So 27,000,000 a year is the very very very rich in your estimation, Bob, and you feel that if these handful of people were to pay more in taxes it would make a huge difference in the economy?
Ah, Mike, while I agree that these folks are a handful of people in terms of their number, you have only asked about whop they are and how much they make per year to get into the club. You are begging the question, and suggesting that those folks at the bottom of the heap are all there is to this club and that there is no more significance beyond that. In order for you to establish there is no significance beyond that, you would have to establish how very small a proportion of this country and other properties this small fraction of the population of the country own or control, even though some of that inbformation was included in the citation I included in my response to you.
If you are going to play fairly with those who may be paying attention to our discussion, it would be a good idea to supply that information so the rest of those who are paying attention will know that I actually did supply it to you. That would be fair, I believe.
Those very few people own a very lange part of our economy, and are getting tax breaks and rebates paid for by the rest of us for doing so in many cases. Certainly in the case of the corporate citizens. BP paid no taxes and got a really great tax rebate. So did Fox's NewsCorp, among our corporate citizens. I'd really like to see some of them pay taxes, by the way, at an appropriate level, like at the level that a middle class citizen pays.
But for those guys who earn minimum of 27,000,000 per year, I'd like to see them pay as well. Because that level is just to get in the front door, and it goes up from there.
Bob, we don't have a tax-receiving problem. We have a spending problem. We have a kid in a candy store sitting in the WHite House.
Spending bills originate in the house of representitives, Mike, not in the White House. The White house can spend less than appropriated, not more. That's the way the constitution set it up, that's the way it runs.
The kid in the candy store has an allowance set by the House.
No matter how many times you say otherwise, thems still the facts, and doubly so with a Republican House. Even without a Republican house, for the previous term, the Republicans did everything they could to bring everything to a coimplerte and utter standstill there, and took pride in doing an excellent job in doing so.
One must wonder, then, how you feel about Kerry trying to get around the tax laws to avoid paying his fair share...or how you feel about Gore, doing the same thing - or how you feel about Holder and Rangel, trying to avoid paying taxes altogether, until they got caught. You don't need to look for the 27 mil a year folks to bring more money into the economy. Tell your fellow democrats to do their share instead of doing what they can to get out of it.
I'm sorry, Mike, was there someplace in my presentation where I said that I only wanted to make Republicans who made more than 27,000,000 dollars a year pay their fair share? I must have missed that part. Would you point that out for me or appologise for suggesting that I said something that stupidly partisan, please? I have nothing against wealthy people. I object to people who descry redistribution of wealth to keep other people alive and healthy without materially damaging their own level of comfort and safety. When some sort of religious justification is added into this, I tend to get not only upset but nauseated as well.
In those circumstances, it seems to me that they have no actual objection to redistribution, but that their actual objection is that the redirtribution not be specifically to themselves. That strikes me as hypocritical.