[JonL]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Oh My JonL:

Important stuff first ---

When I referred to Geitners hand being in the Fed Employee Fund, that's not taxation, but it is STEALING. Just plain ole fiduciary mismanagement. White collar crime. I'm not (bigL) libertarian enough to call ANY taxation theft or stealing.

Seemed to me that any time you were speaking about taxation you called it stealing, including taxation that occurred before Geitner. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Not really.. Hard to find ANYONE in Dem leadership that hasn't used the phrases "millionaires and billionaires" in referencing their target for redistribution. In fact, referring to their only viable party of opposition as the "party of millionaires and billionaires" is part of the revolution. I just laugh when I think of Fox New's audience as composed of "millionaires and billionaires". And Obama was outed as a Progressive several times during his campaign and folks tried to warn that there would be ample support for the radical Progressive agenda.

Your examples hardly qualify as "class warfare rhetoric" to me. Nor does Obama's being "outed" (Outed??? WTF???) as a Progressive seem to me to be class warfare rhetoric. I think you have a very thin skin, or pretend as much to be able to take cheap shots based on labels rather than on substance.

Maybe I should've raised the "class warfare!" cry of outrage when Reagan talked about welfare queens. Maybe I should do it now every time someone invokes the meaningless statistics about which HALF of the population pays more taxes without also talking about how the income is also apportioned.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

More important stuff there. Maybe it's an age thing. You had the filthy rich Howells on that island trying to maintain their status and pretend that they were still elite and superior in social graces. When in reality, they were eating crap off the beach and living in a hut. Those RICH that the class warfare revolution want to tax are one Federal Reserve policy change away from living in hut like the rest of us. So much invested in shaky or risky investments. They are in a position to lose MORE in a downturn than then the lower 50% who don't contribute at all.

So the point is -- it's ludicrous fiscal policy to bet the farm on the income of the top 5 or 10%. Unless of course, you want to discover (like California) that all your social programs and govt pretend altruism gets dumped every time the market tanks. It's like financing your health care system off tobacco tax revenues. Not a very wise or stable thing to do.

I'm plenty old enough to remember Gilligan's Island, Thurston Howell III and "Lovey." Your analogy is way into the realm of hyperbole. What's the wealth distribution like in this country DESPITE the disastrous economic conditions that have existed for the last few years? And no one is advocating that a restoration of historically sustainable progressive tax rates is the ENTIRE solution, but it should certainly be a part of it. Just because a downturn might affect tax revenues doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue a reasonable tax strategy anyway. Hell, my house might burn down one day. Should I live outdoors instead of facing that possible disaster? Finally, you cannot compare a state's budgetary situation to that of the Federal government. The Feds are allowed to run a deficit, the states are not. There is nothing wrong with the ability to run a deficit at the federal level, the problem is being irresponsible about it, the way Bush was by cutting taxes and engaging in reckless spending at the same time during a period of economic growth when somewhat higher taxes could have been tolerable. I believe it is sound fiscal policy to run a deficit during an economic downturn and run a surplus during economic prosperity.

Oh, this is interesting... you wrote

"So much invested in shaky or risky investments. They are in a position to lose MORE in a downturn than then the lower 50% who don't contribute at all. "

So I should subsidize their gambling addiction? They may be in a position to lose much more in dollars than the lower 50% but not in lifestyle or security.