2012 Presidential Campaign

[miked]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

"Uh, Mike." At the time I said that, Cain hadn't made any of those comments. He's a very bright guy, and I, for one, thought he was bright enough to steer clear of making statements like that. I hold to my contention that if he had stuck with his original message, he would be faring much better than he is.

I understand that totally, it's the people who still think he can win I was referring to. He's clearly a decent businessman, but you just can't say that kind of stuff and expect to win.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And the thought that such rhetoric appeals to dumb people isn't necessarily true. Mike likely isn't considering who votes in primaries, which is the distinction Jon made there. My in-laws and their friends would be the perfect example. My father-in-law is graduate of Duke and Duke Medical, and did his residency and several years of teaching at Johns Hopkins. Most of his friends have similar credentials. And the big hot button among his buddies in the last 9 months or so? Yup, how the Muslims are trying to infiltrate and take over America. And last I checked the 60-75 age range still dominates the primaries. Yeah, this is just one guy and one group of friends, but it is indicative that the broad assumption Mike is making about the demographic that eats that sort of talk up doesn't really hold water. And really, "dumb redneck fucks" don't vote in primaries. Heck, most of them don't know when they are.

Ok, that made me laugh. But he obviously isn't going to be appealing to the ATLians in his primary, but you are probably right that primary voters will be the older folks. Maybe I should replace dumb rednecks with fringe fools...I mean I think we can agree that this sort of talk has little place in mainstream politics. But his message about actual politics has been lost in his foolishness.

[albionmoonlight]

With the economy in the tank, this is probably Perry's best shot to run for President, so I think that he should take it.

But, if he is thinking long-term, he might be able to really improve his stock by choosing not to run. He's gotten everyone so hot-and-bothered by the fact that he is almost certainly running. If he decides not to, then he gets to be all things to all GOP voters. There wouldn't be a single attack ad run against him. And every imperfection in the eventual nominee will be seen through the prism of "Perry wouldn't have this problem." If the GOP candidate loses, I could easily see the post-election narrative something along the lines of "What if Perry had run?"

That's a pretty powerful image to have. If the GOP candidate loses, Perry could end up as the de facto head of the GOP and kingmaker supreme for the next 4+ years.

All that said, this is probably the best chance to actually win the Presidency, and not just the nomination, that he will have. And, if that is what he wants, then he should take it.

[JPhillips]

But if Perry sits out it will be five long years before he can win and if Romney wins that means nine years. By then he'd be about as relevant as betamax.

[digamma]

NY Times says Pawlenty is out.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I've personally been pretty critical of a lot of what Obama has done so far, but I think the strategy on the debt limit has been brilliant.

He's going to put together a package that increases the debt limit, includes a trillion dollars or so in cuts and probably a tax increase on ridiculous incomes of $1 million or more. He's going to pick up the votes he needs from Republicans in moderate districts and states.

In 2012, he's going to be able to campaign that he cut the deficit and got somthing done while the The Tea Party voted against a massive cut in federal spending. It's the same strategy the Dems used on Bush in '91, forcing him to accept tax increases against his "read my lips" pledge.

The risk is that the economy doesn't improve in the next 12 months and voters blame it on this deal.

I still don't see how it's logical to take excess money from millionaires and just give it away to people who aren't producing. If we look at it without emotion, how did the millionaire get that money? Didn't they provide something of value? In any event, if it was done legally, we really should not be penalizing them anymore than we already are. Isn't a millionaire spending money better for the economy than 100,000 people spending $10 each? The millionaire can take that money and hire employees, invest in R&D, invest in the markets, and yes, buy lots of luxury items. Companies that build yachts and fancy cars employ people too, afterall.

My concern is if you take that million bucks (or example) and give $10 to 100,000 different people, I agree that helps you get elected, but the reality is that just props up Walmart and nobody else. We really need to get away from the class-warfare deal. Just because a millionaire only gets one vote isn't a good reason to take his/her money.

The bottom line is that in order to sustain the services that we insist on having...

(full coverage healthcare for all, a great education for all, a great job for all, a clean environmentally friendly lifestyle for all, and one that is safe from external and internal threats)

...we need to make more money. A lot more money.

Streamlining our govt spending is important, but that's not the long-term solution, I think we all can agree on that. Redistribution of wealth through higher taxes for the rich and the rich only is sweeping the real problems under the rug in the name of re-election...so I wouldn't call it "brilliant"...I'd say it's introducing even more long-term problems for everybody that's not employed by the govt or Walmart (or other re-sellers of cheap crap).

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I've personally been pretty critical of a lot of what Obama has done so far, but I think the strategy on the debt limit has been brilliant.

He's going to put together a package that increases the debt limit, includes a trillion dollars or so in cuts and probably a tax increase on ridiculous incomes of $1 million or more. He's going to pick up the votes he needs from Republicans in moderate districts and states.

In 2012, he's going to be able to campaign that he cut the deficit and got somthing done while the The Tea Party voted against a massive cut in federal spending. It's the same strategy the Dems used on Bush in '91, forcing him to accept tax increases against his "read my lips" pledge.

The risk is that the economy doesn't improve in the next 12 months and voters blame it on this deal.

Why is earning $1 million or more ridiculous?

I can understand, and agree, with concerns over publicly-traded executive compensation packages in regards to stock options and golden parachute deals for just being a CEO (and not delivering in regards to results). I also agree with how Wall Street is being run, but I blame that on the lack of regulation that still seems to be soft in my view.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The millionaire can take that money and hire employees, invest in R&D, invest in the markets, and yes, buy lots of luxury items. Companies that build yachts and fancy cars employ people too, afterall.

Problem is that the corporations simply aren't spending the money on American jobs. That is suppose to be the point of lowering their tax burden, yet they're sitting on something like two trillion dollars collectively and unemployment continues to hover around ten percent.

I have no issue with corporations having a low tax burden if they're collectively spending that money on America. But right now we have a toxic mix of them paying little in the way of taxes and taking manufacturing jobs overseas.

[Galaril]

Seriously Michelle Bachmann this is the best the conservative can muster for 2012:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZxQZ...eature=related

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Seriously Michelle Bachmann this is the best the conservative can muster for 2012:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZxQZ...eature=related

I find myself missing Palin now.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Problem is that the corporations simply aren't spending the money on American jobs. That is suppose to be the point of lowering their tax burden, yet they're sitting on something like two trillion dollars collectively and unemployment continues to hover around ten percent.

I have no issue with corporations having a low tax burden if they're collectively spending that money on America. But right now we have a toxic mix of them paying little in the way of taxes and taking manufacturing jobs overseas.

The common perception is that Millionaires pay little in the way of taxes. That would be false.

As for corporations taking jobs overseas, that is true. It's hard to compete with the "sweat shops" of China and Mexico. The flattening world and all that...(if you haven't read the book, you need to).

So you take from the millionaires so they can't employ those people overseas...but now they won't be able to employ anybody. This leads to concerns of the welfare state...and the paraphrased age old adage "problem with taxing the rich is eventually you run out of other people's money".

Anyway, it's becoming a monumental challenge for this country no matter what angle you are looking at it from.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The common perception is that Millionaires pay little in the way of taxes. That would be false.

As for corporations taking jobs overseas, that is true. It's hard to compete with the "sweat shops" of China and Mexico. The flattening world and all that...(if you haven't read the book, you need to).

So you take from the millionaires so they can't employ those people overseas...but now they won't be able to employ anybody. This leads to concerns of the welfare state...and the paraphrased age old adage "problem with taxing the rich is eventually you run out of other people's money".

Anyway, it's becoming a monumental challenge for this country no matter what angle you are looking at it from.

At some point something has to give. A low tax rate and continual shipping of jobs overseas is a toxic mix, something has to give somewhere.

Either you will see an increase in tax rates for corporations (if they continue to shy away from investing in the American economy) or see you'll see us slowly backing away from free trade with tariffs on goods from other countries replacing taxes as the means of generating revenue to deal with a growing population of poor and uneducated people.

I think we're reaching a monumental turning point in the history of this country. We're at a fork in the road. Obviously we can't keep operating as we have in the past, but we also can't tell the poor that they're on their collective own without an economic model that allows those that want to thrive to do it.

A way to reinvigorate manufacturing at home will be key going forward. But I don't believe the only way to do that is to gut the EPA and other groups (FDA) charged with keeping business in general honest.

I don't know how to answer the questions that face our country nor am I smart enough to even hash them out. But I believe it's in everyone's best interest that we elect officials that are about solving the issues instead of pandering to fringe groups who have become increasingly single minded (on both sides). YMMV.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The common perception is that Millionaires pay little in the way of taxes. That would be false.

As for corporations taking jobs overseas, that is true. It's hard to compete with the "sweat shops" of China and Mexico. The flattening world and all that...(if you haven't read the book, you need to).

So you take from the millionaires so they can't employ those people overseas...but now they won't be able to employ anybody. This leads to concerns of the welfare state...and the paraphrased age old adage "problem with taxing the rich is eventually you run out of other people's money".

Anyway, it's becoming a monumental challenge for this country no matter what angle you are looking at it from.

Millionaires having more money doesn't create jobs. Demand does. The tax rate the CEO has to pay on his income has no bearing on whether jobs are kept or cut.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

... generating revenue to deal with a growing population of poor and uneducated people.

Maybe the key is to first stop that growth and then reduce that population.

A way to reinvigorate manufacturing at home will be key going forward.

You aren't going to that without providing some reason to keep that manufacturing "at home". Short of eliminating barriers like escalating minimum wages, union interference and additional government intrusion into business, you aren't likely to do that.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Maybe the key is to first stop that growth and then reduce that population.

I can see the obvious benefits of slowing population growth. But I doubt many would agree to either voluntary or mandatory limits.

You aren't going to that without providing some reason to keep that manufacturing "at home". Short of eliminating barriers like escalating minimum wages, union interference and additional government intrusion into business, you aren't likely to do that.

I think this will be where free trade becomes a casualty. Either you deal with these or you produce overseas with massive tariffs when trying to access our markets.

But yet again I really don't know the answers. I would like leaders that present plans free of political rhetoric. Show the people your best plans and let the people decide whose best going forward. But I don't need the constant bickering, these people were sent to Washington to govern. And this goes for both sides.

I actually found Huntsman to have some surprising substance during the debate but know that he doesn't excite anyone. Which is a shame.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I can see the obvious benefits of slowing population growth. But I doubt many would agree to either voluntary or mandatory limits.

I think you'd be surprised at how much support you could get for mandatory birth control for welfare recipients.

But I don't need the constant bickering, these people were sent to Washington to govern.

And they were sent by people who are most often surprised/disappointed with their candidate compromises their (the voters) principles & priorities. As I've pointed out for years, politics doesn't cause divisions, it merely reflects divisions that already exist. In short, they are us.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think you'd be surprised at how much support you could get for mandatory birth control for welfare recipients.

It has to be across the board. If there's a limit, it should exist whether your on Welfare or make ten million dollars a year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It has to be across the board.

Umm ... why?

Our problem isn't "millionaires" having too many children.

[stevew]

At least a Bachmann win would keep the streak of First Spouse's who like men alive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

At least a Bachmann win would keep the streak of First Spouse's who like men alive.

At what, three? Hillary broke the continuity years ago.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I still don't see how it's logical to take excess money from millionaires and just give it away to people who aren't producing. If we look at it without emotion, how did the millionaire get that money? Didn't they provide something of value? In any event, if it was done legally, we really should not be penalizing them anymore than we already are. Isn't a millionaire spending money better for the economy than 100,000 people spending $10 each? The millionaire can take that money and hire employees, invest in R&D, invest in the markets, and yes, buy lots of luxury items. Companies that build yachts and fancy cars employ people too, afterall.

My concern is if you take that million bucks (or example) and give $10 to 100,000 different people, I agree that helps you get elected, but the reality is that just props up Walmart and nobody else. We really need to get away from the class-warfare deal. Just because a millionaire only gets one vote isn't a good reason to take his/her money.

The bottom line is that in order to sustain the services that we insist on having...

(full coverage healthcare for all, a great education for all, a great job for all, a clean environmentally friendly lifestyle for all, and one that is safe from external and internal threats)

...we need to make more money. A lot more money.

Streamlining our govt spending is important, but that's not the long-term solution, I think we all can agree on that. Redistribution of wealth through higher taxes for the rich and the rich only is sweeping the real problems under the rug in the name of re-election...so I wouldn't call it "brilliant"...I'd say it's introducing even more long-term problems for everybody that's not employed by the govt or Walmart (or other re-sellers of cheap crap).

This isn't a Robinhood issue. The issue with higher incomes is that due to take breaks, higher income individuals pay lower tax rates than lower incomes. In a progressive tax system such as we have, that's completely illogical. There are more tax breaks that higher incomes can take advantage of than lower incomes can, especially middle incomes. Eliminating those tax breaks would eliminate billions from the deficit. It's not about raising taxes on the rich ... It's about having people pay their actual rates.

Originally Posted by Dutch

My concern is if you take that million bucks (or example) and give $10 to 100,000 different people, I agree that helps you get elected, but the reality is that just props up Walmart and nobody else. We really need to get away from the class-warfare deal. Just because a millionaire only gets one vote isn't a good reason to take his/her money.

I'm not advocating doing that. I'm advocating taking a million bucks and reducing the debt. Nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. Obama was advocating for debt reduction as well.

But while you say we need to get away from class-warfare, everything you just said is class-warfare. You think all poor and middle class people shop at Wal-Mart?

As for millionaires getting only one vote, the reason we have this crazy tax code with breaks all over the place is that millionaires have more political power than their one vote -- as with everything, money will get you power.

All that said, I take back what I said about Obama's "brilliant" debt strategy. He completely caved again and got a solution no one likes, just like he did with health care Unless the GOP nominates Bachman, Obama is in deep trouble. Better start working on those "Perry wants Texas to secede and hates America" attack spots if he wants to see a second term.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The common perception is that Millionaires pay little in the way of taxes. That would be false.

Warren Buffett (you know, an actual millionaire) would disagree:

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich - NYTimes.com

[Ksyrup]

Who put a gun to Buffett's head to take all of the deductions he used to get his tax burden so low? If you just deal with the loopholes and deductions, you probably wouldn't need to raise taxes at all.

[ISiddiqui]

If he didn't take the deductions, you'd be calling him an idiot . He's just saying its a bit unfair that he's allowed to do so.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Who put a gun to Buffett's head to take all of the deductions he used to get his tax burden so low? If you just deal with the loopholes and deductions, you probably wouldn't need to raise taxes at all.

'closing loopholes' versus 'raise tax rates' is somewhat just a semantics issue (assuming that you agree that the effective tax rate should ultimately increase), right?

[BrianD]

I think I am finally ready to join the bandwagon on raising taxes. I bought into the whole idea of lowering taxes to create jobs, but the effective rate has been low for a while and the jobs aren't being created. Maybe the fear of actually having to pay a real tax rate will prompt the wealthy to stop hoarding cash and put it to work.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

'closing loopholes' versus 'raise tax rates' is somewhat just a semantics issue (assuming that you agree that the effective tax rate should ultimately increase), right?

No, I think considering that politics is run almost entirely on semantics, this is actually a legit tact to take. Shouldn't it be an easier argument to the masses to suggest that billionaires should be paying closer to the stated 35-40% tax rate rather than 17%, as opposed to saying we should raise taxes on billionaires from 40% to, say, 65%? If they would both effectively accomplish the same thing, I think there's some worth in arguing it one way versus the other.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think I am finally ready to join the bandwagon on raising taxes. I bought into the whole idea of lowering taxes to create jobs, but the effective rate has been low for a while and the jobs aren't being created. Maybe the fear of actually having to pay a real tax rate will prompt the wealthy to stop hoarding cash and put it to work.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think I am finally ready to join the bandwagon on raising taxes. I bought into the whole idea of lowering taxes to create jobs, but the effective rate has been low for a while and the jobs aren't being created. Maybe the fear of actually having to pay a real tax rate will prompt the wealthy to stop hoarding cash and put it to work.

I'm not sure that 'fear' is the proper term. Let's be honest. There are a lot of very intelligent people occupying the top levels of the tax bracket. They'll just adjust accordingly. I don't think the reduction of deductions and credits is that big of a deal. What it allows is for a much more transparent picture of individuals and businesses rather than the convoluted mess that we currently have on the returns/financials. The simpler, the better from a legislative standpoint because the current idiots aren't nearly as good as removing loopholes as the business owners are at exploiting those loopholes.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure that 'fear' is the proper term. Let's be honest. There are a lot of very intelligent people occupying the top levels of the tax bracket. They'll just adjust accordingly. I don't think the reduction of deductions and credits is that big of a deal. What it allows is for a much more transparent picture of individuals and businesses rather than the convoluted mess that we currently have on the returns/financials. The simpler, the better from a legislative standpoint because the current idiots aren't nearly as good as removing loopholes as the business owners are at exploiting those loopholes.

It is like what Ksyrup said. The published tax rate for the high income bracket is already higher than the published tax rate for the middle income bracket. We could raise that even higher, but that "looks" unfair to the general public. Removing credits/deductions so the high income bracket pays closer to the published rate provides more income while not seeming so unfair.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Maybe the fear of actually having to pay a real tax rate will prompt the wealthy to stop hoarding cash and put it to work.

In other words, you want them to pick which dry hole to throw it down.

Money still moves when it perceives a reasonable opportunity (just ask Google).

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In other words, you want them to pick which dry hole to throw it down.

Money still moves when it perceives a reasonable opportunity (just ask Google).

No, not really. The big rallying cry is that taxes need to be kept low on the rich because they are the ones creating jobs. If they don't have any decent opportunities for creating jobs, then all of the credits/deductions aren't necessary. Deductions are meant to encourage specific behavior. If that behavior isn't actually being encouraged, then the deductions aren't serving their purpose and should be eliminated. I see this as the same as funneling money toward a government body that isn't producing. The deductions amount to the federal government paying private companies to create jobs. If it isn't working, stop paying.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In other words, you want them to pick which dry hole to throw it down.

Money still moves when it perceives a reasonable opportunity (just ask Google).

From Warren Buffett's oped above

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

It seems the super-rich aren't hindered from seeking out opportunities even when the tax rates are high.

[JPhillips]

There's obviously a long way to go, but who is in better shape if the first three GOP primaries go, Iowa-Bachmann, New Hampshire-Romney, South Carolina-Perry with Romney third in the other two and Perry/Bachmann taking second in the one the other wins? Would it come down to who finished second in NH or would that diminish the results of the first three primaries?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If it isn't working, stop paying.

When our dead weight starts paying their fair share, then I'll worry about what the corporations or other individuals are paying.

Until that happens, the more deductions the merrier afaic.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

When our dead weight starts paying their fair share, then I'll worry about what the corporations or other individuals are paying.

Until that happens, the more deductions the merrier afaic.

Two questions:
1) Why can't we worry about both at the same time?
2) Where is the greater potential source of income?

[JPhillips]

The greatest accomplishment of wealthy lobbyists and think tanks has been convincing so many Americans that their economic problems have been caused by poor people that have it too good.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Two questions:
1) Why can't we worry about both at the same time?
2) Where is the greater potential source of income?

1) Because one is significantly more unconscionable. We've taken far too much from the successful for far too long as it is, it's time for that to change.
2) You're arguing against your own case going down that road, the less money in the hands of the government the better afaic.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

1) Because one is significantly more unconscionable. We've taken far too much from the successful for far too long as it is, it's time for that to change.
2) You're arguing against your own case going down that road, the less money in the hands of the government the better afaic.

I agree that the dead weight needs to pay their fair share, but if the successful are only paying 15%-17%, I'd disagree that we've taken far too much from them.

While I agree that the less money in the hands of the government, the better...with our current debt, none of that extra money will go to the government. I would love to reduce future spending, but we are already on the hook for past debt.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

1) Because one is significantly more unconscionable. We've taken far too much from the successful for far too long as it is, it's time for that to change.

Warren Buffett would seem to disagree. So would job creation trends over the past thirty years.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The greatest accomplishment of wealthy lobbyists and think tanks has been convincing so many Americans that their economic problems have been caused by poor people that have it too good.

The greatest accomplishment of our public school systems is convincing so many Americans that the government taking money at gunpoint is somehow different than the King/Queen taking money at gunpoint.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

The greatest accomplishment of our public school systems is convincing so many Americans that the government taking money at gunpoint is somehow different than the King/Queen taking money at gunpoint.

Except for the whole no gun thing and the ability to vote.

[BrianD]

Speaking of the effective tax rate, someone double-check my process. If I take my total tax from the 1040 form and divide by my adjusted gross income, that gives the real effective tax rate, right? This is where Warren Buffet is coming up with the 15% number?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

The greatest accomplishment of our public school systems is convincing so many Americans that the government taking money at gunpoint is somehow different than the King/Queen taking money at gunpoint.

That's a terrific point. It's not like the major difference between the two can be explained by one of the most famous slogans in American history.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

1) Because one is significantly more unconscionable. We've taken far too much from the successful for far too long as it is, it's time for that to change.
2) You're arguing against your own case going down that road, the less money in the hands of the government the better afaic.

Big +1. Its almost laughable that everyone from both sides of the aisle seems to agree that the government is in the hands of corporations and the military but then want people to pay more in taxes and can't understand why some people would like to see huge cuts before this happens.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Except for the whole no gun thing and the ability to vote.

Love your second point. Maybe another Bush or Clinton can run for the presidency but still give us the illusion that it could be any of us!

(And explain to me what happens if I don't pay taxes. Don't men with guns come to collect or send me to prison?)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's a terrific point. It's not like the major difference between the two can be explained by one of the most famous slogans in American history.

Yawn. The turn in this last page of the thread is people who aren't in the top tax bracket want the top tax bracket to pay more. (with the obvious exception of Warren Buffet who has benefited from years of favor from the government who now is willing to be their mouthpiece to convince everyone it is fair) Maybe the dirt poor can advocate all of us pay a lot more also? I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Warren Buffett would seem to disagree. So would job creation trends over the past thirty years.

No data - job creation, percentage distribution, or anything else - outweighs the simple right/wrong of it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yawn. The turn in this last page of the thread is people who aren't in the top tax bracket want the top tax bracket to pay more. (with the obvious exception of Warren Buffet who has benefited from years of favor from the government who now is willing to be their mouthpiece to convince everyone it is fair) Maybe the dirt poor can advocate all of us pay a lot more also? I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that?

Huh? What does that have to do with anything I said? You made a pretty bizarre point that pre-revolution taxation was no different than the current system. Sorry, but that was a ridiculous comment that deserved being called out. I can't believe you posted that thinking it would get past anyone's BS detector.

And where the hell did anyone say Warren Buffet should be exempted from the higher tax rates? Who are you even arguing against? Maybe you can try arguing against what is being said instead of what you assume we meant to say because we are two party sheep?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

1) Because one is significantly more unconscionable. We've taken far too much from the successful for far too long as it is, it's time for that to change.
2) You're arguing against your own case going down that road, the less money in the hands of the government the better afaic.

While I understand the argument that everyone should have skin in the game, the fact is that there is huge wealth disparity in the country and the tax rate has to adjust to reflect that. Wealthier people get far more out of the government than poorer individuals. The system is sort of built around them.