Obama '08?

Perhaps I did not explain my point very well, ci? I interpreted cyclops as bemoaning the idea that the rich would receive a lower tax rate on the first margin of income, just like all the other people including the poor do. For example, if the government taxes the first few thousand at 10%, then lowers that tax to - say 9%, he is angry that the rich would also get that tax rate for the first few thousand they make. My point is that the whole concept of margins, whatever the rates and brackets are, they need to be equally applied to everyone.

Maybe I did not interpret correctly what cyclops said, but that is what I got out of his post. And I was simply pointing out that tax laws need to be equally applied to everyone.

okie wrote:

Perhaps I did not explain my point very well, ci? I interpreted cyclops as bemoaning the idea that the rich would receive a lower tax rate on the first margin of income, just like all the other people including the poor do. For example, if the government taxes the first few thousand at 10%, then lowers that tax to - say 9%, he is angry that the rich would also get that tax rate for the first few thousand they make. My point is that the whole concept of margins, whatever the rates and brackets are, they need to be equally applied to everyone.

Maybe I did not interpret correctly what cyclops said, but that is what I got out of his post. And I was simply pointing out that tax laws need to be equally applied to everyone.

No, you're wrong! I'm happy that the rich would get a tax cut on the same brackets that everyone else would. I believe it's APPROPRIATE for them to get those tax cuts. You are totally correct that the brackets apply to everyone. I was just pointing this fact out, is all.

Cycloptichorn

Bank robbers steal a few thousand and risk their lives. Wall Street crooks steal in the billions and are safe. You have a warped sense of proportion.

talk72000 wrote:

Bank robbers steal a few thousand and risk their lives. Wall Street crooks steal in the billions and are safe. You have a warped sense of proportion.

I have been calling for the crooks to be prosecuted for a long time, talk, but the Dems don't do a thing. First crooks to prosecute should be GSE's, starting with Fannie and Freddie. We are waiting, talk, so get your Dems in gear. Get with it.

Why should they be the first? Because you like to beat on Democrats politically, or because you think that they are somehow the guiltiest? Why not go after the big boys who are STILL SCAMMING people?
Cycloptichorn

I don't put his political analysis on the same level as George's.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why should they be the first? Because you like to beat on Democrats politically, or because you think that they are somehow the guiltiest? Why not go after the big boys who are STILL SCAMMING people?
Cycloptichorn

Because I believe the government should first clean up their own house before they try cleaning other houses. I am not against prosecuting corruption anywhere and everywhere, but I find it particularly galling to see the government ignore its own corruption.

One example, Charlie Rangel, how come he isn't kicked out of Congress completely? A Republican probably would have been shoved out by now, don't you think?

Please. Do you even remember Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff? Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Please. Do you even remember Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff? Cycloptichorn

Oh give us a break, cyclops, do you have to go back to your favorite whipping boys?

Did I see the charges were dropped on DeLay?

And as far as Abramoff is concerned, we had to read that crap every single day, but we hear nothing about Obama's, Reid's and Pelosi's relatives profiting.