Oh, you mean when Newt, and the republican congress forced Clinton to reform welfare, and balance a budget to save his re election bid?How about a few examples to illustrate what you're talking about? You mean like when Clinton raised taxes and cut spending, thus balancing the budget?
Never said you couldn't express your opinion, as wrong as I believe it to be....See what you did there is an actual strawman....pay attention now.Who elected you the arbiter of what opinions other people may or may not express? Are you blind to the absolute irony of your comment?
It is absolutely a jealousy based argument...."Whaaaa!....It isn't fair that the rich have so much, we should take it....Whaaaaa!"Actually it has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy. That is a pathetic wingnut talking point that you should really try to get past.
So broaden the base, make more contribute in, and lower over all rates while doing away with some deductions and revenues will flood in. This has been proven, unless you think Kennedy was wrong?Yes, I agree that everyone should be paying more. But it needs to be much more progressive than it has been in recent years.
Anyone that uses a word like "stupider" should not talk.Really, get over the jealousy canard. It has no basis in fact and it just makes you look stupider.
You obviously don't know what a strawman argument is....Back to school son.You've compounded multiple strawman arguments into one sentence and that's bad enough.
And if you actually read my arguments, you'd know that I am not totally against a rate increase, if they are done only after spending cuts are enacted. We don't trust liberal progressives anymore.No one claims that bumping the top income rate a few percent is going to solve income inequality. Nor is going to destroy the wealthy if they have to pay historically average income tax rates. Believe me, taxes on the rich have been *much* higher in the past, and they didn't go anywhere.