Originally Posted by
Havakasha
I already wrote and acknowledged that i didnt provide the link in my first post. There was nothing sinister in it as the rest of the article had NOTHING to do with the topic. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WISH TO TURN THIS INTO A PROCEDURAL DEBATE AS opposed TO ONE ON THE TOPIC. TSK. TSK.
IM STARTING TO THINK YOU ARE JOHN.
NOW please admit that the article i posted which started the thread HAD NO REFERENCE TO "RICH DEMOCRATIC SENATORS".
HERE IS THE ENTIRE ARTICLE I STARTED THE THREAD WITH:
“Members of Congress had a collective net worth of more than $2 billion in 2010, a nearly 25 percent increase over the 2008 total, according to a Roll Call analysis of Members' financial disclosure forms,” Roll Call writes. “Nearly 90 percent of that increase is concentrated in the 50 richest Members of Congress.” Among the richest, Reps. Mike McCaul (worth at least $294 million) and Darrell Issa (at least $295 million).
“Republicans may be trying to focus their messaging on jobs and the economy — and hammering President Barack Obama for campaigning — but they still have time for some red meat base-baiting on the House floor,” Roll Call reports. “To wit: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (Va.) decision to bring to the floor a measure that ‘reaffirms ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions,’ according to the resolution, sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).”
“A Newsweek investigation found about five dozen of the most fiscally conservative Republicans ‘trying to gobble up the very largesse they publicly disown, in the time-honored, budget-busting tradition of bringing home the bacon for local constituents,’” PoliticalWire notes.
Browse: congress
So as you can see I didnt leave out, hide or obfuscate ANY reference to "rich Democratic senatorsPlease admit you lied.
No i dont think income disparity has to with inflationism. I think it has to do with tax policy and the power of
lobbyists in Congress.
you cant keep having it both ways. You cant say its a minor change to raise the tax rate on the wealthy back to what
it was under Clinton and say that you dont really have a problem with it. And then say "your party wants more".
Somewhat contradictory dont you think. Your logic is sometimes very faulty much like it was with Peter Shciff and Climate
change.
I want to restore some basic fairness in the political system and in tax policy. You keep arguing Republican right wing talking points.