Sunday, January 07, 2007


WASHINGTON D.C.--It appears that as part of the new "pay-as-you-go" budget rules, Democratic leaders are considering reinstating progressive taxation--they're being more-specific in their public statements today, speaking on national news shows (even Fox News!). This is a very exciting prospect, since it means higher-taxes for those who make above $500,000-a-year in personal-income:

"As we review what we get from ... collecting our taxes a reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children [."] (AP, 01.07.2007)

In other words, it won't affect the American middle class, just the wealthiest. Without objective-evidence, the GOP will claim that the 2001 tax cuts have stimulated-growth in the economy, the fruits-of-which working-class Americans have yet to enjoy.

Question: how many people do you know who make over $500,000-a-year? Also, there are around $300 Billion in uncollected-taxes from various deadbeats to collect. This is the only way you're going to have tax cuts for the middle class--or what's left of it. The GOP ruse is to make you think that raising taxes on the rich means yours will be too. This is a lie that rednecks believe, instead clinging to an outmoded model of leadership and adulthood. Bluntly, this kind of individual is a sociopath and a crook, and not credible anymore. So-called "conservativism" has always been a dodge, to keep from paying-out on the social contract, and contributing to the common good. Nonetheless (because he has nothing to offer), the President has challenged the Democratic majority to balance the budget in five-years.

Yes, he's sure created a challenge with his antisocial tax cuts and a war that will cost $1 Trillion if it were ended tomorrow. This adds-up to $2 Trillion of debt that he has amassed on two-points alone. Maybe he just meant that he was "challenged", which is why it wasn't difficult to execute a(nother) retarded-person when he was governor of Texas. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. I think the wealthiest Americans (are they Americans?) can take it, they're rocks. They're going to have to pay their own way, adhere to the "rules of the marketplace"--and stop being rich almost-immediately without government welfare, bailouts, and tax-subsides. Maybe then, we can have an economy that is actually dynamic and reasonably competative globally.

Tax the Rich Out-of-Existence: