But like I said, they are not stupid.  They learn the lessons of Mondale and Kerry well, even when the willing sheep in the media do not.

If we take all the wealthy's money, and give it all to the poor, so that we all have equal resources, how much money would we have? I'm guessing it would be below pretty much every American's money.

If we just did it within America, I don't know. Maybe everyone would have $50k? Better yet, everybody would have $0, or negative money, with all the debt we have...

I do not agree with the Hillary health care plan because I want us to Balance the Budget BEFOR we add any more expenses. However, it is pure BS to say what the Democrats are proposing about taxes will impact most Americans. They want to return the tax rates on the top 10% to per Bush levels and that means 90% of Americans WILL NOT SEE A TAX INCREASE!

Thus only if you are in the top 10% can you bitch about what the Democrats want to do about taxes!

And the inferior officer squeaks up:

I do not agree with the Hillary health care plan because I want us to Balance the Budget BEFOR we add any more expenses. However, it is pure BS to say what the Democrats are proposing about taxes will impact most Americans. They want to return the tax rates on the top 10% to per Bush levels and that means 90% of Americans WILL NOT SEE A TAX INCREASE! Thus only if you are in the top 10% can you bitch about what the Democrats want to do about taxes!

Uh that should read 'they want to return the tax rates on those who earn in the top 10% of income earners' which may not be just the top 10% of all U.S. citizens and could in fact include 90% of all U.S. citizens, or 50%, or 38% or whatever the number is.

There are several numbers invovled here, but the important one is that Democrats (and Clueless Old Liberals) are talking about people whose earnings/wealth are in the top 10% of all U.S. citizens.  The number of people in the country that earn that much could be the vast majority of citizens with some tiny minority of citizens that do not earn that much spread throughout what people would think is the other 90% of U.S. citizens but is in fact people that earn at the 90th percentile or lower.

As usual, there's lies, damned lies, and then statistics.  Depending on how you word things and try to label things you can get idiots like the Clueless One to spout off 'statistics' that claim, or seem to be claiming, that they are only talking about 10% of the citizens in the U.S. when that isn't necessarily the case at all.

I've said before, if you own a home in this country you could very well find yourself counted in that top end when it comes to supposed wealth.  Many homeowners that bought in at the right time in the housing boom got homes that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not well over the half-million dollar mark.  Please explain to me how you won't be labelling those people as 'rich' or 'wealthy' and how they aren't part of the 'richest 10%' when you find that they actually are part of the 'vast majority of the wealth' that is held in the country.  Then look again and tell me how it is that when you find that lets say 20% of the families/citizens in the U.S. are the owners of these expensive homes or homes that shot up in value so much during the housing boom are really 'rich' when compared to the very few people at the upper, upper end of the scale.

Regardless, if you really investigate you find that even a group that General Disarray, ooops, I mean Colonel Clueless, seems to love, the Congressional Budget Office, fairly openly admits that in order to collect enough in tax revenues they have to reach down into the largest pool of wage earners otherwise they just can't get enough return even if they tax away 90% of every dollar over some set amount that ever gets into the hands of the so-called richest individuals in the country.  There just aren't that many 'rich' people to go after to fuel the so-called needs of the government to fill it's coffers to provide for all of the hand-outs and pandering that go on in any given budget year.

Companies have owners and investors. These owners/investors want to make the same amount of money that they did last year, at least, and probably even more. If taxes are higher, making the same amount is really making less - twice, when you double tax dividends.

In order to make the investors happy, the businesses will have to make more money. If it's an inelastic good, price goes up to compensate, and the consumers foot the bill for the high-income earners.

If it's an elastic good, the price stays the same, because they can't afford to lose the market. So they cut expenses. The first expense to go is payroll - people lose their jobs, and get less of a raise.

If you do this, and then bring taxes back down, the people don't get their jobs back. The price doesn't come back down. And now the rich people are making more money, and paying less taxes, and the people who lost their jobs are paying less taxes. If you keep it high, people without jobs will be paying less taxes. So you lose out on revenue by increasing taxes, and you cannot get it back.

Tax increases aren't going to do anything.  We need to severely cut spending, especially in social and entitlement areas.  Taxing the rich is nothing but pure class warfare.

The problem with that thinking (and the thinker)- of the original quote - is they look at the defined "Income Tax" as the only kind of tax that is raised or lowered that affects anyone. When the truth - published on JU many times, and easily found on the internet - is that there are hundreds of taxes, most very regressive, that get raised and lowered as well, and slam the lowest wage earners the hardest.

One thing that is not being talked about in this early campaign, due to the ostrich head in the sand mentality of the democrats (who wont do a thing about it anyway) is FICA. When someone finally does do something about it, it is going to hit the poor the hardest. It is not a lock box. it is a very regressive tax. And a Ponzi scheme.

So which employees should I fire then, Gene? Because that is what will happen. It will result in layoffs.

We're not talking theoretical. We're talking fact. Taxes raise my costs. It has to come from somewhere.