Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the past decade, we have doubled down on this theory of supply-side economics with the tax cuts sponsored by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, which President Obama has agreed to continue for two years.
You would think that whether this grand experiment worked would be settled after three decades. You would think the practitioners of the dismal science of economics would look at their demand curves and the data on incomes and taxes and pronounce a verdict, the way Galileo and Copernicus did when they showed that geocentrism was a fantasy because Earth revolves around the sun (known as heliocentrism). But economics is not like that. It is not like physics with its laws and arithmetic with its absolute values.
The top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million, the data show.
They also don't want you to know that the ultra rich (the real elite aka the Warren Buffets, Carlos Slims, and Bill Gates of the world, not the peon that is worth less than one million) that live in this country lobby Congress to write laws with loopholes that allow them to escape all the taxes that they "want to pay". So Buffet can say I want to pay an even higher tax rate but he and his buddies secretly lobby Congress to write the law in such a way that they can escape the 70%+ tax rate liberals call for for them.
Buffet can pay lip service to liberals all he wants about his paltry salary (next to his total wealth) being taxed through the roof. The taxes would only be a little tiny burden on him while the vast majority of his wealth escapes untaxed
The top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million, the data show.
So.
Like so many on the left you obviously view wealth as a zero sum equation: for one to have more means other(s) must do with less. Were this the case economies would be incapable of growing! You and yours, i.e. the dems, would do better in life to get on with improving your own lot. Envy, be it class or wealth envy won't get you anywhere. Of course it is a great way to buy votes from the lazy.
...as opposed to your brilliant and informative response???? Sad when people hit the bottle so early in the day...well, I supppose since it's a holiday and all that...
That's all you managed to glean from that entire article??? Shame that the right has been conditioned to condense everything down to talking point size thinking and debating. Quite an affliction and a major telltale sign of the dumbing down of America.
...as opposed to your brilliant and informative response???? Sad when people hit the bottle so early in the day...well, I supppose since it's a holiday and all that...
No just coffee right now.. beer at the BBQ after the parade later, But I have had several cups.
I employee 7 people right now who could not find a job to save their lives if I fired them.
My wealth is directly proportional to the amount of jobs and TAX income I create in this great country of ours.
I feel no remorse or guilt in using my talents and skills. I am compensated for being successful and will gladly enjoy the fruits of my labor.
For the past decade, we have doubled down on this theory of supply-side economics with the tax cuts sponsored by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, which President Obama has agreed to continue for two years.
You would think that whether this grand experiment worked would be settled after three decades. You would think the practitioners of the dismal science of economics would look at their demand curves and the data on incomes and taxes and pronounce a verdict, the way Galileo and Copernicus did when they showed that geocentrism was a fantasy because Earth revolves around the sun (known as heliocentrism). But economics is not like that. It is not like physics with its laws and arithmetic with its absolute values.
The top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million, the data show.
The article complains about social security taxes putting a great burden on the poor. So you would be in favor of getting rid of social security?
After all, isn't reducing taxes on the poor (like doing away with the social security tax-- and social security) one way to improve their quality of life?
(You see-- this is why this article is stupid. The taxes the poor pay directly benefit them, they will be receiving 3x what they put into social security when they retire.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm in the 95-99 percent club!!!! 
