Expecting the millionaires and billionaires to pay a fair share? and to pay less than a bus driver? How un-American... :Whistle
Oh and if you really want to be educated rather than posting crap the left puts out for you, how about these facts. In the 86 Tax Act the Reagan administration LOWERED the top tax bracket from 35% - 28%. This was right after this speech you and Obama are spinning. Sure he went after closing loopholes as we all want but what you adn Obama are lying about is that Reagan believed in LOWERING taxes for the highest income bracket!
Obama is trying to paint himself as the new Reagan now? Is he prepping for a skit on SNL? Do he and the "progressives" really think they can rewrite history simply by misusing the word "loophole" until intentional changes to the tax code are the equal of those that were unintentional? Does Obama really believe he can convince anyone with an IQ above that of a fence post into believing that he and Reagan are talking about the same thing?
Did anyone else catch the bit about the bus driver being taxed at 10% of his income? Who pays 10% of their income in this day and age - certainly not the middle class bus driver any longer. Why does the most obvious course of action not occur to the Statists? Isn't the most obvious answer to the current dilemma to lower the taxes of the middle class back to the 10% that the bus driver was paying when Reagan was president? Well, 10% in addition to the 7.8% or so they are taxed to supply the social welfare Ponzi's with another generation of involuntary investors so that their money can pay back the earlier investors for the money they sunk into it when they were working.
PrintSmith wrote: Does Obama really believe he can convince anyone with an IQ above that of a fence post into believing that he and Reagan are talking about the same thing?
I believe he thinks that most citizens do not have an IQ above that if a fence post. That
is what an elite liberal education does to you.
Obama gets snubbed by his own protesters! I am starting to like these rebels! I think I read earlier somewhere they told Charlie Rangel to stuff it too, saying "he is part of the problem"
Maybe these rebels aren't so dumb after all. LOL
Obama said he understood the public's concerns about how the nation's financial system works and said Americans see Wall Street as an example of the financial industry not always following the rules.....Among some protesters, reaction to Obama's acknowledgment was less than enthusiastic.
"His message is that he's sticking to the party line, which is, `We are taking care of the situation.' But he's not proposing any solutions...
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.
CinnamonGirl wrote: There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.
Krugman is so predictable and completely omits one of the original problems of politicians pushing the idea of giving easy loans to those who are not financially capable of paying them off in the long run. The banks made easy loans like giving away candy and we all ate em up. Then when it all came crashing down, they got bailed out without many strings attached (who's fault was that?). So when we now try to get a loan and can't because of sub par credit, the banks are suppose to keep lending? I don't see an answer to the protestors grievances and haven't seen an answer from anyone else other than to trash capitalism and move more toward a European style economy. How's that working out for them now?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
The reason the banks got bailed out had a lot to do with the implicit guarantees made by the federal government through their sponsorship of Fannie and Freddie. When you tell someone that you will guarantee their capital investment regardless of how foolishly they risk it, especially when it is the person guaranteeing your capital who is asking you to take the foolish risk, what you are going to get is someone who will take you up on that offer. You'll replace my money if I lose it walking up to that roulette table and betting the whole thing on that little ball falling in the 17 slot? No problem boss, consider it done.
I think I read earlier somewhere they told Charlie Rangel to stuff it too, saying "he is part of the problem"
