Having the majority on your side doesn't make your argument true: that's a basic fallacy.

__________________

I am all too painfully aware of that, having been subjected to the last 8 years of the conservative rule, featuring an unending war, record increase in spending and National debt, and a meltdown of our economy. The majority supported that madness until they saw the result of their folly.

Now through Democracy, like it or not, the system is self correcting.

Oh happy days are here again!

I lived through Ford, and Carter, and Reagan, and Bush, Clinton, and Bush.

You can argue the "purest" point all you want, but you are the only one discussing it.

We are looking at the results of what 3 out of the last 4 Presidents have practiced. Reagan started this with his "version" of trickle down economics. The small step taken toward full trickle down economics started the dwindling spiral we now call the National Debt. 11.5 trillion and counting. Brought to you in large part by the Republican Party and the push TOWARD trickle down economics.

If it really works, then even moving toward the pure system would have been positive. The numbers just don't show it.

I say, lower taxes for the middle class, which will eventually push up demand, and see how that does for the economy.

Because I know for a fact, as a middle class citizen, I watch every penny and spend less under the current system. My demand is down.

__________________
"And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Thomas Hobbes

The middle class (40% - 60% of the income bracket) pay less than 5% of the total income tax burdon. Tax cuts should go to those that PAY taxes. I am sure spending had a lot more to do with the ND than tax cuts.

__________________
Your rights are not dependant upon whether or not the State can raise enough tax revenue to fund them.

If millionaires in Washington want insurance to be available to everyone, regardless of preconditions, and for the cost to be low, they should pool their resources and start their own insurance company and provide just that.

"We're not going to have others carrying the burdon for you." President Obama

Here's another opinion on why the wealthy should pay more:

"First, there’s the fairly obvious argument. If you are a millionaire (or better), your money probably came from a lot of hard working people who work for you, either directly or indirectly. While you are not personally responsible for their economic salvation, you are entirely responsible for having provided goods and/or services at the highest price the market would bear. While you should be congratulated for your savvy business acumen, you also need to help the government pay for all the social programs necessary to keep these people out of utter poverty. After all, it IS kind of your fault. Not only did they pay for the goods, but they also paid a little extra so that you could make a profit. So, not only do you need to pay taxes, you also need to pay a little extra so that they can buy their next meal.

Second, there’s the other fairly obvious argument. Most people agree that poor people should pay less in taxes. Whenever you have a “less” in economics, you need to have a “more.” So, if poor people should pay less, then rich people should pay more. You can’t both pay less than the other.

Third, there’s the other, other fairly obvious argument. Wealthier people use a greater abundance of our national infrastructure, have a larger environmental impact, and use a much larger part of the common wealth. Your companies own millions of huge trucks that cause more wear and tear on our bridges and roads. You can’t be trusted to clean up after yourself, so it’s the EPA that spends $15 billion dollars on Superfund Clean-Up Sites. The portion of the Federal government dedicated to dealing with social welfare programs is a drop in the bucket compared to the portion dedicated to commerce, trade, industry, exchange markets, and other fingers of capitalism. So if the bulk of the government is dedicated to protecting and promoting capitalism, then perhaps the people who benefit from this work the most ought to be the ones who pay a proportionately higher tax.

Fourth, there’s the other, other, other fairly obvious argument. If 10% of you own 70% of the (*)(*)(*)(*) in this nation, then the military is protecting a lot more of your (*)(*)(*)(*) than mine. Fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here? Great idea, but it’s YOUR (*)(*)(*)(*) over here that our men and women are dying to protect. Look, my insurance company (or rather, your insurance company) makes me pay a higher premium if I own more (*)(*)(*)(*), right? Good. Let’s apply your corporate insurance philosophy to YOUR (*)(*)(*)(*). Ah, yes. It still holds true. The more (*)(*)(*)(*) you have to protect, the more you should have to pay to protect it. I’ve been waiting six long years to say this: freedom isn’t free, rich people! There, that felt good.

Fifth, there’s the other, other, other, other fairly obvious argument. The Bush Administration spent the better part of eight years peeling grapes for the wealthy and repealing policies that made it hard to be so very, very rich. Those enormous tax cuts? We need them back, ASAP. Let’s start with an initial loan of about $700 billion. Turns out that welfare for the rich costs a hell of a lot more than welfare for the poor. It’s the wealthy people who got us into this mess, and since y’all control 70% of the wealth in this nation, then maybe you could help replenish the national cookie jar for a little while. I’m not sure if you noticed, but it’s starting to get a little empty."
http://joshanderson.wordpress.com/20...-higher-taxes/

It has nothing to do with over taxing the poor 45% of Obamas 95% pay no tax at all then their are those that pay a small portion and still receive a refund. Obama wants to send checks to people that do not work and will not work this is BS..

Wealth inequality in the United States

"Wealth inequality in the United States refers to the unequal distribution of financial assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, businesses, savings, and investments [1]. Those who acquire a great deal of financial wealth do so primarily through the appreciation of fiscal portfolios. For this reason, financial wealth involves only stocks and mutual funds, and other investments and is subject to much greater inequality than net worth alone. Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_..._United_States

"The richest 1% of wealth holders had 125 times the wealth of the typical household in 1962; by 2004 they had 190 times as much or $14.8 million in wealth for the upper 1% compared to just $82,000 for the household in the middle fifth of wealth."
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfe...shots_20060823

You're way of thinking about economics isn't right, first of all. The easiest way to explain it is that you are using the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Economics is an infinitely complex field of study, with thousands of variables. To change one with no way of keeping the others constant proves nothing about the effect of changing that one variable. To take this example, the Republican economic policy. This goes even beyond what I just explained, as changing an entire economic policy changes many variables, not just one, and that is in addition to not having any of the others held constant. Add into this the fact that economic growth is periodic (business cycle), the fact that its infinite complexity invalidates any linear or non-sign altering derivates (I don't quite know how to say that in non-math speak) predictions one could come up with, and you have absolutely no claim at all.

That's what Bush did, that's what McCain would do, that's what Obama would do, and that's what makes sense from an economic standpoint. Lowering taxes for anyone makes sense economically, so long as you can run the fundamental services of the government.

__________________

Yes it works.

If it didnt, nobody would be sitting here on a computer making more money then anybody in world history.

But please, keep saying it doesnt work.

OK, here are the Historical Income tables from the US Census Bureau.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h05.html

Check out the numbers in relation to the 4 year terms of each of the last 5 Presidents.

Even JIMMY CARTER did a better job at putting wealth in the hands of the people than the Republicans.


Here's a link to the Historical Tax Tables of the US Budget. The White House supplies this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...5/pdf/hist.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 26.

Check out the Receipts, Outlays, and Surplus/Deficit data in relation to the 4 year terms of each of the last 5 Presidents.

I gotta' laugh, but again, even JIMMY CARTER was more fiscally responsible than the Republicans. Clinton's tenure was WAY more fiscally responsible than the Republicans.

Let's try arguing the results instead of the theory for a change...

__________________
"And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Thomas Hobbes