Lumpy, are you really hell bent on defending the extreme left wingers at all costs, instead of leaving the fringe in the gutter? Please, don’t try and change the subject in an attempt to defend this pinko, when what you’re now asking for (increased taxes for the wealthy, or at least not cutting taxes at war time) and what he is asking for (forced subsidizing of industry by banks and increased corporate taxes to 4 times their taxable income) are two entirely different things. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. In this case, Monsior Marx would have the entire country in an unemployment line.
Step back and make sure you want to take Comrade Quebec’s side on this, before you change his words to match your own beliefs. Look at what he is asking for and what you are asking for, and they are two separate things, are you sure you really stand behind the Politburo Parrot here? Keep in mind your rant about the wealthy individuals has nothing to do with anything I said about the Japanese Kieritsu’s or the tax rate of corporations.
It so happens that I think there is merit in what you are saying (the tax cut during the war), unfortunately politics and our economic health are also major driving forces behind the timing. You can bet that Bush has learned from his father and wasn?t going to go into the elections only to hear, “it’s the economy stupid,” up into November. I think you know as well as I do that if W were to say we are hell bent on foreign policy but ignore the domestic economy, the administration would hear hell about it from both parties.
And in that respect, you have to admit that growth figures for 3rd quarter, up 8%, ain’t too shabby. While we both may be concerned about the growing government, I think we are both happy for the economic good news. Now as far as tomorrow’s economy, I agree, spending needs to be controlled. A deficit in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I too believe in fiscal responsibility.
Lastly, before you start “loling” at my hypothetical tax rate, be sure you know why you are laughing. I picked 40% because it is a reasonable rate, regardless of what rate you pick, 35%, 40% or 50% (or more), Chairmen Mao, I mean, Chairmen Quebec’s suggested tax rate of 10 times their current taxes would put any firm out of business. Or do you support that idea too? I had figured you smarter than that.
Don’t let your disdain for the rich interfere with what is and what isn’t reasonable for the good of the country. Forcing industry out of business a la Monsior Mao won’t help anybody.
If you want to discuss taxes and the economy, I am happy to, but don’t try and turn my criticism for our lunatic communist into a platform for your views personal views on the wealthy.