Dozens of America’s wealthiest taxpayers — including hedge fund legend Michael Steinhardt, super trial lawyer Guy Saperstein, and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s fame — have appealed to President Obama not to renew the Bush tax cuts for anyone earning more than $1 million a year. Calling themselves “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength,” the 40-plus signers today launched a website and a campaign that they hope will draw support from others who agree that fiscal responsibility should begin with those who can best afford it — as their letter to Obama explains.
[…]
The Patriotic Millionaires campaign, pulled together quickly by the Agenda Project in New York City, just happens to appear on the same day as a new study from the Center for Responsive Politics revealing that half of the members of the House and the Senate are millionaires. That contrasts sharply with the general population, of whom fewer than 1 percent can claim millionaire status.

Some might see a correlation and potential conflict of interest in that last point. Obviously, irresponsible conspiracy theorists.

Not surprisingly, some of the super-rich declined to join the Patriotic Millionaires when the Agenda Project reached out to them. […]A Manhattan hedge fund billionaire said he believes the cuts should be extended and added that “the moneys should be used to pay down debt” — which sounds like the magical Republican plan to simultaneously cut taxes, wage war and drastically reduce the deficit. The same investor also complained that “anyone who has money is made to feel that they’re bad.”

Bad? Only if they’d rather force Grandma to eat cat food than pay their fair share.




  1. bobbo, to the left and right of Obama says:

    #59–Mr Ed==I’m sure some Pukes are just selfish but its definitional again. Selfish to what self interest? Selfish to all money I “make” should be mine alone? or selfish to what it takes to have a good life in a functioning society that is a pleasure to be a part of?

    I saw the Arizona Teabag candidate Engle yell to the crowd that “I’ve already had my children, why should I pay for maternal healthcare services as part of an insurance program?” and her kiddies are through college now so why should she pay property taxes to support schools? Why indeed? I guess I’m just weird that I don’t want to live in a country that allows sick/pregnant people to go without care and their kiddies to be denied the best education they can benefit from. And if that means I can’t have a fourth or fifth house or a yatch more than 100 feet long, or a new 5th car every year, I’ll just have to suffer the inhumanity of that.

    Mike–Obama was wrong. Now, I’ll meet you half way and assume he said some words to that effect but based on your LYING track record, I’ll also assume there was a larger context exactly to the opposite. NO ONE IS FOR TAXES. If lower taxes raised revenue, then anyone moving to raise taxes should be VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. Fact is however, there is every reason in the world to tax Cap Gains at higher rates than real work. Just more FUD put out by the PUKES that has been repeated so often the sheep eat it like good green grass. The truth however is just the opposite. What else could the SUPER RICH do with so much money they can’t even spend it?

    Silly Hoomans.

  2. Thomas says:

    #61
    So, anyone that doesn’t want to pay their more of their money to the government is greedy? Why don’t you send all your money to the government? We’ll all cheer for you. These millionaires that think they aren’t being taxed enough can also send all their money into the government. We’ll cheer for them too. Oh, you will only do it if everyone else is required to do it? What a hypocrite.

  3. Thomas says:

    #66
    Budgets should be balanced, over time, as the will of the people is expressed. Set expenses and tax rate as required to achieve the balance/surplus as best we can…

    I completely agree. However, it should be noted that to balance the budget you have to increase revenue *and* cut spending. There is a fundamental trust issue in this respect. No one trusts that the government, upon raising taxes, will use that money to pay down its debts instead of spending more nor do they believe that they will ever pull back those tax increases. Until the government demonstrates that it will cut projects it cannot afford in order to balance the budget, no one will believe them when they say they need more money.

    Someone as even keeled and analytical as yourself should see the “error” in arguing the poor should be taxed the same as rich.

    The poor already do not pay any tax. Over 96% of the tax is paid by the upper 50% of the income earners. Over 50% by the upper 5% of income earners. So, please do not try to feed us this line of bull that we are not accounting for poor when we speak of fairness in the tax system.

    You did not answer my original question. Why not tax the upper 5% at 95% and the rest of us at zero? That would be more than double what the upper 5% pay now which is already more than 50% of the tax revenue collected.

    Yes, makes me want to PUKE for the children’s sake and the hyperinflation that is around the corner.

    Do not blame fiscal conservatives for your boy’s tactic of devaluing the currency in order to improve the economy. When hyperinflation hits, you came blame Obama and you can blame Bernanke but you cannot blame fiscal conservatives who have been saying for years that the Federal government is already too big and needs to balance its budget by cutting back on spending.

    Want to jack up the upper tax brackets? Go for it. The mess Obama made worse is already so bad, maybe an object lesson in economics is necessary. Raise the upper limit to 95%. Hell, why not 99%? I’m sure that the Federal government would only spend that brief increase in tax revenue on the debt. It’s not like they’ve lied before right?

  4. bobbo, its the environment that shapes your attitudes says:

    Thomas–are you an idiot by calcification or by express design?

    You must know that whether or not millionaires should get a debt financed tax break is an issue that stands on its own unanswered by whether or not certain millionaires are willing to give their money to the Gov. Do argu ad hominem and irrelevantly as you do after the error is pointed out to you is what just exactly?

    Very similarly, no one needs to trust government as to whether or not the National Debt is increasing. Even when you CONFLATE issues together, you still lose your arguments, but keep on making them. If you agree the gov will not cut expenses, then raising taxes IS THE ONLY SANE THING TO DO. And you want more tax cuts making your position INSANE. Being insane, you have to conflate and misdirect your issues to get any support from the PUKE BASE. If you aren’t rich yourself Thomas you are cutting your own throat. If you are rich Thomas, you are cutting the throats of your kiddies or grand kiddies. Someday maybe you will realize this: “and the Beast in the Jungle lept….”

    As to your 5%-95% question–taxation levels need to be set at what the market will bear to cover the expenses the market demands. The Beatles sang “Here’s one for you 19 for me because I’m the Tax Man” and they left UK for tax havens. Thats the push and shove of politics.

    I would certainly hope that a sound tax/social policy could be reached with a max nominal INCOME TAX rate of 50% but that assumes correct levels of minimum wage, OSHA, tax compliance, fraud compliance, etc to begin with.

    There are no fiscal conservatives. Deficit Spending is the harshest regressive tax there is.

    Thomas–sincerely==just what kind of idiot are you?

    Malignant Human.

  5. Thomas says:

    #70
    Seriously, find your meds.

    The millionaires in the OP can simply write a check to the government if they feel they are not paying enough tax. These people should put their money where their mouth is. Where is the ad hominem there? They are hypocrites if they will only give their money to the government if it is forced upon them and everyone else.

    If you agree the gov will not cut expenses, then raising taxes IS THE ONLY SANE THING TO DO.

    Wow. Just wow. As Ren once said, “Your wealth of ignorance astounds me.” So, according to you the solution to someone that cannot control their spending is to give them more money?! Really? Can you be that dense?

    I do not trust the government to balance its budget. BALANCING the budget means that revenues match or exceed expenses including paying off debts. The government needs to demonstrate that it can do that with the money it has. If you do not trust that the government will wisely spend the additional money you give to it, it is the height of insanity to agree to a tax increase. It is giving money to a crack addict which apparently you think is a good idea.

    If you aren’t rich yourself Thomas you are cutting your own throat. If you are rich Thomas, you are cutting the throats of your kiddies or grand kiddies.

    Now you are trying to deflect blame. The majority of citizens are not to blame for the government spending money it did not have. We did not saddle our children with government debt. The blame falls squarely on the politicians that did not listen to their constituents who have screamed for years to balance their budget. We vote them out of office and the next group is just as bad.

    You are the sibling that has squandered their money and now, racked with debt, is asking his family for money while buying a new TV and pleading “think about my children”. The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging. Until any of us have any confidence that the government is done digging, we aren’t going to give them money.

    As to your 5%-95% question–taxation levels need to be set at what the market will bear to cover the expenses the market demands

    Since when did the left ever care about the market with respect to taxes? Increasing taxes, especially on so few people, does not affect the economy right? That’s the mindset of the left. In addition, think about the other 95% that no longer have any taxes. Isn’t that good coming from the liberal mind: the rich paying for all the social services of the poor? Why is 95% not OK but say 50, 60 or 70% OK? To the left, it all comes down to how much you have left after the government takes its share.

    Deficit Spending is the harshest regressive tax there is.

    Indeed and your boy Obama has set new records for deficit spending that dwarf every President since FDR. Only an idiot would give money to a crack addict that shows no evidence of recovery. Similarly, only an idiot would give money to the government that shows no evidence that it can balance its budgets.

    There are no fiscal conservatives.

    If you meant to say that there are no fiscal conservatives in office, I would agree. That is all the more reason to resist tax increases.

  6. bobbo, its the environment that shapes your attitudes says:

    Tommy Boy==maybe you are that calcified. Not an evil man, just trapped and unable to flex anymore??? Get a stroller and walk around your doublewide. It will do you good.

    The TAX POLICY of the USA regarding deficit funding for millionaire tax reduction is WHOLLY SEPARATE from whether or not individuals do or don’t give their money away otherwise. You are being DISHONEST in continuing to bring this up. What are you saying?===if those on the list are shown to actually do what you assume they don’t, that is suppose they did all pay the government more than they should, would that make their recommendation/support valid then??? Of course not. THE TAX POLICY IS AN ISSUE THAT STANDS ON ITS OWN. Stop shitting in your pants and looking for solutions there. Your “arguments” stink on ice.

    My solution to Representatives who spend too much is to VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE until they get the message that DEFICIT SPENDING IS JUST ANOTHER TAX ON THE POOR—just another wealth transfer from the poorer many to the fewer SUPER RICH. You and MOST PUKES think the issue is tax or not tax whereas the “real” issue is taxation always just honestly or covertly. Silly Puke.

    I do agree there is a strong disconnect between we the people and our elected representatives. We will never focus on that MAIN problem though while class divisions are kept alive thru tax=slavery and the rest of the shenanigans that go on under the rubric of political discourse.

    To you Thomas and all other self defeating fiscal libertines: deficit spending is as much a tax as any direct tax and it is the most regressive tax there is. Quit thinking you are being fiscal/conservative/responsible by advocating this constant wealth shift from the poor to the rich.

    Think about a new idea. Try it.

  7. noname says:

    # 65 Bushed

    I doubt you could spot a commie, if one stood in front of you.

    You sound like a another raving brainless shrill.

  8. bobbo, always eager to be shown the better way says:

    noname==I could be wrong but I think Bushed is being sarcastic and even Alvin was undercutting himself with humor.

    Yes, good to keep a sense of humor even when staring down the throat of the monster. I can’t do it “all the time” but that ad hominem recognition does not deny the fact.

  9. bobbo, always eager to be shown the better way says:

    Mike==well – – – – – – – – thank you? Yea, I think in fair context, he did say that. Did spend 99% of the time talking to getting enough revenue to cover expenses though==but fair enough.

    Course now–“fairness” or completeness is an issue. Is it true now that “EVERY TIME” Cap Gains has been reduced that revenue from Cap Gains Taxes have gone up? Is that “really” true or did Obaman just assume it wasn’t true and went forward with what common sense tells us?

    And even if true, what happened in all other revenue pots? And what else was going on, what bubbles were growing and which were popping?

    But yes–in isolation taxes should be set where society benefits the most which does include motivating the ones taxed directly as well as those taxed indirectly.

    As I stated above, common sense, PRAGMATISM, and fairness lean towards income derived from massed wealth passively gaining income SHOULD BE taxed at a higher rate than income derived from working hard for it. Why should Paris Hilton pay less marginal rates for doing nothing while her maid pays higher rates working 12/6 to clean up her dogs mess?

    Yes, perhaps PUKE BIG LIE NO2–Capital Gains taxes should be lower than Normal Income Tax.

    Thanks Mike. ((I mean that, always a pain to have to look a reference up. Buts its a valuable service to the community.))

  10. Thomas says:

    #72
    The TAX POLICY of the USA regarding deficit funding for millionaire tax reduction is WHOLLY SEPARATE from whether or not individuals do or don’t give their money away otherwise. You are being DISHONEST in continuing to bring this up. What are you saying?

    RTFA. We have millionaires saying that they are not taxed enough. The simple solution is for those that think this to give more money to the government. However, they don’t want to do that. They and you want to gloss over that simple solution to claim that they are only thinking about tax policy (cue the dramatic music). Bullshit. The fundamental problem is that they do not want to make that contribution voluntary. Instead, they want to force all other millionaires to be as generous as they falsely claim themselves to be. Basically, they are trying to make themselves look better. Like I said, if they really did not think they were being taxed fairly, they can solve that. Instead, they want to force everyone else to think the same way. Typical liberal.

    My solution to Representatives who spend too much is to VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE until they get the message that DEFICIT SPENDING IS JUST ANOTHER TAX ON THE POOR

    Yet, you fully endorsed Obama’s Stimulus Bill and the bailouts. Some call that hypocritical.

    You and MOST PUKES think the issue is tax or not tax whereas the “real” issue is taxation always just honestly or covertly

    And that is why you fail. That is not the real issue. The fundamental issue is whether the government is spending the money it gets wisely. You want everyone to give more money to the government even though they piss it away. The Federal government has a track record of ever increasing debt over decades. Giving money to an organization like that is giving money to a crack addict.

    A fiscal conservative wants balanced budgets. That is the defining issue. In balancing the budget, we need to ask whether the Federal government has a revenue problem or a spending problem (or both)? Right now, it has a spending problem. Your solution is to ignore the spending problem give them more money so they supposedly won’t go deeper into debt. What happens when they take that additional revenue and spend that too? Should we give them even more? Where does that stop? Perhaps you are unclear on the concept of a balanced budget. To you, a balanced budget means you keep increasing taxes to match spending rather than curtailing spending to match revenue.

    There is nothing more pragmatic than the government demonstrating that it will use the tax revenue it receives in a responsible manner.

  11. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

    bobbo, thanks for the props. In the interest of full disclosure I got the idea from the Rachel Maddow interview of Jon Stewart. Jon said something similar, almost under his breath. Your take on it solidifies the idea, and nobody here has challenged you…the usual suspects (partisans) seem rather silent. 🙂

    Thomas…Tax rates are at historic lows. Sure seems to me (and many others) as if we have a revenue problem, too. There are pragmatic and painless ways to make a big dent in that revenue problem.

    “The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.” [Warren] Buffett explained. Is Buffett a liberal? Actually, in order to head off the partisans, maybe I should ask: was he a liberal before making this statement?

  12. smartalix says:

    Those who have more also have more to thank society for. They need the protection of the police, the functionality of the infrastructure, and health of the body public the most. Ben Franklin pointed this out years ago.

  13. bobbo, always eager to be shown the better way says:

    #77–Thomas==its clear you are just talking out your ass. Balanced budgets is NOT your primary goal–paying less taxes is.

    since you are intentionally ignoring the point, I will repeat it here for the few who might have missed it: when you “reduce taxes” without reducing spending==YOU ARE STILL TAXING THE PUBLIC. Its call deficit spending which when not repaid only acts to deflate the buying power of the US dollar–ie–the worst kind of REGRESSIVE TAX there is as it falls on the poor disproportionately in all the necessary goods and services they buy.

    Get it thru your tiny PARTISAN BRAIN: lowering taxes INCREASES the burden of government spending on those who can least afford it==just like taxes.

    The notion of “starving the beast” is another BIG PUKE LIE. Let’s make it No3? The beast is never starved, it just feeds itself less openly.

    Government is the Beast. You control it ONLY BY reducing its spending. Understand what “ONLY” means. It does not mean cutting taxes.

    Services vs Funding. Funding achieved by taxation or by deficit spending. Evil or stupid to conflate the two.

  14. jman says:

    @noname

    you moron

    Buffet does not pay income tax, that’s why his “rate” is lower than his secretary.

    It’s a scam statement

  15. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

    jman…is Buffett in that special 0% bracket?

  16. Mextli says:

    The state of California is the standard for Democratic tax and social policies. Nothing but a Ponzi scheme sucking up taxes and returning entitlements as a way of buying votes until it collapses under it’s own weight.

    But of course it’s all for some nebulous future for the children, sick, and poor that all democrats fight for.

  17. Thomas says:

    #78
    Tax rates are at historic lows. Sure seems to me (and many others) as if we have a revenue problem, too

    That’s not a valid argument for the budget problems. In your world, there is no accountability for spending. Arguing that “we’re spending more than we make and tax rates are low” does not determine whether the reason debt levels are rising is because we are simply spending too much. We would have to wait until the we are deep in debt *AND* over taxed before any action would be taken and by then it is too late.

    The government needs to first cut spending to match revenue. Only then can we evaluate what other programs we want to the government to manage for which it will need additional revenue and *then* we can decide to increase taxes to pay for those programs. In short, the government needs tell us why exactly, for what programs exactly it needs the additional revenue and that plan has to include a balanced budget. I.e., with the additional revenue, the government could eliminate the deficit and start paying down its debt and fund whatever program(s) for which it is requesting the additional revenue. In short, until we see a balanced budget with their *current* revenue, there is no argument that can justify tax increases because there is no way to know if the tax increase will actually solve the problem or just fuel the fire.

  18. Thomas says:

    #80
    #77–Thomas==its clear you are just talking out your ass. Balanced budgets is NOT your primary goal–paying less taxes is.

    Look who’s talking out of their tokhes now? My primary goal is justified tax increases. Why should anyone want to give more money to the government if it will simply continue to spend more than it makes? The more money we give the government the higher the debt it racks up. It is giving crack to the crack addict. Only a liberal would think that is ok for the Federal government not to have a balanced budget. Hell, we’d even be ok with seeing how the tax increases they do propose will actually get them to a ZERO deficit THIS year. As far as I know, every State is required to have a balanced budget. Why not the Federal government?

    you “reduce taxes” without reducing spending==YOU ARE STILL TAXING THE PUBLIC.

    Completely agree. One more time: I agree. HOWEVER, what you propose is to raise revenue to meet expenses. That’s fiscally stupid. That’s a black hole of ever increasing taxes. The fiscally responsible solution is to lower expenses to meet current revenue. Only then can we evaluate the programs that are desired and the amount of money necessary to fund them. The way it works now is that the government spends the money and after the fact says we have to increase taxes.

    Only when the government balances its current budget can any tax increase be justified. Otherwise, we have no means of knowing whether we are helping to solve the problem or just funding a Ponzi scheme.

  19. noname says:

    Thomas,

    Your argument is bogus as it is circular.

    “Only a liberal would think that is ok for the Federal government not to have a balanced budget”

    1.) Conservatives have increased our national debt every-time they hold the White House since Reagan.

    In 1980 the national debt stood at under $2 trillion. Reagan doubled the figure in 8 years with his tax cutting and the dubious promise of trickle down – aka vodoo – economics. George H Bush, father of the term vodoo economics, took it past $6 trillion. Clinton lowered it, and George W reversed the trend, and doubled it yet again to $13 trillion. What part of this do dumb conservatives not get?

  20. noname says:

    Thomas,

    In addition to our argument is bogus as it is circular.

    Didn’t VP Cheney tell us that “Reagan has proven that deficits don’t matter”?

    What changed, our dear conservatives? Deficits now matter just because you are out of office?

  21. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

    Thomas…this isn’t a binary problem where spending cuts and revenue increases are mutually exclusive. There are 10 options, why not pick them both?

  22. noname says:

    Conservatives see only black & white.

    Saying there are shades of grey or color is just high fluentant mumbo jumbo.

  23. ECA says:

    I have to suggest something here.

    Being rich, isnt the problem here.
    There are many ways to become rich.
    One of them seems to be about PUSHING UP costs to the public. Over pricing goods.

    Under the capitalist ideals..its NOT money, its BUYING POWER. If you look at any model, its BUYING POWER. which means someone/everyone has to have money to BUY STUFF. If the money dont move around, it DONT WORK. Under a capitalist ideal PRICES FALL, only to the point that you can get 1/2 the people to BUY your products. Its NOT HAPPENING.
    There is a string to this tho…REQUIREMENTS TO LIVING. This few things SHOULD BE REGULATED. Food, housing, BASIC utilities..
    something WEIRD that they wont tell you, in this…YOUR WAGES should fluctuate WITH the price of goods. But, as those on TOP have gained EXTRA MONEY, those on the bottom, gained NOTHING for 20 years. Compare wages in the past to recent times.

    AS to the government. LOOK at THEIR pay history…before and AFTER the 70’s. There was a STRANGE VOTE..we need to change that.
    HOW about this: What is LEFT of the tax money incurred over the year and NOT SPENT to keep this country rolling, after FULL PAYMENTS for all needed services, can be spared to pay our representative government employees. i would also point out that 99% of the government ISNT ELECTED. MOST never had any education/experience in the JOBS they have/got.

    Good luck on the debate.

  24. MikeN says:

    Yes, capital gains revenues went up when you lower the rates. This of course fails if you lower the rate to zero, but the argument is the benefits to the economy are substantial and outweigh the loss of capital gains revenue. The gains in revenue happen even without growth, just because people can choose when to sell their shares, and a lower rate, they will cash in. I have seen some people write there is no correlation between economic growth and the change in capital gains tax rates, though it is too small a sample size to say for sure.

    It is possible Obama wasn’t paying attention beyond keying in on the topic is capital gains taxes, much like Hillary nodding along as Mrs Arafat says Israelis kill Palestinian babies and drink their blood. He stuck to his talking points.

    Of course it is unfair to have some people do no work and make money. It is silly to think you can undo unfairness. Why is it fair to tax something again, after it has already been earned? Someone puts it in a bank account and saves it, and has to pay money on the interest, even though in some cases the money is worth less than when he started.

  25. Thomas says:

    #86,#87
    1.) Conservatives have increased our national debt every-time they hold the White House since Reagan.

    No sir. Republicans increased our national debt during Reagan’s administration as did Democrats and yes there were many conservatives that called for balanced budgets. The arguments in favor of deficit spending at the time was that we were at war with the Soviets.

    . Clinton lowered it, and George W reversed the trend, and doubled it yet again to $13 trillion. What part of this do dumb conservatives not get?

    Not true. No President in the past 100 years has lowered the debt. Every fiscal year under Clinton, the debt went up. What happened during Clinton’s administration is that Social Security received quite a bit more than it spent and so some of the public debt was paid down using intergovernmental debt (aka T-bills). However, that just moved the money around. It is still the case that the government spent more than it made every year of Clinton’s administration. The closest it got was “only” 17 billion in the red.

    #88
    A reasonable question. It comes down to whether the government is going to be fiscally responsible. The government needs to show how it is going to balance its budget *this* year. If it needs tax increases to do that, then put that in the plan and sell it to the American people. Even with tax increases, the Federal budget will not be balanced. What will happen is that the money will be spent on “something” and we’ll be in the same hole except with higher taxes with the same cries about not having enough money. This comes down to trust. No one trusts that the additional money they ask of everyone will be spent to get their house in order because no one was alive when it happened last.

  26. ECA says:

    #91,

    Mike,
    do you understand ALL the taxes you pay?
    ALL the hidden tax, on goods that are passed onto the customer on Every product and food and utilities..Everything. Including your 30% on wages add another 30% to it.

  27. noname says:

    # 92 Thomas,

    Your from Canada, what do you know!

  28. chris says:

    Hi Thomas,

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    #92“Not true. No President in the past 100 years has lowered the debt.“
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

    Here is a graphic showing how national debt was reduced under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. Don’t forget Eisenhower and Nixon. No President can reduce debt, huh?

    Not a modern Republican president anyway. You just don’t have the moral high ground.

    #92 “It is still the case that the government spent more than it made every year of Clinton’s administration. The closest it got was “only” 17 billion in the red.”

    Wrong again. Go to wolframalpha.com and type in “u.s. budget deficit”

    Note where the line goes below zero, and forgive Bill Clinton for your oversight. A budget surplus tends to look like a deficit when you are innumerate. I understand completely.

    #85 “Only when the government balances its current budget can any tax increase be justified.”

    Let me remind you that George W. started with a surplus. He started two wars and lowered taxes. If we stop both wars and return taxes to the previous levels wouldn’t that be progress toward a balanced budget?

    #71“The majority of citizens are not to blame for the government spending money it did not have. We did not saddle our children with government debt. The blame falls squarely on the politicians that did not listen to their constituents who have screamed for years to balance their budget. We vote them out of office and the next group is just as bad.”

    That just isn’t true. We can blame people who voted Republican any time since Reagan. Everything they touched turned to shit. It isn’t an accident.

    You can’t even believe how wrong you are. I hope it trickles down to you eventually.

  29. JimD says:

    “Fiscal Conservatives” are FINANCIAL CHILD MOLESTERS !!!

    STEALING FROM KIDS AND THE UN-BORN TO GIVE

    ***TAX CUTS TO BILLIONAIRES AND MILLIONAIRES*** !!!

    It is time to BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE BILLIONAIRES AND MILLIONAIRES, AND NOT KIDS !!!

    ***SOAK THE RICH*** !!!


3

Bad Behavior has blocked 8799 access attempts in the last 7 days.