The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

[Full-Auto]

How so..You must explain yourself. GO!
I think you are small minded jealous underachieving person who fucked up somewhere and are looking for someone to blame for your own self created misfortunes. You feel the rich have fucked you over and you come on here to start threads looking for people who feel equally aggrieved by those who have succeeded or achieved. You hate them. You feel they have taken what you believe to be yours. You feel this due to some fantasy you have conjured up to make yourself feel better about your own inadequacies.

Between 1980 and 2008 the richest 1% of Americans nearly tripled their share of total US income.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy."

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

Are you capable of understanding how the richest 1% acquired their 20% share of every dollar that all US workers earned in 2008?

They did it by bribing elected Republicans AND Democrats for tax policy that shifted the burden of taxation off unearned income and onto wages and salaries.

And that is precisely the reason that Repubs shout Socialism when anyone begins to question the rise of the wealthy. All the while, the retarded FOX viewers and dogmatic baggers carry the banner of the rich.

Do you understand the term equality? As in all men are created equal?

Then explain the difference in terms between promote and provide.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Tell me why would anyone bother to succeed anymore?

That is actually the goal. To the left equality means sameness of results, not sameness of opportunity. Every time you "bother to succeed" you destroy that harmony.

yes...to libtards the very fact that someone is successful proves to them that some sort of "social injustice" has taken place...

"social justice" morality: attack good, right, and the successful....defend wrong, evil, and the failures...

 

[Londoner]

Conservatives can answer it. The federal government doesn't generate income.

Income is not generated at a single source. It depends on an effective partnership between government and the private sector - like during the Cold War, when the 80s consumer electronic boom flowed from the Space Program and Pentagon budgets. Or what about the Hoover Dam? - which enables much of the Southwest to exist in the first place, so that it can have economic activity in the first place? If you look at the infrastructure necessary to commerce, as well as the R&D successfully funded by government which has driven technological advances, and the research contributions of the great government funded public universities, you will realize that your comment requires more nuance.

There has never been a separate private sector without government regulations. Do you understand the legal infrastructure it takes to manage 1 billion global financial transactions ...all happening at once... requiring layers upon layers of laws & rules to incentivize participation and render commerce predictable and safe enough to transpire in the first place? Do you understand the regulatory complexities that go into just one futures market? The notion of a completely free market is incoherent.

(Have you ever read the exact paragraph where Adam Smith mentions the invisible hand. In that paragraph, Smith speaks about the dangers that happen when business moves capital, investment, and jobs outside of the host nation. That is, he preaches against the hyper globalization that corporations foisted on the nation with Reagan, and which continued rapidly under Clinton. Most of the GOP base has not read the Wealth of Nations, so they don't even know the sacred text which governs them. Smith would roll over in his grave if he saw the GOP's neoliberalism, which had no legal or moral obligation to the nation or people)

(Movement Conservatism has created a generations of morons)

Here is where your comment comes from. It doesn't come from your desire to lie or be simplistic. You are repeating something felt in your bones. Indeed, it feels more true than the pull of gravity. Your comment comes from the fact that corporations -- starting in the 70s - captured the Republican party [... FYI: the democrats were not yet captured by capital; they were beholden to labor].

Regardless, starting in the 70s, the GOP created a machine which converted business profits into political outcomes (lobbying) and opinions (think tanks and popular media). As a result you have been taught that everything government does is socialism, and everything corporations do it freedom.

Here is the problem: you have been tricked into aping a moronic simplification. Let me explain: these two poles that you believe are separate - government & private sector - have never been separate; they have always partnered to create wealth. Boeing and commercial aviation grew out of government funding. The computer and internet were heavily dependent on the Pentagon's research and budget.

Let me repeat my young son: Government & private sector are part of the same machine. In the world's most shining example of capitalism - The United State of America - business and government have NEVER been, nor will they ever be, nor could they ever be separate.

My young child: capital doesn't want independence from Big Brother- god no, never - it craves Washington's wallet and power. The private sector has always sought the centralizing power of Washington. Why do you think Reagan and Bush grew government so much. K Street wasn't an incidental component of the 1994 congressional revolution, it was the final realization of the marriage between private profit and government power - so companies like Eli Lilly could capture Medicare spending, and Halliburton could turn war into an industry. Capitalism didn't resist the special interest state, nope, it invented special interest government so that it could raise profits. (my young, young talk radio son)

Adam Smith's unregulated invisible hand is what happens when drug companies quietly send doctors on junkets so that they will push certain high margin drugs; or when the FDA is bribed to suppress the toxicity of a certain food product; or when the owners of capital give "donations" to politicians so that the government has to pay above market rates for drugs - or pass policies which award contracts designed to funnel tax money into criminally inflated no-bid contracts. [all of which satisfies the goal of capitalism: to boost profits] The point of profit has always been to capture the centralizing power of government in order to gain access to the taxpayer's wallet and the markets which the taxpayer depends uopn. Why? Because capturing government's power to award contracts and fix markets satisfies the essential goal of capital: more profit. Capitalism uses government to give one group of people (owners/share holders) special interest monopolies over the rest of the population. This is why government crushes foreign and generic drug competition on behalf of Eli Lilly. This is why every giant corporation has lobbying offices in Washington - so it can suck at the big welfare teat of government contracts and regulatory favors. So that is can mold regulations in order to capture and lockdown markets. Government power is essential to the monopolization of the American economy - without it, large corporations would never be able to craft the perfect regulatory environment. Again: what do you think lobbying is for. Capital LOVES government. -can't exist without it. Turn off talk radio friend, it has simplified your brain.

BUT YES, The government doesn't partner to create wealth any more; rather, it partners with the private sector to transfer more of it to the class which has captured it. The old American government which created the Hoover Dam, defeated the Nazis, lead technological research and built the interstate system... is dead. The American government has been fully captured by the private sector, which wields its centralizing power in order to chain Americans to health insurance and energy monopolies. Do you know how and why the first electric car movement was crushed? [Answer: capital captured Washington and tied America more deeply to the middle east and oil shocks, which oil shocks destroy one group of Americans so that another may profit even more] Who do you think funds all elections and staffs government? The corporations in your portfolio who have captured Washington and turned it into a special interest state.

The rightwing loves to complain about government, but there is no government. All you need to do is look at lobbying money and campaign funding to realize that government is gone. Talk of socialism is absurd when the private sector owns and staffs government.

You need to help. You have to broaden your information sources.

 

[cbirch2]

Conservatives can answer it. The federal government doesn't generate income.

And the free market is incapable of using it in ways that dont rape cancer patients of their life savings or force the price of american labor down by demanding cheap foreign made goods.

We can get into semantics all day long. Why dont you answer the question in the first place.

Theres no reason that the top 1% should benefit three times more than the rest of the population. If they do, so be it. But then we shouldnt be arguing about giving them more tax cuts. The fact is the government is necessary to some extent. Someone has to pay for the police, and there is no reason an insurance company should be making money on someones medicine. So if the rich are already doing better than the rest of us, you'd be crazy to vote to give them more tax cuts now.

 

[georgephillip]

Still no evidence Henry Blodget (LOL!) was right?

Do you think he was right about the following three sentences published in March 2009:

"The outrage of all outrages in the last 18 months is the complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense.

"These bondholders lent money to reckless banks and corporations who bet the farm on the premise that house prices would always go up.

"And they lost."

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

I guess I'd be happy if you showed me the programs which gave "complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense".

Maybe you have a list, because I can't think of any?

I think Sheila Bair has that list:

"She(ila) believes the bailouts were all about protecting bondholders at the expense of taxpayers. As she told Joe Nocera:

"'Why did we do the bailouts?

"'It was all about the bondholders.

"'They did not want to impose losses on bondholders, and we did.

"'We kept saying: "There is no insurance premium on bondholders," you know? For the little guy on Main Street who has bank deposits, we charge the banks a premium for that, and it gets passed on to the customer.

"'We don’t have the same thing for bondholders. They’re supposed to take losses.'"

Sheila Bair’s FDIC Was Hated by Wall Street — and That’s High Praise Indeed | BNET

 

[edthecynic]

So what if some people want to make more.

If i make a million dollars more this year than last it has absolutely no effect on your income.

None, zero, zip, nada.

If that extra million came from bribing politicians to shift your share of taxes onto my earnings, it has a huge effect on my income.

Do you think unearned income should be taxed at rates greater than earned income?

Did the taxes on the rich fall while taxes on you increased? When did that happen?

Unearned income, is that a new "progressive" invention?

No, it is a well established CON$ervative concept!!!

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

George you do realize most Polticans in DC are part of the 1 percent? Including obama but exactly how did he become part of the 1%

 

[georgephillip]

"U.S. politicians are discussing slashing Medicare, Social Security, the educational system, police and fire protection and other essential services. But they don't discuss slashing military spending, which is the U.S. government's single biggest expense. Do you know why?

"Because it is the U.S.'s biggest manufacturing job provider. Military contractors and sub-contractors account for 1-2 million high paid jobs, all at taxpayer expense. And those jobs are located in nearly every Congressional District, so Congressmen don't want those jobs touched.

"But in the U.S., 24 million people are unemployed, under-employed or are no longer counted because they have been unemployed beyond 99 weeks. No-one wants those jobless rolls to grow, which would happen if tens of thousands of military contract employees were laid off. Yet the military machine is going to have to face layoffs."

An Ugly Truth About The U.S. Economy | Economic Crisis Advice Writings And Financial Crisis Warnings

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

George you do realize most Polticans in DC are part of the 1 percent? Including obama but exactly how did he become part of the 1%

"Even in tough times, it's good to be a lawmaker: According to a report released this week by the Center for Responsive Politics, there are 237 millionaires serving in Congress, according to 2008 figures.

"That's a slight decline from the previous year, when there were 239 millionaires in the House and Senate. But it still reflects the fact that the average lawmaker is far wealthier than his or her typical constituent. While about one percent of Americans are millionaires, 44 percent of those serving in Congress can claim as much."

237 Millionaires in Congress - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I'm not sure how Obama earned his millions...book sales?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

George you do realize most Polticans in DC are part of the 1 percent? Including obama but exactly how did he become part of the 1%

"Even in tough times, it's good to be a lawmaker: According to a report released this week by the Center for Responsive Politics, there are 237 millionaires serving in Congress, according to 2008 figures.

"That's a slight decline from the previous year, when there were 239 millionaires in the House and Senate. But it still reflects the fact that the average lawmaker is far wealthier than his or her typical constituent. While about one percent of Americans are millionaires, 44 percent of those serving in Congress can claim as much."

237 Millionaires in Congress - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I'm not sure how Obama earned his millions...book sales?

So why would they want to raise taxes on themself? Could it be they will also have more loopholes to funnel even more money with the tax hikes they want to impose?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think he was right about the following three sentences published in March 2009:

"The outrage of all outrages in the last 18 months is the complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense.

"These bondholders lent money to reckless banks and corporations who bet the farm on the premise that house prices would always go up.

"And they lost."

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

I guess I'd be happy if you showed me the programs which gave "complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense".

Maybe you have a list, because I can't think of any?

I think Sheila Bair has that list:

"She(ila) believes the bailouts were all about protecting bondholders at the expense of taxpayers. As she told Joe Nocera:

"'Why did we do the bailouts?

"'It was all about the bondholders.

"'They did not want to impose losses on bondholders, and we did.

"'We kept saying: "There is no insurance premium on bondholders," you know? For the little guy on Main Street who has bank deposits, we charge the banks a premium for that, and it gets passed on to the customer.

"'We don’t have the same thing for bondholders. They’re supposed to take losses.'"

Sheila Bair’s FDIC Was Hated by Wall Street — and That’s High Praise Indeed | BNET

Thanks for the link which showed absolutely no proof the bailouts cost taxpayers $10-$14 trillion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If that extra million came from bribing politicians to shift your share of taxes onto my earnings, it has a huge effect on my income.

Do you think unearned income should be taxed at rates greater than earned income?

Did the taxes on the rich fall while taxes on you increased? When did that happen?

Unearned income, is that a new "progressive" invention?

No, it is a well established CON$ervative concept!!!

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

Sorry, all my income is earned.
Whether it's salary or investment income.

I think a nice round 15% rate should be levied across the board.
Corporate, income and capital gains.

 

[georgephillip]

George you do realize most Polticans in DC are part of the 1 percent? Including obama but exactly how did he become part of the 1%

"Even in tough times, it's good to be a lawmaker: According to a report released this week by the Center for Responsive Politics, there are 237 millionaires serving in Congress, according to 2008 figures.

"That's a slight decline from the previous year, when there were 239 millionaires in the House and Senate. But it still reflects the fact that the average lawmaker is far wealthier than his or her typical constituent. While about one percent of Americans are millionaires, 44 percent of those serving in Congress can claim as much."

237 Millionaires in Congress - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I'm not sure how Obama earned his millions...book sales?

So why would they want to raise taxes on themself? Could it be they will also have more loopholes to funnel even more money with the tax hikes they want to impose?

"The richest member of Congress is Republican California Rep. Darrell Issa, whose net worth is estimated to be in excess of $250 million. He's followed by four Democrats: California's Jane Harman (approx. $245 million), Wisconsin's Herb Kohl (approx. $215 million), Virginia's Mark Warner (approx. $210 million) and Massachusetts' John Kerry (approx. $209 million).

"Among the top 25 wealthiest legislators – which includes boldface names Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Olympia Snowe – there are 14 Democrats and 11 Republicans, suggesting no clear wealth divisions between party."

This looks to me like one more problem that can't be solved in the voting booth if we limit our "choice" to Democrat OR Republican.

It's worth thinking about how different this country would be if the US Senate was apportioned by income level instead of geography, and the richest 1% of Americans shared a single Senator.

War and debt are strangling this Republic, and Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame, imo.

237 Millionaires in Congress - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey Georgie boy

You still haven't answered my earlier question.

Do you truly believe a guy who makes 200K a year should have an additional 90K confiscated from him via taxes?

 

[georgephillip]

I guess I'd be happy if you showed me the programs which gave "complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense".

Maybe you have a list, because I can't think of any?

I think Sheila Bair has that list:

"She(ila) believes the bailouts were all about protecting bondholders at the expense of taxpayers. As she told Joe Nocera:

"'Why did we do the bailouts?

"'It was all about the bondholders.

"'They did not want to impose losses on bondholders, and we did.

"'We kept saying: "There is no insurance premium on bondholders," you know? For the little guy on Main Street who has bank deposits, we charge the banks a premium for that, and it gets passed on to the customer.

"'We don’t have the same thing for bondholders. They’re supposed to take losses.'"

Sheila Bair’s FDIC Was Hated by Wall Street — and That’s High Praise Indeed | BNET

Thanks for the link which showed absolutely no proof the bailouts cost taxpayers $10-$14 trillion.

Still waiting for your link disproving Bair's and Blodget's claim that taxpayers covered bondholder losses at institutions like AIG.

"Had AIG been allowed to fail in a controlled manner through bankruptcy, bondholders and derivative counterparties (major banks) would have suffered significant losses, limiting the amount of taxpayer funds directly used.

"Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke argued: 'If a federal agency had [appropriate authority] on September 16, [2008], they could have been used to put AIG into conservatorship or receivership, unwind it slowly, protect policyholders, and impose haircuts on creditors and counterparties as appropriate. That outcome would have been far preferable to the situation we find ourselves in now.'[58]

"The 'situation' to which he is referring is that the claims of bondholders and counterparties were paid at 100 cents on the dollar by taxpayers, without giving taxpayers the rights to the future profits of these institutions.

"In other words, the benefits went to the banks while the taxpayers suffered the costs."

American International Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialize the cost.
Privatize the profit.
How the Rich get rich and stay rich.
Until they don't.

 

[georgephillip]

Hey Georgie boy

You still haven't answered my earlier question.

Do you truly believe a guy who makes 200K a year should have an additional 90K confiscated from him via taxes?

Sorry, Skull.
Cyberspace can be confusing.

I don't think someone earning $250,000 a year should be taxed at 90%.
I do believe someone earning $250,000,000 a year should be.

Robert Reich has proposed some additional tax brackets starting at $500,000 a year and progressing through $15,000,000 per.

"Under my proposal, incomes between $5 million and $15 million would be subjected to a 60 percent rate, and incomes between $500,000 and $5 million to a 50 percent rate."

Reich proposes to tax incomes of $15,000,000 per year or more at 70%.

Robert Reich (The Growing Desperation of the Don't-Raise-Taxes-on-the-Rich Crowd)

 

[SaneVoice]

Just a simple fact to consider...

Every time the government takes about $100K out of the hands of an individual in the form of taxes, you get roughly one less private sector job.

That $15M earner you want to tax at 70% would surrender about $10M of his income to Uncle Sam - that equates to about 100 jobs a year that would be lost. For the privilege of feeling good about soaking the rich, you create substantially more unemployment and slower economic growth.

Of course, this is a static view of things...in truth, our economy is more dynamic. If you tax the $15M earner at 70%, in truth what you'll get is someone who finds other ways to be compensated so that he looks like, say, a $1M earner instead.

 

[georgephillip]

Just a simple fact to consider...

Every time the government takes about $100K out of the hands of an individual in the form of taxes, you get roughly one less private sector job.

That $15M earner you want to tax at 70% would surrender about $10M of his income to Uncle Sam - that equates to about 100 jobs a year that would be lost. For the privilege of feeling good about soaking the rich, you create substantially more unemployment and slower economic growth.

Of course, this is a static view of things...in truth, our economy is more dynamic. If you tax the $15M earner at 70%, in truth what you'll get is someone who finds other ways to be compensated so that he looks like, say, a $1M earner instead.

In today's global economy, how likely is it that one "private sector" job will be in China, India or Brazil?

Do you think it's possible that technology has replaced the need for human labor in this country to such an extent that Capitalism can no longer provide jobs to every American who needs one?

 

[georgephillip]

All collateral is being marked down that much? I haven't seen that figure before. Does he provide any backup? As far as the 350% number, how much of that is double counted?What corporate debt is being marked down by 20%?



Bond holders lose money all the time.
Still waiting for some evidence that taxpayers are on the hook.
Except for Fannie and Freddie, I can't think of any way taxpayers are on the hook to bondholders.

"Economist Joseph Stiglitz calls out the titans of finance, who continue to make mega bonuses for their companies' mega losses, even after they set the global economy in a tailspin and shifted all risks for their unregulated credit default swaps onto taxpayers.

"He describes a nation of, by and for the 1 percent that enjoys 25 percent of economic benefits, largely purchased by Washington lobbyists."

America Held Hostage to Two-Party Failure: Government of, by and for the Corporations | Truthout

Twenty-four million Americans lack work and nearly $9 trillion in household wealth has vanished since the "titans of finance" brought the US economy to its knees in 2008.

Bondholders of poorly run financial companies should lose all the time.
It seems today's bondholders prefer running to the nanny state for bailouts.

Where is Stiglitz's proof that anyone shifted all risks for their unregulated credit default swaps onto taxpayers? I didn't see any in your link. Did you?

Which bonds are being bailed out by the government?

AIG?

"AIG was required to post additional collateral with many creditors and counter-parties, touching off controversy when over $100 billion was paid out to major global financial institutions that had previously received TARP money.

"While this money was legally owed to the banks by AIG (under agreements made via credit default swaps purchased from AIG by the institutions), a number of Congressmen and media members expressed outrage that taxpayer money was going to these banks through AIG.[55]

"In January, 2010, a document known as 'Schedule A – List of Derivative Transactions' was released to the public, against the wishes of the New York Fed. It listed many of the insurance deals that AIG had with various other parties, such as Goldman Sachs, Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, and Merrill Lynch.[56][57]

"Had AIG been allowed to fail in a controlled manner through bankruptcy, bondholders and derivative counterparties (major banks) would have suffered significant losses, limiting the amount of taxpayer funds directly used."

American International Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oldstyle]

What progressives like you can't seem to understand is that taking capital out of the hands of private investors and giving it to the government does nothing to help economic growth. For some unknown reason you all have this unwavering belief that taking money away from the wealthy will somehow improve the lot of the middle class and quite frankly, it never has.

Here's a radical concept! Instead of trying to bring the wealthiest Americans "down" how about we stop choking our economy off with regulations that do little to solve the problems they were designed to address but have caused jobs to be taken over seas by the hundreds of thousands? You want to explore why the rich in America are now making more than the rest of us? Did it ever occur to you that's easily explainable by the fact that we've lost jobs overseas because union greed and government intervention have made the US a less desirable place to run a business? Why would any rational business person open a factory here...when the business would be instantly hamstrung by out of control labor costs and penal government regulations?

We used to make things in America. We don't anymore. It isn't that the rich make more...it's that our industrial base that used to support the middle class with high paying jobs doesn't exist anymore. If you REALLY want to solve the problem, it doesn't lie in taxing the wealthy...it lies in creating a business climate that encourages job creation for blue collar workers.