How can it be bull shit when economists, Republican and Democrat, agree that increased revenues will have to be a part of any debt reduction deal? It's not like he is saying something new and revolutionary. It's the same argument that have been made by both Democratic and Republican President's for the past hundred years when the country was at war or in the throws of a dire financial crisis. The Republicans want to make out like Obama is this foreigner who is doing things that government has never done before and it's just a lie.
I'm not arguing that he is a bad guy at all. I'm not mad at him for making money; we're capitalists and it is what we do. I am angry because he is a greedy bastard who isn't even willing to pay an additiona point or two in taxes to help the financial stability of the country that he claims to love. People were making money at an incredible clip during the Clinton years when the top marginal tax rate was 4% higher than it is now and the capital gains taxes were 25% instead of 15%.
I'm not talking about revenue so just stop with the deflection. You are not even complaining about revenue. You are complaining about the % of taxes paid by these "rich people". You should be more clear. You are unhappy with their % and want them to burden more. There is nothing similar to our economy of that of Clinton's. Stupid argument. Clinton had double our growth when he ENACTED the tax increase.
actually he did not enact tax increases when the economy was growing at a rapid pace. the economy didn't start growing well until late '95 and early '96, a year and a half after he passed the tax increases. you telling me to stop with the deflection is like the pot calling the kettle black. you are the one who brought up "fair share." and yes, I AM complaining about the % that the wealthiest pay.
When did fair share ever mean revenue? If we are talking total revenue, 50% of the country yields next to nothing.
That's one way to look at it, as is looking at your view as having blinders on or being close minded, not being able to look beyond what liberal media tells you.....I give most a few hall passes and try to read between the grey area's to determine some form of the truth, however, I think in Obama's case there is to much smoke....gotta be fire. Again, another way to look at is just wait till his second term, if he gets elected, and then I'll really cut the U.S. defenses......and we could literally end up “burnt toast” They did just jail the Pussy Riot, pretty cold......so you trust the Russians or just perceive them as a a non-threat, I perceive them as a non-threat and I'd prefer keeping them that way. Did I call someone a Nazi? I think providing Gov't healthcare is "****ing insane"! It's bigger gov't, less private sector a tax despite what anyone thinks and closer to communism than I'd prefer to get. Let me choose the healthcare I'd like to receive, not my Gov't. It's my freedom and if I want to own an uzzi (spelling? Tig?) that's my right too. =self righteous judging, "I think" as in my opinion, I own them, mine, noone else......
what exactly is the liberal media? cut defense spending, thats something all house republicans agreed to do, yet you only blame him? and how is providing health care closer to communism. They require you to have car insurance, etc... Is that communism as well? you can own an uzzi, who is stopping you from owning one. maybe he is right when he speaks of your paranoia.
what do you think he means by fair share? of course it means more revenue. 50% of the country yields nothing because of the Bush Tax Cuts. You cannot defend those tax cuts and complain that 50% of the country pays nothing at the same time because the two are directly related.
