That bs Jon. He's rasing taxes on virtually everyone. There are other taxes besides income. And besides it's not just his call. He works for Congress too. An aide to Rahm Emanuel told a friend of mine that the Dems will shoot for a 28% cap gains and make it retroactive for 2009. That'll be a tax hike for a hell of lot more people than the "top 5%".
You bring up a good point. It's probably impossible to know what the founding fathers actually believed. Im going to do some research on it now that your bring it up. A few quick google searches brought up some very left sounding, and then some very right wing sounding websites. I'll post what I find. But my main point was that in this country, its the predominant belief. Off topic: I do think its funny how some people claim Jesus to be simply "a profit". He claimed he WAS God. If you don't believe that he was, then it seems you have to believe he was pretty much insane. One or the other, but just a profit? I don't see it.
It's not that black and white. He's raising income tax for the top 5%, lowering taxes for the bottom 95%, raising capital gains tax, lowering estate taxes....I would say its safe to say he's raising and lowering them haha. However my point is that he's not starting some class warfare. Income tax wise, its not class warfare unless you consider 95% of us 1 class and the other 5% another class. Capital gains wise, I THINK he's raising them for everybody (with the exception of small biz) so that obviously isnt class warfare either.
Honestly Pabst, and I mean this genuinely not sarcastically, did you think the war was going to be free?
40% of wage earners ALREADY have no Federal tax liability. Fewer and fewer people pay for the Federal government yet more and more people have a stake in the Federal government. It's a danger going forward. Income searching capital knows no border. As much of the industrialized world is moving to smaller Central governments: Conservatives are winning seats in Canada, U.K., France, Germany-we're still moving left. On top of it we have a shitty demographic. Subsidizing a student in Minnesota has a payoff, subsidizing 3 Mexican kids in L.A. only so they can drop out and join a gang is NOT what's going to allow us to compete going forward. Our cities are broke and Washington no matter WHO is in charge keeps sucking resources into it's black hole. My ardent opposition to Obama is based primarily on one reason. I'm a Chicagoan. If the insanely inadequate, inefficient Obama/Daley/Dem model of Chicago and Illinois is soon to be the Federal model we're in deep shit. Do we need change? Fuck yea. Sometimes change for the sake of change isn't the best bet though. Ask the stupid index traders on ET who just mindlessly get chopped out of business by flipping long, flipping short off of price action. The right trade is the conservative trade. Bush just happened to be the wrong conservative stock to own.
I opposed the war. I'm an isolationist. I oppose troops in Afghanistan as well. You don't. Neither does your candidate. And some day in the near future Pakistan is going to say "fuck you America" and we'll be in a REAL dandy where we're losing more troops in a bad week than we lost in 5 years of Iraq. How I'm different from Democrats is I opposed it before it started but supported it after it started.
Everybody has a stake in the Federal Government. The fact that 40% have no federal tax liability is partially because the Republicans have allowed massive income disparity. You're wrong there. First off the conservatives in Canada are a minority government, secondly they are about as left as the Democrats are in the US. You don't seriously think that the US is moving left of Canada, the UK and France. How about a subsidizing a Mexican kid who winds up running for the Republican nomination for president? Most cities are not actually broke. I'm sorry, but in my opinion the Republicans have nothing to do with conservatism.