RED vs Blue its all just there to keep us thinking it can change.. When it never will... those two parties are what hold the uber rich together and keep the poor from coming at the the top percentage of "earners" or "financial rapers" snake oil salesmen whatever your gist.

They are shielded by the system. People actually go to it and vote, do paper work make pointless calls and the like.

All the while the ones at the top are running off into the sunset on yachts, coke, liquor, prostitutes, child prostitutes, mansions, cars and future human financial stability. Well karma doesn't do anything for that... Who believes in that right?

Belief the universe is really unaffected by it.. It is..

For a party of the "rich" they do fairly well in elections.

As a party of the "poor" the democrats really don't help those people do much more than "just get by" and don't do much to encourage them to try to improve their socio-economic status.

The democrats plan is trying to reinstate the "marriage" penalty. Incomes 200k single, then 250k get the lower rates, but once you make over 250k combined, tax rates go up. Why not 400k for 2 people?

Between all the other taxes that you pay (fuel, sales, etc), the tax rates between income levels isn't quite as out of sync across the board as you think.

forgive me if i'm wrong, but Trouble does not technically own any assets nor does the dog have any income. The assets are held in trust for the care of the dog, and the administrator of the trust probably invested the assets in securities. The increase in the value of the securities would not be taxed according to the income tax rates, which is what Bush tax cuts have to do with, but rather are taxed at the capital gains tax rates, which are even more shockingly low, at a historically low 15% but are increasing to 20% in 2011. Otherwise, great argument, Rep Crowley, but I hate to see legislators misconstrue the tax code, which they, themselves, are supposed to be creating.

The most hilarious part is how they keep getting middle class people to vote for them.

That's because Republicans have done a very good job over the last 40 years of convincing middle-class whites that they're in the same demo/class as the rich.

Well, stop calling people earning $200,000 a year "rich" or "wealthy" and maybe those voters will see things differently. A guy making $50,000 to $70,000 thinks he has a realistic shot at making six figures. He might be dead wrong but he sees it as possible and doesn't want to be seen as "the problem". As I alluded to above, it's time to create some more tax brackets. Why this is not seriously on the table is baffling.

those are the "value voters" (in other words: racists & homophobes)

because deep down they think some day they'll possibly become that rich too when in reality it will never happen

I've been saying that ever since Al Gore kept harping on the "wealthiest one percent" back in 2000. And it's been holding back the Democrats ever since. Why someone earning $200,000 a year is lumped in with someone making $1 million or $100 million defies logic. Try checking out how well the top 0.1 or 0.01 percent has done.

What we really need is a tax code tied to percentages (i.e., top 10% of earners, top 30%, top 50%, etc), and not absolute values.

Bears poop in the woods and the Pope is Catholic (and a Nazi). Give us news that NEW!