And that $250,000 number will get smaller too…

Let’s be clear, the so-called majority is 60mil citizens out of 300mil. So it is not a majority anyway. It’s a voting majority. The President is to represent not only those that voted but those that could not or did not as the laws that are imposed affect more than just voters.

Still, by putting the man back in office with his near single note re-election campaign of ‘the rich must pay their fair share’, Obama believing that the electorate told him he was right may not be so far fetched.

It’s a matter of whether he wishes to govern as a negotiator or a dictator.

If history is any indicator……

Let the voting majority reap the whirlwind, Jeff. They voted for this clown…let their taxes go up and goodies get slashed. Playtime is over…time for an economic reality check.

No one ever listens to that argument sadly. I would love one MSM anchor to say, “Gee, isn’t there a risk that maybe raising taxes would…I don’t know…hurt growth and not raise enough revenue to fund the government?” I mean that’s all they would need to say, but the question is never even asked. It is conventional wisdom that raising taxes = more revenue. It’s retarded. I wish they would just go ahead and raise taxes to what they want and be done with it so that we can decide once and for all whether raising taxes raises revenue without hurting growth (even tho there are already ample examples in other countries doing this /right now/).

Who is still buying union-made products? Anyone here? They want an economic war, we’ll give it to them. I even cut off cable to stop paying MSNBC, etc.

Maryland passed a new tax on the wealthy and saw total revenue decline; the Rich have houses in multiple States and can change residency easily. Somehow Democrats forgot that part. Let’s see if CA starts losing wealthy folks and if those who stay hire fewer people and buy fewer things.

First, a question. Isn’t it Larry FLYNT? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt) Second, why is a majority of voters all of a sudden the majority of American people? The last time I checked, only 65% are registered voters. Coupled with under 18, those are less than half of the population. Since the election totals are less than the registered voters (except in parts of FL and maybe Ohio) then the vote for him as President does not mean this. Further, I can say that the return of a Republican house means that the Americans do NOT support his economy.

Now I realize that we have to worry SO much about our oh-so-Holy Multimillionaire Job Creators – it’s now part of conservative doctrine that Thou Shalt Protect the Millionaires – but we started out the 1950′s with a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than we have even now, and Truman instituted a 91% top marginal tax rate. Yep, the tax rate for the rich was 91%…and Eisenhower kept it there. Not only did we not go into a depression, but we almost paid off the ENTIRE WWII debt…which federal debt was, remember, relatively higher than it is now. So according to conservative doctrine, our whole economy should have gone into a tailspin…but it didn’t. Why is that? And why didn’t our economy go into a depression for the twenty years after Eisenhower when the top marginal tax rate was 70%? Why? Could it be that – gasp! – maybe, just maybe, giving the rich the choice of either paying higher taxes OR reinvesting their money into their companies is a GOOD thing? Because that’s the choice they had from the early 1950′s until 1980, when their tax rate was ALWAYS at least twice what it is now.

…I see that somebody has discovered that the people that they were counting on to still be productive aren’t necessarily all that interested in still being productive. Yeah, scream at them some more, Sparky: that’ll get ‘em back into line.

Shoo.