More than 40 of the nation's millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.
"For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled," their website states. "We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more."
Of course, the thought of voluntarily paying more in taxes, which every one of them can do right now, never seems to cross the minds of these leftist doofuses.
I'll make "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength" a deal; they agree to hand over every ounce of their money and assets over the magical $250k threshold to the government for five years, and then we'll think about it.
But since they can't even hold their own like Geithner, Rangel, and John Kerry responsible for tax evasion.....
5 comments:
NDT, I also wonder why "patriotic" rich folks don't just voluntarily give the government more of their money. Why do they have such a need to have their income taken from them? Maybe they're trying to assuage the guilt they feel for being successful. Think that could be it?
"Patriotic" rich folks generally contribute plenty to society, even if they do not do so through the government. Very often, these contributions are why they are wealthy in the first place.
Seane-Anna, yours is the reasoning of a closet socialist. Precisely how do you figure yourself to be a conservative at all? Because of your pathological abhorrence of gays?
The very notion that the rich must feel "guilt" for being successful gives you away. Under your self-righteous mask is the face of a garden-variety liberal-statist hypocrite. You automatically assume, of course, that rich people must "give the government more of their money."
The government doesn't even bother with niceties like politely asking anybody to give them their money. They merely make free and bold to take it. And they're perfectly willing to resort to violence when they don't get all of it they so rapaciously demand.
You are a phony. Go back to liberal-land and openly support your socialist messiah.
Lori, perhaps I'm reaching, but I don't think Seane-Anna is saying that the rich should feel guilty. I think she's saying that liberal rich people do because their ideology of demonizing all rich people is contradictory to their existence; as a result, they demand taxes on others as a means of making up for it while they refuse to pay them themselves. Sort of like how they demand racial quotas be imposed on everyone else because they themselves are racists.
NDT, I think you are reaching, but as usual you are being very charitable.
I am looking for some other possible motivation for SA's strangeness. She claims she is not a closeted homosexual, so I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt.
Another possibility, it seems to me, might be that she has been drawn to a cockeyed notion of "social conservatism" based solely on resentment and class hatred. She may not want the gays to get ahead of her in the Aggrievement Olympics.
As I have suggested on more than one Gay Patriot commentary thread, she clearly has a bee in her bonnet about gay conservatives -- going so far as to claim we don't really exist, and that we are implementing some dark plot to "infiltrate" (her word) the conservative movement.
I'm moved to expose her real motives not so much out of actual curiosity (I really don't care, because in and of herself, she really bores me) but because I believe that's the proper and reasonable way to face a bully: confront him or her, and demand an explanation of the behavior exhibited. It's better than violence -- even when violence is possible -- and it generally works.
Bullies do not want to admit their true motivations. They know they're neither reasonable nor honorable, and thus -- even in their refusal to respond -- do they expose themselves.
SA has revealed herself in at least the sense that we now know she doesn't trust her own motives enough to tell us what they are. Does that inevitably mean she is a closet-case? Of course not. But it does show she's up to no good.
I have just been searching for info about this topic for a while and yours is the best I have found out so far. house cleaning san diego
Post a Comment