American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415523]Esten,

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple.

Everyone should pay taxes at the same uniform rate to support a government that provides services that uniformly benefit everyone, aka "the common good".

It is not government's job to confiscate individual wealth and redistribute it among it's citizens.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]So it's OK for government to "forcibly" take money from citizens under a flat tax rate system and then it would be kosher for it to spend revenues for the "common good", as the government defines it, and anything else is thievery!

Not to put too fine a point on it, when a person chooses to live in a country, they also agree to live by its rules, or risk becoming a criminal. If the rules include progressive income tax systems, the person can voluntarily pay them or leave the country and live elsewhere! It is their choice and to use the word "forcibly" is just juvenile!

And what pray tell are services "that uniformly benefit everyone"! If a bridge is built in Alaska with Federal funds that serves a small community, rather than a high-speed rail systems in Florida that would serve numerous large communities, where is the "uniformity"?

What if the government's duly-elected officials, interpreting the wishes of the voters who chose them, (and the corporate interests who pay for their elections) redistribute the evenly collected taxes with corporate welfare schemes such as subsidies for specific private sector activities? Is that OK to create jobs?

Aren't all the people who paid their taxes but oppose the subsidy schemes being "forcibly" made to pay for them?

Alternatively, what if the government's duly-elected officials, interpreting the wishes of the voters who chose them, (and sublimating the corporate interests who pay for their elections) use the revenues for the purpose of addressing social welfare needs? Would your hair catch on fire Senor Jackson as you are "forcibly" being made to be almost a human being?

Those are rhetorical questions. As contrasted with an empirical statement.

Jackson, you are a fucking (or maybe not so much as you age) idiot!

Get it?

The most recent analysis of the independent Public Policy Polling firm citing its recent polls finds that based on his current public standing in key electoral states, in 2012 President Obama would easily defeat any of the four current Republican front runners (Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich or Palin)"almost certainly" winning "the same number of electoral votes he did in 2008, if not more."

They found: "Across 36 horse race match ups in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Iowa, Nevada, and Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District Obama is 36 for 36."

But, guys. Look on the bright side. You will have four more years to rant and send out your irrelevant and irrational blather for each others' delusional reinforcement!

[QUOTE=Moveon;415526]Wallyeye, it's good to know that you have finally emerged from your underground bunker![/quote]Got to be prepared for the end of the World. Global warming will kill us all!

[quote=]I know you must have been previously embarrassed with your babbling of Glenn Beck, the Constitution, and your complete disconnect between the so called DEATH PANELS and Avastin but that's ok.[/quote]I didn't opine on Beck, I'll gladly stack my factual knowledge of the Constitution against what you think it means any day, I think that BHO's FDA blocking the use of a potential life-saving drug on the basis of cost is about as on-point as any example could be, of what is to come.

[quote=]However, it's surprising that you have such a spirited ring-wing American Militia Movement view of the world[/quote]Actually, my mind set is fairly far from any militia movement, of which I am aware (other than the original militias that participated in the Revolution). My faith in and defense of country are based upon belief in the principles upon which the country was founded, as memorialized in the founding documents (Declaration, Constitution, BoRs). What is surprising is that you view those principles as so deplorable.

I synthesize my objective view of the world through the prism of America's best interests, in terms of national security, sovereignty, and economic well being. For example, I believe that BHO should not have jumped on the band wagon to depose Mubarak, I am not certain that toppling the regime is in the best interests of the US. While it would be nice for the people of Egypt to experience Jeffersonian freedom, such as we have here, I do not give their concerns the same priorities as I do US national security and economic interests. Not to mention the fact that these were anti-government protests not necessarily pro-democracy demonstrations. Having Egypt, its 80+ million inhabitants and the Suez Canal under the control of an Islamic theocracy is less appealing than a continuation of the Mubarak regime. Thanks to Obama's ignorance, he helped bring about a military coup, which may very well have been set up by Mubarak in advance.

[quote=]since apparently you weren't born in the US.[/quote]Born and raised in the brier patch my friend.

[quote=]I would not be surprised if you are actually some deposed Latin American dictator hiding deep in the outskirts of Cordoba with your Nazi drinking buddies. [/quote]

There you go again.

Can't argue on the merits of your position, call the other side names. Liberals are particularly fond of calling the opposition Nazis.

[quote=]Speaking of which, you may want to put down that bottle a bit.[/quote]Why? I enjoy a little nip every now and then.

[quote=]I sure hope you don't beat your wife at night or kick your dog.[/quote]Once again, you are mistaken. I am a conservative so I must hate old people.

[quote=]Maybe take an anger management course?[/quote]Please give me some examples of statements that I have made that show a disposition to anger.

[quote=]How about therapy? [/quote]I go as often as possible, mainly massage therapy, I prefer a happy ending.

[quote=]Anyway, it's all good fun plus I admit: It's nice to barge into this Republican frat party from time to time.[/quote]If I got my figurative ass handed to me as often as you do, I'd have a hard time calling it fun.

[quote]Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me why we need to spend $120 billion on the replacement of the F18 fighter jet?[/quote]The technology and design of the original airframe are circa 1978. How old do you think the base technology of our primary strike force aircraft should be?

[quote=]I know we have been experiencing some major dog fight's with the Taliban lately but perhaps you can straighten me out on this one.[/QUOTE]Of course we all know that the only threats we will see in the future will be: home-grown, right-wing terrorists, Bedouins and Candian tourists. Therefore, we should ignore the basic infrastructure of the military which has kept all war theaters (excluding the war against Islamic fundamentalists) from our shores. Eventually, the Kamikaze (or divine winds) failed to protect Japan from foreign invaders (think August 1945) , should we just drop our pants and hope that El Nino will keep us safe?

[QUOTE=Esten; 415514]What you and Jackson always seem to forget is that there aren't enough jobs for everybody. Today there are 5 applicants for every job. In your world it seems if the unemployed would just stop being lazy and go find a job, they would find one. And if it didn't pay well to begin with, they could work their way up.

Well the market doesn't work that way. The market always excludes a certain percentage of the population from making a decent wage (enough to avoid poverty). No matter how hard they strive. [/QUOTE]It's not the market that excludes the majority of the unemployed in developed countries from making a decent wage through work. It's bad government. For example, in some European countries, people do better by going on the dole than by working, so that's what they do. A welfare system should be designed so that there are no disincentives to work. Another example, the government's promotion of home ownership in the USA, through the mortgage interest deduction, artificially low interest rates and federally-backed mortgages makes people less mobile and less likely to go where the jobs are. High taxes on business, overregulation, and giving too much power to unions are other important areas controlled by government that increase unemployment.

[QUOTE=Esten;415514]I'll also give you an economic argument for these programs (vs. just a moral / value based one). The money from these programs pretty much always gets spent and goes right back into the economy. The same cannot be said for tax breaks for the rich, who do not spend (or create jobs) with all or necessarily even most of their money. This is just another conservative fallacy.[/QUOTE]By definition, if the rich aren't spending the money, it's going into investment and savings. This is one of the biggest problems facing the USA. While we have close to the highest standard of living in the world, we spend like crazy people. We're dependent on the Chinese and others, who make a small fraction of what we make on a per capita basis, to fund our savings and investment. There are some very smart people (e. G. Paul Krugman) who make the same argument as you do, which is essentially that we should starve the economy of private savings. I think you (plural) are grasping at straws to promote redistributionist arguments and big government. Right, in the short term spending on consumption instead of investment will help the economy. In the long term it's a recipe for disaster.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415523]I know that this is difficult for you to understand, but here it is: The money that "the rich" have is not your money that inadvertently happens to be in their pocket, it's [u]their[/u] Money to spend or not spend as they choose, just as the money that you have in your pocket is your money to spend or not spend as you choose.

Anyone who believes that they have a right to forcibly take someone else's money to serve their own purposes is a THIEF, plain and simple. It is irrelevant whether or not the thieves are operating as individuals, or as an organized gang, or whether they can numerically outnumber (read "outvote") their targets.

Everyone should pay taxes at the same uniform rate to support a government that provides services that uniformly benefit everyone, aka "the common good".

It is not government's job to confiscate individual wealth and redistribute it among it's citizens. [/QUOTE]Jackson,

What you said is ideological and untrue.

Income is [u]not[/u] entirely one's own to spend as one sees fit. It is subject to taxation. Taxation and spending are determined by the government, which in turn is determined by the people. Each citizen gets one vote. If you object to this democratic and constitutionally based system, that's too bad.

You are perfectly free to go out and try to convince people of your views on taxation and spending. If your ideas have enough merit, perhaps they will catch on.

Without significant exemptions, the Flat Tax is just another scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, contributing to the further deterioration of America from conservative ideology. My guess is most people would say "no thanks". People should pay according to their ability to pay.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415552]Jackson,

What you said is ideological and untrue.

Income is [u]not[/u] Entirely one's own to spend as one sees fit. [/quote]Not true. When the country was founded, Jackson's statement was absolutely true. The federal government was funded via sin taxes, internal taxes and tariffs. The Bill of Rights clearly outlines, within the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, protections from the government seizing private property.

[quote=]It is subject to taxation.[/quote]The income tax did not come into being until 1862 and the financial burden of the Civil War. The Death Tax followed in 1866. From 1817 through 1862, the federal government was funded almost entirely via tariffs on imported goods.

It clear that the Framers never envisioned the government seizing between one third and ninety percent of a citizen's annual earnings for the purposes of supporting a bloated bureaucracy and redistribution to non-earners.

[quote=]Taxation and spending are determined by the government, which in turn is determined by the people.[/quote]Technically true.

[quote=]Each citizen gets one vote.[/quote]Unless the candidate happens to be a Democrat.

[quote=]If you object to this democratic and constitutionally based system, that's too bad.[/quote]Wow, big defender of the Constitution. I bet typing that gave you a rash, even though you don't really believe in it.

[quote=]You are perfectly free to go out and try to convince people of your views on taxation and spending. If your ideas have enough merit, perhaps they will catch on.[/quote]Great idea. I wonder if anyone else has thought about putting Washington's runaway tax and spend policies at the forefront of a political movement?

[quote=]Without significant exemptions, the Flat Tax is just another scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer,[/quote]A flat tax with significant exemptions, isn't a flat tax, now is it?

[quote=]contributing to the further deterioration of America from conservative ideology.[/quote]Of course, an ideology that encourages personal responsibility and excellence is clearly less desirable than one based upon enslaving generations of the citizenry for he benefit of its political elites.

[quote=]My guess is most people would say "no thanks".[/quote]My guess is that you haven't read too many newspapers lately.

[quote=]People should pay according to their ability to pay.[/QUOTE]Absolutely, fuck the Gotha! I believe that you, Obama, Engels and Marx are all on the same page: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'

I bet you think Joe the Plumber was a bad guy, too.

[QUOTE=Esten;415552]People should pay according to their ability to pay.[/QUOTE]There he goes again. He's not a socialist. He just walks like one, talks like one, believes in socialist ideology, wants to further implement a socialist state, and spouts socialist rhetoric involuntarily.

You know, if you were gay, we'd all be encouraging you to come out of the closet.

Why don't you take that first step. It's the toughest one. You'll feel much better once the burden's off your shoulders.

Your mom and dad will understand.

Eventually.

It's not like you're a transvestite or anything.

But, if you are, that's okay too.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415560]There he goes again. He's not a socialist.[/quote]Agreed, he'a a Marxist.

[quote=]He just walks like one, talks like one, believes in socialist ideology, wants to further implement a socialist state, and spouts socialist rhetoric involuntarily.[/quote]Again, I concur, what spews from his fingers is most likely involuntary behavior, learned at some reeducation camp.

[quote=]You know, if you were gay, we'd all be encouraging you to come out of the closet.[/quote]If he was gay, we'd all be willing to attribute much of his misguided hatred of America as a byproduct of his gayness (not that there is anything wrong with that).

[quote=]Why don't you take that first step. It's the toughest one. You'll feel much better once the burden's off your shoulders.

Your mom and dad will understand.

Eventually. [/quote]They are probably still paying his bills and he still lives in their basement.

[quote=]It's not like you're a transvestite or anything.[/quote]What's worse? A kid that turns out to be a tranny or a marxist?

[quote=]But, if you are, that's okay too.[/QUOTE]That all depends upon how passable you are.

You guys are often good for a laugh....

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415560]There he goes again. He's not a socialist. He just walks like one, talks like one, believes in socialist ideology, wants to further implement a socialist state, and spouts socialist rhetoric involuntarily.[/QUOTE]Forget about government ownership of property and the means of production. If you believe in paying taxes according to one's means, Stan says you're a Socialist. The funny thing is that not only do most Americans believe in this, according to some polls most Republicans do as well. I've posted this before:

[url]http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438[/url]

Q. Do you think raising income taxes on households making more than "X" should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?

X = $250,000 X = $1,000,000.
Republican 42% 56%
Democrat 82% 89%
Independent 55% 69%
Income >250k 64% 67%

Notice how even rich folks believe they should pay more. What do you think about that Stan?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415553]Not true. When the country was founded, Jackson's statement was absolutely true. The federal government was funded via sin taxes, internal taxes and tariffs. [/QUOTE]Your response perfectly demonstrates what you are all about: [i]You live in the past. [/i]

Recapping our discussion on poverty:

Clinton raised taxes and poverty went down.
Bush43 lowered taxes and poverty went up.

Walleye cited the dot-com bust and 911 as factors. However Bush had two terms, plenty of time for his tax cuts to work. And the economic impact of 911 has been shown to have been short-lived with no more than a 1% GDP effect.

He also claims it is remarkable that the poverty rate held in the range 11-15% since 1966 despite large population growth. Well there's no claim or evidence of [i]reduction[/i] here. Remember, the (false) claim is tax cuts reduce poverty. What actually happened over this period is that after-tax income for the top 1% increased at least 281%, while the poverty rate treaded water.

So just where is the evidence of Walleye's claim?

[QUOTE]From '59 to the Kennedy tax cuts, poverty dropped from 22. 4% to 19. 0% (or a 15. 2% reduction) whereas during the tax-cutting period of '64 to '03 the rate dropped from 19% to 12. 5% (or 32. 2%). You are so blinded by your ideology, you think reducing the number of people below the poverty rates by 15% is better than reducing it by 32.[/QUOTE]The Census Bureau did not track poverty prior to 1959, however it is doubtful that 22.4% represented the peak. One estimate from the conservative Goldwater Institute puts the poverty rate at 30% in 1948. That would constitute an 11% drop thru 1964, during which period top tax rates were 91%.

1964 Pov. Rate 19.0%
1965 Pov. Rate 17.3%
1966 Pov. Rate 14.7%

Most of the drop since 1964 occured within two years. Although the rate was already trending down over the previous decade, let's assign some credit and correlation with the Kennedy tax cuts. This was when the top tax rate dropped 91% to 70%. What did we get following 1966 when the top tax rate was cut from 70% to 35% ? Not much. It dipped down a few points but at times went higher than the 1966 rate. Walleye cites the drop from 19% to 12.5% over 1964-2003. But one could just as easily cite the increase from 14.7% to 15.1% over 1966-1993.

It appears Walleye's case is based entirely on cherry-picking. However, the aggregate data shows no consistent correlation.

The only clear correlation is the giant rise in economic inequality over the tax-cutting period since Reagan.

My goodness, this story from the Conservative Political Action Conference made me laugh:

Ron Paul Supporters Heckle Cheney, Rumsfeld at CPAC.

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031425-503544.html[/url]

[QUOTE]The crowd was on its feet, some cheering "Cheney for president!" The boos from CPAC's libertarian contigent continued and at times interrupted Cheney's remarks.

"America is stronger and more secure" because of Rumsfeld's service, Cheney said, prompting one person to loudly shout,"Where's bin Laden at!"

Some of the vice president's supporters shouted,"Shut up!" and started a loud chant of "USA, USA!"

The jeering continued, with some yelling "draft dodger!" at Cheney. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten; 415563]Recapping our discussion on poverty:

Clinton raised taxes and poverty went down.

Bush43 lowered taxes and poverty went up.

Walleye cited the dot-com bust and 911 as factors. However Bush had two terms, plenty of time for his tax cuts to work. And the economic impact of 911 has been shown to have been short-lived with no more than a 1% GDP effect. [/quote]The US economy, its components and measurements of its facets, from GDP to poverty are often interdependent and codependent on a wide number of variables, factors, inputs and unknowns. While altering certain variables will generally bring about similar outcomes, the impact of other factors can often outweigh the impact of the altered variable. To argue otherwise, as Esten does, is ignorant, obtuse and intellectually dishonest.

It hurts just to try to grapple with the breadth of your ineptitude.

[quote=]He also claims it is remarkable that the poverty rate held in the range 11-15% since 1966 despite large population growth. Well there's no claim or evidence of [i]reduction[/i] here. [/quote]I believe we argued a similar point sometime ago (I am sure you'll recall that I prevailed in that one, too). When someone with an intellectual curiosity (clearly that rules out Esten) delves into the composition of the US population growth in the post-WWII era one will see that it was not all home grown. In fact, a significant portion of US population growth during that period was in the form of immigrants. Despite Esten's distorted view of the world, I can assure the rest of you that not all of those immigrants were landed-gentry coming to America in order to fuck California Girls and farmers' daughters. You might be surprised to learn that many of them came to America, destitute and in search of a better life. In search of the American Dream (which in my case often centers upon California Girls and farmers' daughters, often at the same time) which Esten seems so hell bent on destroying. The fact that in the face of meteoric population growth, the poverty rate did not grow does say something significant about opportunity, economic growth and reduction of poverty. Saying anything to the contrary simply isn't true. Not that presenting misinformation would ever make Esten blush.

[quote=]Remember, the (false) claim is tax cuts reduce poverty.[/quote]The incontrovertible, factual claim is that tax cuts stimulate true economic growth (not the phony, baloney Keynesian and / or Marxist kinds that Esten likes) which results in a tide that raises all boats.

[quote=]What actually happened over this period is that after-tax income for the top 1% increased at least 281%, while the poverty rate treaded water.[/quote]Why are you switching the focus from helping reduce poverty to slamming the rich? I would guess it is because your argument, as usual doesn't hold water.

[quote=]So just where is the evidence of Walleye's claim? [/quote]I spoon fed it to you. You chose to ignore it and spiral out of control with your diatribe about the rich.

[quote=]The Census Bureau did not track poverty prior to 1959, however it is doubtful that 22.4% represented the peak. One estimate from the conservative Goldwater Institute puts the poverty rate at 30% in 1948. That would constitute an 11% drop thru 1964, during which period top tax rates were 91%.[/quote]Who is cherry picking? I am sure that it won't surprise you but you are wrong yet again, in your analysis.

When the country was founded, more than 90% of the nation participated in subsistence farming. Do you have any idea what that is? That means that in order for you to eat, you had to grow your own food. In addition to religious freedom, anyone want to venture a guess what other things colonists were escaping?

If you said poverty, you're right.

90% of the population of the colonies lived outside of the cities and most colonists didn't have a pot to piss in (although there was abundant forested land upon which one could piss). So upon the founding of this great country almost all of its inhabitants were, oh my gosh, POOR! The wealth of the nation was controlled by a small minority estimated between 10-20% of the population.

So from 1776 to 1964 the poverty rate fell from 80% to roughly 40% when a permanent, excessive income tax was instituted in the 1917 when the top marginal tax rate went to 67, from 7% two years earlier.

[quote=]1964 Pov. Rate 19. 0%

1965 Pov. Rate 17. 3%

1966 Pov. Rate 14. 7%

Most of the drop since 1964 occured within two years. Although the rate was already trending down over the previous decade, let's assign some credit and correlation with the Kennedy tax cuts. [/quote]Why give credit to Kennedy? If you do, then you agree with my analysis and are just choosing to argue the opposite for partisan purposes.

[quote=]This was when the top tax rate dropped 91% to 70%. What did we get following 1966 when the top tax rate was cut from 70% to 35% ? Not much. It dipped down a few points but at times went higher than the 1966 rate. [/quote]See note above regarding population influx.

[quote=]Walleye cites the drop from 19% to 12.5% over 1964-2003. But one could just as easily cite the increase from 14.7% to 15.1% over 1966-1993.[/quote]I could also have picked the drop from 40% (1920) to 12. 5% (2003) during which time the top marginal tax rate was cut from 73% to 35.

[quote=]It appears Walleye's case is based entirely on cherry-picking. However, the aggregate data shows no consistent correlation.[/quote]If it supported your agenda and ideology, you would argue that there is no correlation between sunlight hours and crop growth.

[quote=]The only clear correlation is the giant rise in economic inequality over the tax-cutting period since Reagan.[/QUOTE]I thought we were still discussing poverty as opposed to income inequality.

Let's suppose that you could manipulate 'Factor A' within the economy via policy. If you decrease Factor A, the economy grows and everyone makes more money, including the poor. However, when you decrease Factor A, the 'rich' generally will make more than the poor, due in large part to the fact that the businesses that do well under this situation are not owned by the poor because, they are poor.

Is your premise that we should decrease Factor A for everyone except the rich?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415504]In addition to clearly demonstrating the high correlation between tax cuts and reducing poverty [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415575]The incontrovertible, factual claim is that tax cuts stimulate true economic growth (not the phony, baloney Keynesian and / or Marxist kinds that Esten likes) which results in a tide that raises all boats.[/QUOTE]The data shows no consistent correlation of tax cuts with reduced poverty. Invoking the beloved conservative fable about a rising tide lifting all boats doesn't prove it either.

While tax cuts can stimulate economic growth, that doesn't mean enough people will rise out of poverty to reduce the poverty rate. I am sure a political trivia buff like yourself has heard this version before:

[i]The rising tide will lift some boats, but others will run aground. [/i]

The reason the tax cuts and economic growth over the past several decades have failed to reduce poverty is because almost all the new wealth went to the rich.

Rising economic inequality doesn't reduce poverty. You are too blinded by your ideology to recognize this.

Esten,

The changes in the income tax system that occurred during the Bush administration made it more progressive.

With the few data points that are available for the USA, you're right, you cannot show that lower tax rates result in less poverty, although I believe the data provide stronger support for Walleye's position than yours. If you look at data wordwide, which would include a number of countries in Eastern Europe, the FSU, and other places that cut income tax rates and instituted flat taxes in the last decade and the last half of the 1990's, you'd see a clear correlation between (a) lower tax rates / flat tax rates and (b) lower poverty rates.

There's a reason why countries worldwide have cut and are cutting income taxes on business and on capital. Because it results in greater prosperity.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415588]The data shows no consistent correlation of tax cuts with reduced poverty. Invoking the beloved conservative fable about a rising tide lifting all boats doesn't prove it either.

While tax cuts can stimulate economic growth, that doesn't mean enough people will rise out of poverty to reduce the poverty rate. [/quote]Excuse me Mr. Einstein, I can tell you unequivocally that the only way an individual rises out of poverty is for that individual to receive a stream of cash flows sufficient enough for him to support himself. In general there are two ways that can happen: he can earn it or someone can give it to him. Only one of these two is sustainable on a scale that includes millions of individuals living in poverty. I don't need to rely upon my many years of studying business, micro and macroeconomics in both university and the real world to know that the only way one can earn his way out of poverty is to have a job. Therefore, the individual must find or create the job. Since, in general, we are not talking about the entrepreneur 'class, ' a disproportionate number of these individuals must find work as opposed to creating it. Therefore, in order for millions of people living in poverty to find work or to get better paying jobs, there must be economic growth in order to create jobs. Lacking economic growth and job creation, poverty can only be artificially reduced via the wholesale subsidization by the public sector. This latter approach has been proven to be a colossal failure in the US via the War on Poverty, food stamps and welfare, none of which has reduced poverty at all because not one of them provides the individual with a sustainable cash flow with which he can meet his recurring obligations. Rather, these programs increase the individual's dependence upon the government to survive, fostering a trans-generational enslavement to entitlements. It is a proven fact that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and create jobs. Increased taxes and regulation (which are taxes of another form) increase the cost of doing business, limit economic opportunity and restrict or eliminate growth thereby preventing the creation of jobs.

It is that simple. You may believe and espouse whatever you like however, you can't alter the truth. Your hatred of the rich and the policies that you adore are most harmful to the poor. Get it through your head.

[quote=]I am sure a political trivia buff like yourself has heard this version before:

[i]The rising tide will lift some boats, but others will run aground. [/i][/quote]Haven't heard it that way before. Only a fatalist or eternal loser would see it that way. In order for the latter boats to run aground, something would have to buoy them first. Perhaps that is the entitlements phenomenon?

[quote=]The reason the tax cuts and economic growth over the past several decades have failed to reduce poverty is because almost all the new wealth went to the rich.[/quote]Let's enact laws and policies that prevent the 'rich' from making money and see what the economic outcome is and what effect that will have on the poor. Wait a minute, we already have that with Obama. Seems to me everyone is fucked under this scenario. Is it your premise that as long as the 'rich' get fucked, you don't care about anyone else? I think that you should seek professional help (not the kind available herein).

[quote=]Rising economic inequality doesn't reduce poverty.[/quote]There is no other force known to man other than job creation via economic growth that can sustainably reduce poverty. It is not possible, in a free market, to create widespread economic opportunity while specifically limiting or eliminating the participation of the very people who must take on additional risk in order to expand their payrolls. To believe otherwise is pure fantasy.

[quote=]You are too blinded by your ideology to recognize this.[/QUOTE]Pot, meet kettle.