 or you can sell 5000. I think most people would rather sell 5000 than 250. It's not like that for all items but it's an example.

Anyway, thats the way it works and why you see a great many persons who have the means and the social consciousness agreeing with the President on this issue.

you seem to forget that it takes million$ to create a factory that produces those shiny toasters for those millions of customers who want toast in the morning.....it doesn't just happen automatically....

it is those wealthy investors who provide the bucks and RISK their money to build and startup the factory and create the toaster-making jobs....to hopefully see a profit eventually on their investment......when was the last time you saw a typical Occupier or "enlightened wealthy" Hollywierdo establish a successful factory......?

"social consciousness" has a disburbing habit of ignoring reality....

 

[candycorn]

So it's better to have 5000 people spend 2 dollars than it is to have 250 people spend 40 dollars?

How exactly? The same amount of money is being spent is it not?

And how is it better if the government takes my money away from me and gives it to some slacker to spend than if I spend it myself?

Yes but what is not in your equation is that the 250 people don't need to spend all $40. In your small scale it makes no sense since we're talking about 40 bucks. But having 5,000 persons who are well off is preferable to having 250 people who have more money than they know what to do with.

Lets take toasters. If you own a factory that makes toasters, you can sell 250 or you can sell 5000. I think most people would rather sell 5000 than 250. It's not like that for all items but it's an example.

Anyway, thats the way it works and why you see a great many persons who have the means and the social consciousness agreeing with the President on this issue.

you seem to forget that it takes million$ to create a factory that produces those shiny toasters for those millions of customers who want toast in the morning.....it doesn't just happen automatically....

it is those wealthy investors who provide the bucks and RISK their money to build and startup the factory and create the toaster-making jobs....to hopefully see a profit eventually on their investment......when was the last time you saw a typical Occupier or "enlightened wealthy" Hollywierdo establish a successful factory......?

"social consciousness" has a disburbing habit of ignoring reality....

You're right about the factory creation. As for hollywood and occupy people, using anecdotes makes you look like an idiot.

Anyway, from a rich person's prosepective who owns the factory, they're in markets where people have money; not in markets where they have none. Markets are tied to populations--no population no market. Why do you think China exports so much to us. Because we have money. I don't have the figures but I would imagine that China exports more to the US than it does to poorer countries. Why; because we can buy their products. So it makes sense to send their container ships to Long Beach instead of Mogadishu.

 

[candycorn]

So it's better to have 5000 people spend 2 dollars than it is to have 250 people spend 40 dollars?

How exactly? The same amount of money is being spent is it not?

And how is it better if the government takes my money away from me and gives it to some slacker to spend than if I spend it myself?

Yes but what is not in your equation is that the 250 people don't need to spend all $40. In your small scale it makes no sense since we're talking about 40 bucks. But having 5,000 persons who are well off is preferable to having 250 people who have more money than they know what to do with.

Lets take toasters. If you own a factory that makes toasters, you can sell 250 or you can sell 5000. I think most people would rather sell 5000 than 250. It's not like that for all items but it's an example.

Anyway, thats the way it works and why you see a great many persons who have the means and the social consciousness agreeing with the President on this issue.

I would say it's the 2 dollars that you don't need to spend.

I can easily not buy anything that costs 2 bucks but if I'm spending 40 it then is something I need.

And people with money always know what do do with it which is the reason they have money in the first place.

Okay....

 

[candycorn]

So if you're wealthy and you don't think you should have to prop up a wasteful and inefficient Federal Government then you're not "enlightened"? Here's a radical concept for you, Candy...the way that society "works" is when success isn't punished and failure rewarded. We currently spend more per student than any other industrialized nation and yet our kids learn less. We pay trillions in gas taxes so that we will have good roads...so why don't we? The fact is...government in this country is bloated and sick. It NEEDS to be overhauled. It does NOT need to be given more money to waste.

Yeah the Bush tax cuts have really turned the economy around, haven't they?

Sorry, thats not the way it works. I do agree that the government does a great many things that it shouldn't. We're building new submarines to replace subs that are superior. And the subs THEY replaced (the LA class) are superior as well. We're doing that with fighter aircraft as well.

Frankly, I think the democratic party has failed in many of their initiatives as often as the GOP has. Head Start and No Child Left Behind are wonderful ideas that were implemented poorly. Tougher standards that mean something would be preferable in education. The trust fund for the highways has been raided by both parties. We need laws that means something.

Again, this is why I keep telling you folks that we need to further perfect the Constitution as to where we can get the games to stop in Washington. Everyone up there works the system and they've come to occupy a position of dubious statesmanship as to where everybody is guilty so by the same token, all are innocent.

Anyway....

The enlightened wealthy understand it's better to have good schools, good roads, good health services because it creates disposable income. Grumps claims that he has a house remodeling company of some sort. If you could give someone who owns such a company a choice between expanding into a market that has 20 houses and one that has 500 houses, they would likely pick the 500 house market since there would be more customers. I doubt they would go for a place that has the 20 great houses and is surrounded by slums.


I believe the rich dudes standing with the President understand that.

There really IS a reason why the Democrats let the Bush tax cuts stand when they controlled the House, the Senate and the Oval Office two years ago, Candy...and that "reason" is that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would have dampened the economic recovery substantially. Christina Romer understood that...Larry Summers understood that...the Blue Dog Democrats understood that...and even Barry himself seemed to finally understood that. What I find amazing is that people like yourself can't see through this transparent attempt now to come up with a campaign issue that the Obama White House can sell to the American people in order to get another term. Let's be honest here...the economy IS better than it was two years ago but now there are very real fears that we're stalling out again. The latest employment numbers were way below what was projected and we're still living under a pair of economic Damocles swords in the Middle East situation with Israel/Iran and the troubles that persist in Europe. So if you're a Keynesian...and this White House professes to be just that...then you should know that raising taxes in a weak economy was something that John Maynard Keynes cautioned against as being faulty fiscal policy. So why are they pushing tax raises? If it's not good fiscal policy then what possible reason would they have for calling for tax raises NOW of all times?

You won't find the answer to that question in an economics text book, Candy because this isn't about economics...it's about populism and this Administration's apparent belief that the American people aren't smart enough to figure this out until it's too late. What's really sad is that progressives like yourself will undoubtably be heartbroken when a newly re-elected Barack Obama DOESN'T raise taxes on the rich like you want so desperately. It's all a game and right now...and YOU...are the one getting played.

I love it when people label me. Makes me chuckle.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yeah the Bush tax cuts have really turned the economy around, haven't they?

Sorry, thats not the way it works. I do agree that the government does a great many things that it shouldn't. We're building new submarines to replace subs that are superior. And the subs THEY replaced (the LA class) are superior as well. We're doing that with fighter aircraft as well.

Frankly, I think the democratic party has failed in many of their initiatives as often as the GOP has. Head Start and No Child Left Behind are wonderful ideas that were implemented poorly. Tougher standards that mean something would be preferable in education. The trust fund for the highways has been raided by both parties. We need laws that means something.

Again, this is why I keep telling you folks that we need to further perfect the Constitution as to where we can get the games to stop in Washington. Everyone up there works the system and they've come to occupy a position of dubious statesmanship as to where everybody is guilty so by the same token, all are innocent.

Anyway....

The enlightened wealthy understand it's better to have good schools, good roads, good health services because it creates disposable income. Grumps claims that he has a house remodeling company of some sort. If you could give someone who owns such a company a choice between expanding into a market that has 20 houses and one that has 500 houses, they would likely pick the 500 house market since there would be more customers. I doubt they would go for a place that has the 20 great houses and is surrounded by slums.


I believe the rich dudes standing with the President understand that.

There really IS a reason why the Democrats let the Bush tax cuts stand when they controlled the House, the Senate and the Oval Office two years ago, Candy...and that "reason" is that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would have dampened the economic recovery substantially. Christina Romer understood that...Larry Summers understood that...the Blue Dog Democrats understood that...and even Barry himself seemed to finally understood that. What I find amazing is that people like yourself can't see through this transparent attempt now to come up with a campaign issue that the Obama White House can sell to the American people in order to get another term. Let's be honest here...the economy IS better than it was two years ago but now there are very real fears that we're stalling out again. The latest employment numbers were way below what was projected and we're still living under a pair of economic Damocles swords in the Middle East situation with Israel/Iran and the troubles that persist in Europe. So if you're a Keynesian...and this White House professes to be just that...then you should know that raising taxes in a weak economy was something that John Maynard Keynes cautioned against as being faulty fiscal policy. So why are they pushing tax raises? If it's not good fiscal policy then what possible reason would they have for calling for tax raises NOW of all times?

You won't find the answer to that question in an economics text book, Candy because this isn't about economics...it's about populism and this Administration's apparent belief that the American people aren't smart enough to figure this out until it's too late. What's really sad is that progressives like yourself will undoubtably be heartbroken when a newly re-elected Barack Obama DOESN'T raise taxes on the rich like you want so desperately. It's all a game and right now...and YOU...are the one getting played.

I love it when people label me. Makes me chuckle.

You know what's REALLY amusing, Candy? That you can make a post that throws labels and assumptions all over the place but when you're challenged on those assumptions you respond by accusing me of "labeling" you.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the Bush tax cuts were extended by this Administration three years ago when they HAD those super majorities to work with. If the Democrats were scared to death back then that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would hurt the economic recovery and they would be blamed...what has changed NOW?

The truth is...very little. The economy is still anemic and the last thing we need is to do things to slow it down further. So why then would Obama call for tax increases? The truth is...Barry knows only too well that chances are even if he wins re-election it will be with a GOP controlled Senate and House which means there is no way on God's green earth that tax increase on the wealthy would ever make it to his desk for him to sign. So in essence this is nothing more than political posturing...in lue of real solutions to our nation's economic problems, Barack Obama instead gives us strategies to get himself re-elected.

I'm curious...does THAT make you chuckle?

 

[edthecynic]

So it's better to have 5000 people spend 2 dollars than it is to have 250 people spend 40 dollars?

How exactly? The same amount of money is being spent is it not?

And how is it better if the government takes my money away from me and gives it to some slacker to spend than if I spend it myself?

Yes but what is not in your equation is that the 250 people don't need to spend all $40. In your small scale it makes no sense since we're talking about 40 bucks. But having 5,000 persons who are well off is preferable to having 250 people who have more money than they know what to do with.

Lets take toasters. If you own a factory that makes toasters, you can sell 250 or you can sell 5000. I think most people would rather sell 5000 than 250. It's not like that for all items but it's an example.

Anyway, thats the way it works and why you see a great many persons who have the means and the social consciousness agreeing with the President on this issue.

you seem to forget that it takes million$ to create a factory that produces those shiny toasters for those millions of customers who want toast in the morning.....it doesn't just happen automatically....

it is those wealthy investors who provide the bucks and RISK their money to build and startup the factory and create the toaster-making jobs....to hopefully see a profit eventually on their investment......when was the last time you saw a typical Occupier or "enlightened wealthy" Hollywierdo establish a successful factory......?

"social consciousness" has a disburbing habit of ignoring reality....

Of course, that "RISK" is mitigated by the fact that if they lose money the loss is tax deductible, so the "RISK" is Socialized but the profit is Privatized.
The factory workers also take a "RISK" with the company! They INVEST their time, which unlike money, cannot be recovered or deducted from their taxes. The longer they are with the company and the older they are when their job is outsourced the harder it is for them to start over. So in reality labor takes the greater risk with a more dire downside and no Golden Parachute!

 

[candycorn]

There really IS a reason why the Democrats let the Bush tax cuts stand when they controlled the House, the Senate and the Oval Office two years ago, Candy...and that "reason" is that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would have dampened the economic recovery substantially. Christina Romer understood that...Larry Summers understood that...the Blue Dog Democrats understood that...and even Barry himself seemed to finally understood that. What I find amazing is that people like yourself can't see through this transparent attempt now to come up with a campaign issue that the Obama White House can sell to the American people in order to get another term. Let's be honest here...the economy IS better than it was two years ago but now there are very real fears that we're stalling out again. The latest employment numbers were way below what was projected and we're still living under a pair of economic Damocles swords in the Middle East situation with Israel/Iran and the troubles that persist in Europe. So if you're a Keynesian...and this White House professes to be just that...then you should know that raising taxes in a weak economy was something that John Maynard Keynes cautioned against as being faulty fiscal policy. So why are they pushing tax raises? If it's not good fiscal policy then what possible reason would they have for calling for tax raises NOW of all times?

You won't find the answer to that question in an economics text book, Candy because this isn't about economics...it's about populism and this Administration's apparent belief that the American people aren't smart enough to figure this out until it's too late. What's really sad is that progressives like yourself will undoubtably be heartbroken when a newly re-elected Barack Obama DOESN'T raise taxes on the rich like you want so desperately. It's all a game and right now...and YOU...are the one getting played.

I love it when people label me. Makes me chuckle.

You know what's REALLY amusing, Candy? That you can make a post that throws labels and assumptions all over the place but when you're challenged on those assumptions you respond by accusing me of "labeling" you.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the Bush tax cuts were extended by this Administration three years ago when they HAD those super majorities to work with. If the Democrats were scared to death back then that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would hurt the economic recovery and they would be blamed...what has changed NOW?

The truth is...very little. The economy is still anemic and the last thing we need is to do things to slow it down further. So why then would Obama call for tax increases? The truth is...Barry knows only too well that chances are even if he wins re-election it will be with a GOP controlled Senate and House which means there is no way on God's green earth that tax increase on the wealthy would ever make it to his desk for him to sign. So in essence this is nothing more than political posturing...in lue of real solutions to our nation's economic problems, Barack Obama instead gives us strategies to get himself re-elected.

I'm curious...does THAT make you chuckle?

In fact it does. Quite a bit too.

 

[Rozman]

So apparently Obama wants to push the Buffet rule. Why the fuck would anyone support an increase in taxes on anyone when in the not to near future the Bush tax cuts will expire causing taxes to go up. Then we have the new Obamacare taxes kicking in.

When is enough enough you greedy bastards? Obama is getting ready to dish out his second wave of green energy free money yet is crying that he needs more money. Can he not see the disconnect?

Mo money....Mo money...Mo money.
The Libs love high taxes...miserable bastards....

 

[naturegirl]

Yes but what is not in your equation is that the 250 people don't need to spend all $40. In your small scale it makes no sense since we're talking about 40 bucks. But having 5,000 persons who are well off is preferable to having 250 people who have more money than they know what to do with.

Lets take toasters. If you own a factory that makes toasters, you can sell 250 or you can sell 5000. I think most people would rather sell 5000 than 250. It's not like that for all items but it's an example.

Anyway, thats the way it works and why you see a great many persons who have the means and the social consciousness agreeing with the President on this issue.

you seem to forget that it takes million$ to create a factory that produces those shiny toasters for those millions of customers who want toast in the morning.....it doesn't just happen automatically....

it is those wealthy investors who provide the bucks and RISK their money to build and startup the factory and create the toaster-making jobs....to hopefully see a profit eventually on their investment......when was the last time you saw a typical Occupier or "enlightened wealthy" Hollywierdo establish a successful factory......?

"social consciousness" has a disburbing habit of ignoring reality....

Of course, that "RISK" is mitigated by the fact that if they lose money the loss is tax deductible, so the "RISK" is Socialized but the profit is Privatized.
The factory workers also take a "RISK" with the company! They INVEST their time, which unlike money, cannot be recovered or deducted from their taxes. The longer they are with the company and the older they are when their job is outsourced the harder it is for them to start over. So in reality labor takes the greater risk with a more dire downside and no Golden Parachute!

What the heck are you talking about, if you make no money or lose money how the heck are you supposed to pay taxes?? People can work where they want, slavery is long gone.

 

[zeke]

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the Bush tax cuts were extended by this Administration three years ago when they HAD those super majorities to work with. If the Democrats were scared to death back then that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would hurt the economic recovery and they would be blamed...what has changed NOW?

I know you didn't ask me but............

If I remember, the Repubs wouldn't go along with letting just a portion of the cuts expire, so they all were kept in place.

Now you seem confused as to what group the Pres wants to raise taxes on. It is the very wealthy. And they have not had a "recession". Matter of fact, studies show they have been doing very well for the past 10 years with big income gains and a great tax enviorenment.

So you can cry that raising taxes on all will slow the economy, and you would prolly be correct. But raising taxes some on the very well to do won't hurt a thing.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the Bush tax cuts were extended by this Administration three years ago when they HAD those super majorities to work with. If the Democrats were scared to death back then that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would hurt the economic recovery and they would be blamed...what has changed NOW?

I know you didn't ask me but............

If I remember, the Repubs wouldn't go along with letting just a portion of the cuts expire, so they all were kept in place.

Now you seem confused as to what group the Pres wants to raise taxes on. It is the very wealthy. And they have not had a "recession". Matter of fact, studies show they have been doing very well for the past 10 years with big income gains and a great tax enviorenment.

So you can cry that raising taxes on all will slow the economy, and you would prolly be correct. But raising taxes some on the very well to do won't hurt a thing.

And you know this because you're very wealthy and you know what you would do if your taxes were raised?

Naive idiots

 

[Oldstyle]

I love it when people label me. Makes me chuckle.

You know what's REALLY amusing, Candy? That you can make a post that throws labels and assumptions all over the place but when you're challenged on those assumptions you respond by accusing me of "labeling" you.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the Bush tax cuts were extended by this Administration three years ago when they HAD those super majorities to work with. If the Democrats were scared to death back then that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would hurt the economic recovery and they would be blamed...what has changed NOW?

The truth is...very little. The economy is still anemic and the last thing we need is to do things to slow it down further. So why then would Obama call for tax increases? The truth is...Barry knows only too well that chances are even if he wins re-election it will be with a GOP controlled Senate and House which means there is no way on God's green earth that tax increase on the wealthy would ever make it to his desk for him to sign. So in essence this is nothing more than political posturing...in lue of real solutions to our nation's economic problems, Barack Obama instead gives us strategies to get himself re-elected.

I'm curious...does THAT make you chuckle?

In fact it does. Quite a bit too.

While you chuckle over the game that Barack Obama is playing, Candy...there are millions of Americans who are out of work, burning up their life savings to pay their bills while looking for a job. I'm sure THEY are laughing about this...

 

[edthecynic]

you seem to forget that it takes million$ to create a factory that produces those shiny toasters for those millions of customers who want toast in the morning.....it doesn't just happen automatically....

it is those wealthy investors who provide the bucks and RISK their money to build and startup the factory and create the toaster-making jobs....to hopefully see a profit eventually on their investment......when was the last time you saw a typical Occupier or "enlightened wealthy" Hollywierdo establish a successful factory......?

"social consciousness" has a disburbing habit of ignoring reality....

Of course, that "RISK" is mitigated by the fact that if they lose money the loss is tax deductible, so the "RISK" is Socialized but the profit is Privatized.
The factory workers also take a "RISK" with the company! They INVEST their time, which unlike money, cannot be recovered or deducted from their taxes. The longer they are with the company and the older they are when their job is outsourced the harder it is for them to start over. So in reality labor takes the greater risk with a more dire downside and no Golden Parachute!

What the heck are you talking about, if you make no money or lose money how the heck are you supposed to pay taxes?? People can work where they want, slavery is long gone.

Well, since you know nothing about the tax system you are debating, I'll fill you in. If you lose money in your business you can deduct that loss from your past or future profits. If you lost the money investing in a company in the stock market, you can deduct the loses from past, present or future gains. "Risked" monetary losses are minimized.

But time invested by wage earners in a company that fails or outsources it's jobs is gone forever with no tax considerations, leaving the wage earner to start over from the bottom again at an older age.

 

[candycorn]

You know what's REALLY amusing, Candy? That you can make a post that throws labels and assumptions all over the place but when you're challenged on those assumptions you respond by accusing me of "labeling" you.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the Bush tax cuts were extended by this Administration three years ago when they HAD those super majorities to work with. If the Democrats were scared to death back then that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would hurt the economic recovery and they would be blamed...what has changed NOW?

The truth is...very little. The economy is still anemic and the last thing we need is to do things to slow it down further. So why then would Obama call for tax increases? The truth is...Barry knows only too well that chances are even if he wins re-election it will be with a GOP controlled Senate and House which means there is no way on God's green earth that tax increase on the wealthy would ever make it to his desk for him to sign. So in essence this is nothing more than political posturing...in lue of real solutions to our nation's economic problems, Barack Obama instead gives us strategies to get himself re-elected.

I'm curious...does THAT make you chuckle?

In fact it does. Quite a bit too.

While you chuckle over the game that Barack Obama is playing, Candy...there are millions of Americans who are out of work, burning up their life savings to pay their bills while looking for a job. I'm sure THEY are laughing about this...

The fact that you take such exception to it (i.e. playing the victim), makes me laugh. Out loud. Often. Yes it does.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the Bush tax cuts were extended by this Administration three years ago when they HAD those super majorities to work with. If the Democrats were scared to death back then that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would hurt the economic recovery and they would be blamed...what has changed NOW?

I know you didn't ask me but............

If I remember, the Repubs wouldn't go along with letting just a portion of the cuts expire, so they all were kept in place.

Now you seem confused as to what group the Pres wants to raise taxes on. It is the very wealthy. And they have not had a "recession". Matter of fact, studies show they have been doing very well for the past 10 years with big income gains and a great tax enviorenment.

So you can cry that raising taxes on all will slow the economy, and you would prolly be correct. But raising taxes some on the very well to do won't hurt a thing.

And you know this because you're very wealthy and you know what you would do if your taxes were raised?

Naive idiots

I see so according to you taxing someone 10-15% more when havter all their consumption they still bank in 5million dollars will hurt their living standards; so basically you are stupid

 

[sealybobo]

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the Bush tax cuts were extended by this Administration three years ago when they HAD those super majorities to work with. If the Democrats were scared to death back then that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would hurt the economic recovery and they would be blamed...what has changed NOW?

I know you didn't ask me but............

If I remember, the Repubs wouldn't go along with letting just a portion of the cuts expire, so they all were kept in place.

Now you seem confused as to what group the Pres wants to raise taxes on. It is the very wealthy. And they have not had a "recession". Matter of fact, studies show they have been doing very well for the past 10 years with big income gains and a great tax enviorenment.

So you can cry that raising taxes on all will slow the economy, and you would prolly be correct. But raising taxes some on the very well to do won't hurt a thing.

And you know this because you're very wealthy and you know what you would do if your taxes were raised?

Naive idiots

Come on Gramps. Do you know what it is to make over $1 million dollars a year? Stop worrying about them and start worrying about yourself. If they gave us the Bush tax breaks, we would spend the money and they would benefit too. Their way, they get it all. Trickle down my ass.

And its now called the Reagan Rule

Chris Weigant: Call It the Reagan Rule

 

[Listening]

The buffet rule:

The rich should pay more taxes so the number of people not paying them can increase from 50% to 55%.

Now, that's a winner....for the "party of mooch" (dems).

 

[Full-Auto]

The buffet rule:

The rich should pay more taxes so the number of people not paying them can increase from 50% to 55%.

Now, that's a winner....for the "party of mooch" (dems).

Play with the democrats and get forgiven on back taxes.

THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.