Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (173085)	10/5/2011 12:04:14 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 542970

You have misframed what people say- they talk about during the REAGAN years.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (173085)	10/5/2011 8:24:57 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 542970

<<You can agree or disagree with that policy choice. But the facts are clear. President Obama's policy preferences are more focused on income redistribution (aka "class warfare") than President Clinton's tax policy ever was. Good, it is about time.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (173085)	10/5/2011 8:52:37 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542970

But the facts are clear. President Obama's policy preferences are more focused on income redistribution (aka "class warfare") than President Clinton's tax policy ever was. Man, Frank Luntz really is a genius the way he has gotten you guys to repeat that "class warfare" meme. What a joke. A stupid sick joke. “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” --Warren Buffett nytimes.com

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (173085)	10/8/2011 1:32:59 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542970

>>You can agree or disagree with that policy choice. But the facts are clear. President Obama's policy preferences are more focused on income redistribution (aka "class warfare") than President Clinton's tax policy ever was.<< Income redistribution has been happening for about thirty years now, all in an upward direction. Do you really think that an extra 2% on the top 1% is onerous? And is that difference so enormous, relative to the tax levels under Clinton?