So Maria Bartiromo, the poster girl for the Stock and Bonds crowd....
Pointed out to her two guests that in 2010, President Obama was eager and willing to extend the Bush Tax cuts (even though the economy was growing at 2.5%, just some extra info to digest) but now, with the economy growth stuck at 1.5%, she wonders if President Obama will ever compromise with the Republican Majority in the Congress....
Slow down, Marie, and take a look at what changed since 2010. Same president, different Congress. The deficit denying GOP wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent while president Obama, someone truly worried about increasing the deficit, wants to let those with incomes over $200k pay 2% more in taxes while keeping the stimulus tax cuts, those in the lower brackets who spend more of their income than the rich.
The only thing changed between 2010 and 2012 is the tea party loonys in the House.
From where I sit, President Obama has bent over backward to get stuff done while the GOP has adopted the just say no strategy, one designed, btw, for children, when it comes to raising taxes to fund the budget.
Now I have a theory that is very simple when it comes to taxes, those who have the most to loose if the country goes in the tank should pay the most. Face it, for most of us schlubs here in the lower tax brackets would see hard times, for sure, but we would survive. People in the lower incomes are use to that. But for the Hoty Toty, the self proclaimed best and the brightest, their world would crumble so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.
Now I'm not talking REALLY rich people like the Romney family, but all those people who have income over 200k, they would suffer the most. Let's faces it, 200k to nothing is very a steep drop. Now 35k to 0, although tragic, not as far to fall.
Basically, the rich are rich because the US has set up an infrastructure that allows people to make tons of money. It use to be that hard work and a good idea was all you needed. But now, with the ability of the rich to shield income from taxes, pay lower rates for owning instead of earning, and, with good planning, avoiding most estate or inheritance tax, the wealtiest among us, for instance, Romney, pay 13% on $25 million of income.
What does all this mean?
For me it means the rich have more at stake if the economy goes south. So why the fuck are we making it easier for them to shut out the rest of us by making bond interest, certain dividends and capital gains more important than work?
= new reply since forum marked as read
And we want to live the way they do, once we get rich too.
There's probably more than this to it, but that's it in a nutshell.
