|
Post by agito on Dec 21, 2008 20:54:18 GMT -6
democrats should be disgusted as well as any other red blooded american concerning themselves with parity in our society and the financial strength of the american family. I do have one problem with this post- from the block quote cited- it's not reasonable to assume that i want to know where Sirota gets that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Dec 21, 2008 21:47:54 GMT -6
I think Sirota is correct in his inference. Because if you don't tax the wealthy and won't increase property taxes you have only one avenue left for tax increases - regressive consumption based taxes that hammer the working and middle-class.
Something that Grey Davis tried and led to his recall. If Paterson tries consumption based taxes it'll start a rebellion against him.
BTW he's dead wrong in that taxing the rich hurts job creation. We've given the rich all the tax breaks imaginable over the last 8 years and that happened was the rich pouring their money into foreign factories and hedge funds. Besides at our industrial zenith business and the wealthy were taxed much higher than we do now with no ill-effect.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 21, 2009 22:31:45 GMT -6
I do have one problem with this post- from the block quote cited- it's not reasonable to assume that i want to know where Sirota gets that conclusion. I see exactly where Sirota came to that conclusion. from the New York Times article Sirota referenced: [/size][/ul][/ul] [/size][/ul][/ul] [/size][/ul][/ul] Patterson wants to raise taxes on working people and shield the superwealthy from any income tax. I agree with Sirota on both counts-- that Patterson does want to shield the rich from taxes, and that it's a bad idea to shield the rich from taxes. Hopefully Sirota has now returned to being a populist advocate, instead of another blind Obama apologist.
|
|