Only 1 in 3 Americans Favor Keeping Tax Cuts for Wealthy
Here is something that I hadn’t expected, probably due to the way Fin-Television has been covering this issue: Only “one in three Americans, including a minority of independents and Democrats, in favor of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers.”
Geez, based on the typical Squawk Box/Fox Business/NBC/ABC/CBS coverage, I was under the impression that a tiny minority of people were against this. (Remind me again why I watch other than Louie and Entourage?).
The data comes is according to a USA Today/Gallup poll:
“A majority of Americans favor letting the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire for the wealthy. While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers . . .
The fate of the 2001 and 2003 federal income tax cuts that were a centerpiece of Bush administration policy could be a significant campaign issue this fall. The tax cuts are set to expire after this year unless Congress votes to extend them. Congress plans to take up the issue next week when it returns to session.
It appears as though Congress, like the American public, broadly agrees that the tax cuts should be extended for American families earning less than $250,000. The debate Congress will have this fall will be over whether to extend the tax cuts for wealthier Americans. Most Republicans and some Democrats in Congress are thought to favor extending them for wealthier Americans. President Obama said Wednesday that he is opposed to any plan that wo7uld extend the tax cuts for wealthier Americans.”
That adds up it 59% who favor letting the top bracket cuts (defined as $250k per year) expire.
Pretty fascinating stuff, given the opposite impression the news has created.
>
As Caroline Baum has written, this is precisely as as George Bush intended. If the Bush White House wanted a permanent tax cut, then they should have passed it through ordinary legislation, and not as part of a reconciliation bill (which automatically expires after 9 years) . . .
>
Sources:
Americans OK Allowing Tax Cuts for Wealthy to Expire
Jeffrey M. Jones
Gallup, September 10, 2010
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/Americans-Allowing-Tax-Cuts-Wealthy-Expire.aspx
Forget Bed Bugs, Tax Increases Are Bush’s Fault
Caroline Baum
Bloomberg, August 26 2010
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aMcHN4SWNCug
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
September 11th, 2010 at 9:08 am
All those fat cats on financial TV are just trying to protect their own millionaire a$$es. Pathetic to see them almost crying about “small” struggling business owner getting taxed – as if there were any SMALL business owners that make +250K of profit per year. Now lets see who in congress is for enacting the will of the people and who is just going to protect their Wall Street friends and campaign donors.
September 11th, 2010 at 9:28 am
The best counterpoint comes from Rick Santelli
““STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING!””
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_7PwbxcDbs
September 11th, 2010 at 9:40 am
So a minority of Americans (somewhere b/w 18% and 54%) favor keeping the tax cuts for all Americans. And an even smaller minority (b/w 11% and 19%) of Americans favor letting the tax cuts expire altogether.
This seems pretty clear cut – is this even worthy of much political debate?
So one wonders, just what in the world could possibly stop this from being solved to the liking of the people?
September 11th, 2010 at 9:48 am
DeDude—Agree–and if there were small business owners making +$250K, does repealing the tax cut on their personal income (which I believe will go straight to savings) really effect their decision to hire more people? The excuse about these taxes affecting small business owners is absurd. There are other ways to help small business owners without benefiting investment bankers, who I believe have had enough help recently. The whole small business argument is all rhetoric–I have a hard time seeing the logic as to how repealing tax cuts encourage small business hiring as is being suggested. Doesn’t credit for small businesses play a tad more important role?
September 11th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Rich people and their ‘wealth’ constitute low-hanging fruit. Expect money to be taken from that at some point, somehow. You can count on it.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:07 am
@Haigh,
Yeah Santelli, who doesn’t have any problem seeing the govermin rescuing his beloved Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.
It’s only viewed as a bad expense when it doesn’t apply to what he wants.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Awesome. Evidence that this President has clicked on the possibility of rhetoric that can bypass the Representative government. No need for a Putsch.
I have a problem with the statement “no tax cuts for the wealthy” as it implies they don’t deserve tax cuts, just the unwealthy. Why can’t everyone have tax cuts? And why do we need the IRS to freeze the definition of the wealthy to 250K without appropriate indexing (to inflation/deflation/hyperstagflation/etc.) as they did with the AMT.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:11 am
“All those fat cats on financial TV are just trying to protect their own millionaire a$$es.”
Bingo! And it’s not only the shills on Fin TV. Ruth Marcus @ WaPo (wife of prominent Neandercon Dan Senor) got on the bandwagon, as well as Andrea Mitchell (Ms Greenspan) who couldn’t find better things to do than trying to trounce SEIU Trumpka about that. (As if he had any power over tax cuts)
September 11th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Why don’t they ever talk about the marginal utility of the money from the tax cut across the classes when they talk about its affect?
September 11th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Does this mean 1/3 of Americans consider themselves rich?
I always enjoy the argument that rich people spend and create jobs for the proles, a warm & fuzzy variation of Dickens.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:15 am
And yet, I have this persistent remembrance of a 50-to-1 FIRESTORM of public outrage over the initial bank bailout fund, with an unprecedented flood of clamoring and yammering to their elected “representatives”.
Just look at how effective THAT was, or at the really minimal consequences incurred by the Congress. I’m pretty sure that incumbents still occupy WELL over 90% of the seats in the Congress.
A teeny majority like this means nothing.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:15 am
“as it implies they don’t deserve tax cuts,”
Tax cuts ain’t a cookie distributed to the puppies for good behavior. The wealthiest in the US have the lowest marginal and effective tax rate in the last 6 decades; ergo, they can shoulder a bit more of the fiscal burden without any conceivable hardship.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:19 am
I think it is perfectly clear by now that what the majority of the citizens want is of no concern to the Federal Government.
I believe 70% of the people were opposed to the Wall Street bailout.
I believe 70% of the people want all illegal aliens deported and the border sealed.
Wall Street was bailed out.
De Facto illegal alien Amnesty and open borders is Federal policy.
The tax cuts for the wealthy may or may not be allowed to expire.
However, the wishes of the majority of the population will not be considered in that decision by Congress.
Tyranny: Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority
That’s the facts Jack!
September 11th, 2010 at 10:26 am
How about tax breaks for the poor so they can spend and create jobs for the wealthy? Oh yeah, the wealthy don’t need jobs.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:29 am
@jjay
There was also a time when a majority of the American people wanted non-whites to be kept as slaves (1650-1960s), or when a majority of the American people thought that the Irish were a sub-human race (1840-1920), or when a majority of the American people thought that Catholicism was a blasphemous cult (1500-1960).
Anyway, there are a number of states looking at passing tax increases on the ultra rich. Oregon passed a tax increase for the rich by popular vote in January, and Washington State has such a measure on the ballot this November. In fact, Bill Gates Sr (the father of the more famous Bill Gates) is one of the chief proponents of the Washington State tax increase. His argument?
It’s just fair. I like that.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:40 am
I’d love to see the poll data, but I bet at least as many don’t understand how marginal tax rates work. They think the family is going to get dinged on the all of the $250,000 not just the next one.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:53 am
f411, your tangential response to jjay’s post suggests you think “reducing immigration” in any form is itself racist. At least, that’s how I interpret your first par. Is that interpretation correct?
As for Oregon, that’s nice but we should attack unbalanced budgets from both ends. We should not raise taxes without also cutting public sector worker (and contractor) salaries/bennies. Why? The private sector punishment continues unabated. They cannot be expected to carry bubblicious public sector worker salaries post-bust. And, if we continue relying on the Fed to monetize the difference between tax collections and expenditures, that means private workers will continue to see their little pay ‘flate away.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:55 am
If you want a stimulus program that does not involve deficit spending per se, try this:
Drop the tax rates for those with AGI of under $250 to zero … for a decade. Finance it by raising the marginal rates on those making above $250K, all the way up to a marginal rate of 70% for those making over a million per year.
We have had MUCH higher marginal rates in the past, and it didn’t kill the economy — in fact, some of our most substantial growth occurred during those years, when we were paying down the debts incurred during WWII, with a 90% maximum marginal rate.
A number of beneficial changes would occur almost overnight … CEOs would stop the contest to see who had the largest haul, in favor of compensation packages that had no more than $250K in cash, with the balance being made up in restricted stock grants, that vested a decade into the future. The consumers could pay down (de-leverage) their outsized debts and begin spending again — at the same time.
What? You don’t like income redistribution? Then WHY didn’t you complain during the past three decades when incomes were being redistributed from the middle classes to the wealthy?
At the end of my decade-long renormalization, I would replace the existing tax code by a flat tax, beginning above $25K per year for individuals and $50K for joint returns with ZERO tax credits or deductions, for either businesses or individuals. That’s right — no mortgage interest deduction, no oil depletion allowance, no crop subsidies …and the uniform rate (same for businesses as individuals, with an undetermined-at-this-point starting point for business taxability) being determined by a moving average of the amount spent by the Congress over the past 3 years. So there is a direct and visible link between Congressional spending and the impact that the taxpayer feels. I’m guessing it would start out between 28% and 30%, and drift downward as Congress adopts a less spendthrift stance. And if that didn’t work, I’d go for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Oops … that should read “Drop the tax rates for those with AGI of under $250K to zero”
September 11th, 2010 at 11:06 am
teraflop; you point to a very important issue not being discuss much. The taxcuts proposed by Obama would give everybody who pay taxes a taxcut. It is just that the rich don’t get an extra taxcut on the part of their income that exceeds 250K. They still get a taxcut on the first 250K of taxable income.
September 11th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Trickle down economics never made one iota of senses due to the lower marginal propensity to spend by high income individuals……Employee one person for $1 million or ten people for $100K each….Which situation will result in more cars sold?
September 11th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Those making more than $250k get a tax break that’s much larger than those making less if the middle class tax cuts are extended. They save on the lower marginal rates up to $250k. Average savings is in the neighborhood of $6,500, while lower income people save a much smaller amount as a result of extending tax cuts.
September 11th, 2010 at 11:37 am
How about if the rich hire people and pay them decent salaries? Wasn’t that why we gave them the tax cut in the first place? How did that work out for everyone?
If the rich don’t want to be taxed at high rates, they should stop being so damned greedy and pay their employees, invest in new businesses, and stop using their money simply to hedge it and try to make more money without growing the economy.
September 11th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
(Donna con’t) …while the sons of the lower class fight and die overseas to protect their freedom.
The style of the debate that the GOP and their shills – especially CNBC – is so ludicrous, that “Obama wants to raise your taxes” and you never hear a peep out of those guys on the “deficits” front.
Apparently people have finally have heard the other truth: , that Bush set these taxes to expire because they weren’t unaffordable – and they weren’t! – that we will raise $70B a year by letting their rich’s tax cuts expire.
…and that marginal tax rates for the wealthy (when you combine their enormous dividend payments taxed at only 15% and the regular guys payroll taxes which ADD to regular people’s effective rates if you make under 100K) are lower than poor people. Warren Buffett’s been telling people that for years.
Maybe the truth is finally sinking it.
September 11th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
wunsacon,
I read it that your view that Bush’s Prescription Drug Benefit (no negotiations on price) and the six plus un-encumbered years of total GOP rule in Washington resulted in how much of a drop in public sector employees salaries? And you want them back? LOL
And replace every Mort Zuckerman-like comment of yours containing “public employees’ with “teachers, firemen, nurses and cops” would you please?
September 11th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Dedude, good point. I look forward to my next filing to discover the changes. Which is my other personal point: that the incessant gaming of the tax code to save incumbents at the expense of making it difficult for filers to predict is what is frustrating.
September 11th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
The biggest canard is the “Businesses aren’t hiring because they don’t know what’s coming out of Washington.” …well, all the bills were passed months ago, save the tax rates. So businesses can’t read?
And since everyone wants to continue the Bush rates for the lower 98%, it’s the the GOP that’s blocking the only “unknown.” …and two thirds of American get that now after the Commander-in Chief’s press conference (the one third? …the GOP genuflecters)
But the modern GOP will never, ever allow it. They will hold the 98% of businesses’ rates and the 98%’s of citizens’ rate hostage because that’s their number one priority: lower marginal rates for the rich… and Obama and the Democrats are hanging them on it.
People are starting to listen. That pastor in Florida is doing more to upend the GOP than any ticket-splitting Tea Partier by showing the obtuseness of this year’s GOP nonsense issue, “The ‘Mosque’ at Ground Zero.” Watch the polls tighten.
People want their tax cuts and the GOP is saying, as usual, “No.”
September 11th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I would suggest a very good documentary on whom is making and how the “news” are made. A must watch… PR heaven or nightmare, http://metanoia-films.org/psywar.php
September 11th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
tearflop,
“… it difficult for filers to predict is what is frustrating…”
So I’m going to make a million dollar investment. I estimate that it will pay a $100,000 a year. Is that prediction plus or minus 4%? So maybe $96,000 or maybe $104,000? Would that make me NOT do the investment? Of course not. That’s the rate we’re talking about.
As for capital gains, Obama wants to keep them at 20%. So when I sell the $1M investment for $2M that means I get $800,000 after tax profit rather than $850,000 So you think I won’t sell? LOL
Think about what these “Businesses won’t make investments” people are saying. It’s complete nonsense when you do the math.
And the idea that “tax simplification” means a flat rate is their biggest lie. So at this amount you pay this, and the next amount you pay that… That’s hard??? The hard part is all the other 99.9% of the stuff you fill out, not one “rate” calculation at the end.
The GOP is full of it. Raise the rates on the rich to the Clinton boom year rates (below the rates of the high growth Chinese you Supply Side liars. )
September 11th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
being a SMALL business owner for the past twenty five years with always at least 3 and up to 10 employees, I can honestly say this. Every time i hear the Republicans carrying on about the burden of taxes on the small business guy I want to puke. What I would really love to see as a business owner is a break on all the freaking insurance i have to pay. By the time I am through paying commercial auto, contractor’s liability, workman’s comp and bldg. insurance there isn’t much left over to reinvest or hire more people, and I’m not including the $ 1100.00 month for my husband, myself and one teen for health insurance. If my premiums weren’t so ridiculous, I would be making a very comfortable living. The Insurance industry is just another snake in the grass along with the finance industry.
September 11th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
The part I found amazing was that even among Republicans the support for the position their legislators have taken was marginal – 54% in favor to 43% opposed to lower taxes for the high income people.
and, VennData, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried to talk someone out of making a really stupid financial decision which was focused almost exclusively on “saving taxes”. First people need to make sensible financial choices. Only then, before implementing these decisions is the time to look at possible tax-reduction ideas.
September 11th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
VennData, yup, who gives a flying whatever if you’re cashing in on a 5-10 bagger (DNDN, etc.).
But my message was targeted at not just private individual filers. I’m talking small businesses to corporations. So your tax variance of +/- 4% can make or break a business. Drop by your local dry cleaner, lumber yard, wholesaler, or write a letter to one of your investments’ investor relations departments ask what they think of it. Anyone whose worked with residual income estimates, cash flow statements, and other metrics knows what’s at stake.
As for a flat tax, I’m not an advocate, nor did I mention it. A national sales tax? Ask a Canadian what happened when the GST rolled in; ostensibly to remove the hidden federal sales tax and replace it with a visible 7% tax. It was meant to be revenue neutral on day 1. Guess what happened; billions rolled in, prices rose, and the gray market was thus enlarged. Now, you pony up to buy a book, treat your beloved for some dinner, etc. and you end up paying a provincial sales tax (equivalent to a state sales tax though often higher) plus an additional 7% federal sales tax.
This tax gaming is just letting the fingers of hidden players into more pockets. I endorse a cleanup of the tax act overall – I don’t shoot from the hip with flat tax or federal sales tax or internet sales tax third rail suggestions.
September 11th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
>> And replace every Mort Zuckerman-like comment of yours containing “public employees’ with “teachers, firemen, nurses and cops” would you please?
I’m guilty as charged. I accept that substitution and add MIC contractors.
Someone’s going to “lose” in all this. I prefer it to be a shared burden. Private sector employees have been hammered. We will hopefully hammer the rich. We should also expect teachers, firemen, nurses, and cops to take pay cuts, especially because (to probably repeat myself) the alternatives are either (a) job cuts or (b) massive inflation. And I doubt you want either of those, because they, too, hurt people.
September 11th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
teraflop,
I can tell you for a fact that my local dry cleaner does not make 250k. There are various economic issues that may affect her, but I can tell you that she’s not spending her time worrying about the 250k tax bracket. I’ll proudly pay my additional 4.6% next year because I feel that I owe it to society in its time of need. We all have different opinions. There is nothing wrong with your position that you would rather spend your money elsewhere, but come out in the open and say it. Is it so difficult to take a clear stand? Why hide behind the poor neighborhood dry cleaning lady???
September 11th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Stop rocking the boat BR!!! If we tell poor people over and over again why the rich should have their tax cuts they will finally get it.
September 11th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
-dry cleaning lady
+flower shop owner
If you think the line in the sand is 250K then you better do some reading.
September 11th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
As is always the case with polls, the wording of the question affects the outcome.
It appears that the poll question was worded so as to elicit the public’s views on making the tax cuts permanent.
An entirely separate question is whether or not it would be O.K. to leave all the tax rates right where they are for just the next two years. I strongly suspect that if this were the question posed, the results would be entirely different.
The wording of the question often says a lot about the agenda of those asking it.
September 11th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
From the link provided (gallup.com)
“Gallup has typically found Americans unsympathetic to the argument that upper-income Americans are overtaxed. They generally believe upper-income Americans pay too little in taxes and favor higher taxes on wealthy Americans as a means to fund government programs, such as Social Security”
To what extent does increasing marginal tax rates on business owners, in a stagnant economy, result in an increase in total IRS revenues?
This is a critical question for those who think “the rich” are going to bail us out.
September 11th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I had a 30% stake in a start-up from 1986-1999. We had an S corp structure: stockholders were taxed on all earnings, retained or not. Tax rates were a good bit higher, especially in 1986, 1994.
Capital equipment budgets and increases in working capital were taxed, but no business decisions were made based on next year’s anticipated tax rate.
September 11th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
@DL:
I think the Average Joe thinks Wall Street made piles of money leading up to the crash, got bailed out, and went right back to making piles of money while Average Joe took the hit.
Not too far from the truth.
September 11th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
BR: “If the Bush White House wanted a permanent tax cut, then they should have passed it through ordinary legislation, and not as part of a reconciliation bill (which automatically expires after 9 years)”
But then they wouldn’t have been able to utilize the bogus budget numbers that sunsetting the tax cuts provided.
September 11th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Haigh,
“The best counterpoint comes from Rick Santelli: ‘STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING!’.”
Quite the contrary, as according to the independent non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, both the current federal deficits and debt as well as future federal deficits and debt are overwhelmingly as a result of the massive drop in federal income tax revenue from the numerous rounds of tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate.
Spending as part of the federal deficit and debt, which is a distant second, is primarily from two wars that were not paid for, Corporate Welfare in the form of a drug program for the pharmaceutical industry that was not paid for, and more Corporate Welfare in general that was not paid for.
September 11th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
How about a survey which asks, “are you in favor of raising the taxes of everybody but you?” and see what the results are.
Seems to me the only people in favor of raising taxes are those who aren’t affected by the tax, and those who get to spend the proceeds.
And in any case, everybody is worked up over where the money should come from, yet nobody seems to care where it goes, or how effectively it is spent.
September 11th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
@f411 and @jjay
I think you are discussing “The tyranny of the majority”, which the 1st amendment was supposed to address.
Now what? A new amendement to address “The tyranny of the minority”?
The bottom line is that “Government of the people by the people for the people” has been terminally corrupted and broken.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
“If the Bush White House wanted a permanent tax cut, then they should have passed it through ordinary legislation, and not as part of a reconciliation bill ”
The Republicans had 55 senators, the Democrats 45.
Democrats were going to filibuster the tax cut in “ordinary legislation.”
It takes 60 to break a filibuster.
The Republicans had 55.
To pass a budget reconciliation bill requires 50 + 1.
The Republicans had 55.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
@philipat: 2 thumbs up (pity I just have 2 to offer)
September 12th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Folks there are plenty of these greedy selfish rich making over 250K that do not have capital gains and dividend incomes and in NYC for instance pay close to 40% of their income on taxes and this doesn’t include sales taxes, real estate taxes and excise taxes. At some point they say “screw it”, the 12 hour workdays, hassles and aggravation are just not worth it. I’ll just close this business down. How is that good for the rest of society?
September 12th, 2010 at 11:56 am
“At some point they say “screw it”, the 12 hour workdays, hassles and aggravation are just not worth it. I’ll just close this business down.”
Can you please demonstrate where, at any point in history, besides a book of fiction with a cult following, this has ever actually happened. Nothing but empty rhetoric.
September 12th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Warren Buffett says your premise is bunk.
During an interview with Charlie Rose on November 13th, Rose asked Warren Buffett about the argument some advance that higher federal income taxation of the wealthy inhibits economic growth and/or the work ethic. Buffett responded:
“I’ve worked with all kinds of systems of taxation. I’ve worked with rich people, even in the ’50s and the ’60s when the top rate was 70% and I’ve worked with them when the capital gains rate was 39.6%, and not one of them ever said ‘It’s one o’clock, instead of working this afternoon I think I’ll go to the movies because my marginal rate is so high’. If anything, THEY WORKED HARDER.”
(emphasis mine)
September 12th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Yes, I agree we should cut spending. But as everyone knows who has read anything about our financial crisis, it will be impossible for this country to get on sound financial footing solely on cost cutting. More tax revenues must be generated. As one of the so-called “rich” (even though I don’t feel rich) I am not in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts on higher income individuals.
Would I prefer the entire tax system be overhauled? Yes. Am I in favor of eliminating all deductions and going to a flat tax? Yes. Do I think there are better methods than just simply raising taxes on those who earn more than $250K per year? Yes. Do I think raising my taxes a few percent will cause more harm than good to the deficit? No.
Higher income individuals have benefitted tremendously over the past twenty years or so. Those are the ones with assets than have grown their wealth. The income gap in this county has become too wide. And while I’m NOT in favor of income redistribution, I am in favor of using the extra money to pay down the debt. This will utimately benefit all of us.
September 12th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Even the originators of the misleadingly termed “Flat Tax”, Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, freely admitted in the 1983 edition of their book, that a “Flat Tax” will be “a tremendous boon to the economic elite from the start.” In an appendix to the book, Hall and Rabushka estimated that their flat tax proposal would INCREASE the tax bill for the lowest income families BY 78 PERCENT, and DECREASE the tax bill for the very richest families BY 41 PERCENT.
A consumption tax, wether you call it a Flat Tax, Fair Tax, National Sales Tax, or VAT tax, would be the WORST system to switch to, as even with exemptions for food, medical care, drugs, and housing, and calculating ALL the rebates or prebates, the Middle-class would pay almost 3 times more of their income, proportionally, as the wealthy, and the Working poor would pay 5 times more of their income, proportionally, as the wealthy.
Throwing money at the Rich & Corporate has never worked economically.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Thanks
Shipped that link to my timid, goose stepping Congressman.
Groupthink is a frightening thing to behold.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Arrrgh, what the hell happened to the Republicans? When did they become such wusses?
Wish we still had Nixon around to kick their asses.