DiamondDave
Army Vet
Yes those poor poor billionaires.
They're so put upon by those collectivists, aren't they?
Only they didn't lose any money until their fellow classmates in the financial community crashed capitalist (again).
In fact, despite it all, regardless of the higher tax rate under Clinton, they were getting richer in comparison to everybody else.
There are arguments for raising or lowering taxes, of course.
But to think that TAXES are the entirely answer to helping or hurting an economy is ignorant to the extreme.
Let me remind you that the economy flourished under Clinton despite the fact that BUSH I had RAISED taxes.
It might be argued that by raising taxes and putting the US government less in the RED, Bush I set up the conditions for a period of high productivity.
No SINGLE ISSUE explains anything about an economic period, folks.
The economy is a complex ongoing event that responds to issues of taxation CERTAINLY, but it also responds to other issues having nothing whatever to do with taxes.
Raising taxes did not put the government any less in the red...
Ah, yeah actually it did. Well that an decreasing government spending both on the domestic side and the foreign policy side, too.
On that we can agree.
And I'll state it again... equality... not selective equality
Not sure how to respond to that since on its face it make perfect sense.
But if your point is that we don't live in asociety that has equality, I certainly wouldn't disagree with you.
Edit.. we're not supposed to live in a society of forced outcome equality or a society where the rights of some are trampled to hand out to others in a selective equality scheme... equal treatment, not trying to equalize result or outcome