On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:22:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Jul 16, 6:34*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:33:21 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:13:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


the bush tax cuts would remain for people earning less than 250K

the rich, who destroyed the economy, would start to pay their fair
missing

Someone making 250K is not rich, had nothing to do with the economy
issues, and is already paying more in taxes than others who earn less.

someone's gotta pay. making the victims pay, like the right wing wants
to do, is hardly the way to go.

and the right hasn't figured out that the middle class drives the
economy. not the rich

On Jul 16, 6:33*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:22:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Jul 16, 6:34*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:33:21 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:13:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

the bush tax cuts would remain for people earning less than 250K

the rich, who destroyed the economy, would start to pay their fair
missing

Someone making 250K is not rich, had nothing to do with the economy
issues, and is already paying more in taxes than others who earn less.

someone's gotta pay. making the victims pay, like the right wing wants
to do, is hardly the way to go.

The person I described is a victim as well. And, they are already
paying more.

It's the ultra-wealthy you are wanting to target. Income tax rates
isn't going to touch them, but that doesn't fit in your rant.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:46:30 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Jul 16, 6:33*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:22:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Jul 16, 6:34*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:33:21 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:13:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

the bush tax cuts would remain for people earning less than 250K

the rich, who destroyed the economy, would start to pay their fair
missing

Someone making 250K is not rich, had nothing to do with the economy
issues, and is already paying more in taxes than others who earn less.

someone's gotta pay. making the victims pay, like the right wing wants
to do, is hardly the way to go.

The person I described is a victim as well. And, they are already
paying more.

actually they're not paying more. the US federal tax code is VERY
SLIGHTLY progressive. and they're certainly not a victim like someone
making the median income in this country of 60K


It's the ultra-wealthy you are wanting to target. Income tax rates
isn't going to touch them, but that doesn't fit in your rant.

again, someone has to pay. the middle class is tapped out. we need to
double capital gains. but the GOP wont let that happen...and that DOES
fit into your rant

On Jul 16, 9:24*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:46:30 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:





On Jul 16, 6:33*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:22:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Jul 16, 6:34*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:33:21 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:13:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

the bush tax cuts would remain for people earning less than 250K

the rich, who destroyed the economy, would start to pay their fair
missing

Someone making 250K is not rich, had nothing to do with the economy
issues, and is already paying more in taxes than others who earn less..

someone's gotta pay. making the victims pay, like the right wing wants
to do, is hardly the way to go.

The person I described is a victim as well. *And, they are already
paying more.

actually they're not paying more. the US federal tax code is VERY
SLIGHTLY progressive.

Actually they are. A 35% swing isn't "slightly", no matter how you
spin it.

*and they're certainly not a victim like someone
making the median income in this country of 60K

They were victimized proportionally the same amount. Actually,
someone with more investments lost even more, so the less you made the
less you lost.


It's the ultra-wealthy you are wanting to target. *Income tax rates
isn't going to touch them, but that doesn't fit in your rant.

again, someone has to pay.

Therein lies your liberal problem... it's tax, tax, spend, spend...
whatever it takes to buy the votes. Someone else always has to pay.

*the middle class is tapped out. we need to
double capital gains. but the GOP wont let that happen...and that DOES
fit into your rant

For the last four years the house and senate have been under
demoncratic control... but no capital gains change has happened. Look
like the limo libs don't want it either. Else, they could have done
it at any time. Tacked it on to the health care bill, right?

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jul 16, 6:33 pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:22:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Jul 16, 6:34 am, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:33:21 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:13:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

the bush tax cuts would remain for people earning less than 250K

the rich, who destroyed the economy, would start to pay their fair
missing

Someone making 250K is not rich, had nothing to do with the economy
issues, and is already paying more in taxes than others who earn less.

someone's gotta pay. making the victims pay, like the right wing wants
to do, is hardly the way to go.

The person I described is a victim as well. And, they are already
paying more.

It's the ultra-wealthy you are wanting to target. Income tax rates
isn't going to touch them, but that doesn't fit in your rant.

Why not just tax the poor. They seem pretty good for it... according to the
nuts anyway.