|
|
| From | Message |
|
If the extreme right of conservatives ever get their way in the US how long do you guys think it would be before you end up with a revolution?
|
|
Softy ...
... being fair does not mean being equal. We obviously disagree on this definition. It's critically important that the middle class is protected so they can produce/buy/use/pay taxes, etc. The rich will become rich if they protect the middle class. Tax rates that are fair ARE NOT equal; and, the wealthy must pay more. Bush temporarily lowered these rates ... and this 'lowering' must be allowed to expire for those earning high dollars. There is no magic number ... it can fluctuate depending upon economic conditions and productivity. The rich have flexibility in paying taxes, the middle class does not.
|
dmaestro 15-Nov-12, 06:27
|
Exactly. Overtaxing the rich does not produce prosperity, but neither does under taxing them as the extremist conservatives here claim. It is a simple metric. The middle class did good under the Clinton tax rates. The middle class did terribly under the Bush tax cuts. The cuts DID NOT produce all those jobs as claimed. We adjust the taxes on the rich until there is actual middle class growth like their used to be. That is how we tell we have the right tax structure. You don't have to be a Nobel Prize winning economist to understand that.
|
|
change, dm, chaz
Thank you for the expected non-answers. Ok... so the answer to how much the successful must give to the unsuccessful will be determined by a simple metric of making sure the middle class has jobs. It is a fact that this administration has done a pretty lousy job of that and things are getting worse... much worse. I'll start a new thread about that.
|
dmaestro 15-Nov-12, 08:14
|
The middle class lost 41% of its wealth due to the bush recession before Obama could do anything. The upper tier lost merely 6% and faced a quick recovery. Yet the 1% pay lower tax rates? And despite doing well they are not investing as they should in middle class jobs. Tax rates on the rich need adjustment.
|
|
... your perspective is bound to be negative and anti-administration no matter how many good signs there are ... no matter what progress is being made ... no matter how much reconstruction from the Bush avalanche. It seems difficult for you ever to see the good side of things.
|
|
chaz
That's funny... What progress do you speak of? Is it the jobs reports? Is it the higher consumer prices? Is it higher energy costs? Is it the tanking stock market? Is it the national debt problem? Is it the looming fiscal cliff? No, it must be the foreign relations area... Libya, Egypt, Israel, Gaza, Syria, and Iran are all looking so good. It must be the Al Caeda problem going away. Or, it must be the new rapport with Russia & China in helping us with Iran. Could you please tell me which of these are your "progress" areas. Or, maybe you have others? What would they be?
|
|
Softy ...
... we have enumerated the list many times ... you know that ... it's just that among the many good things accomplished, you simply never find much if anything to find good. Corporate profits are up, stock market has doubled since '09, we finally have universal health care, we've gotten out of Iraq (soon Afghanistan too), we've avoided military confrontations, on and on; but, you degrade these over and over. You just define success a different way I guess; and, you're loyal only to one agenda even though it is no longer what the majority of Americans want.
|
|
Thanks for an answer this time. I don't have time to tell you how wrong you are but it was an answer that addressed the question and I thank you for that.
|
|
Softy ...
... thank you for not being combative. Sometimes right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|