Quote Originally Posted by Trinnity View Post
No offense, but wise up. He (and the dems in Congress) gives a tax break here and increases a tax, fee, or regulation somewhere else. That's how they play the game. Then they can say they reduced taxes. They even call future spending on wars which have ended, a tax cut. We're not ignorant, ya know.
Always willing to learn, but don't pretend to tell me that only the dems play the tax game with the american public. That's how it's been done since forever. And here's a thought: maybe we shouldn't have stuck our noses in Iraq if we didn't have the money to pay for it, since it was a war of convenience anyway. Those two wars have to be paid for, and we're taking it up the butt now, in large part because of it. And what did we get for it all. Nothing to write home about.

The OP video tiresomely exposes once again the "fact" that if the government took all of the wealth accumulated by the 1% and applied it to the debt it would only cover it for a few weeks or whatever. Been there, have seen that before. So what? Does that mean that tax breaks for the wealthy should remain in place? Why? What was the purpose of the tax-breaks from the beginning? Why did the former administration initiate them in the first place? Officially, it was designed to spur growth, which it did not. Ok, so the program failed. It was designed to expire in 2010, but was not allowed. Why... what are we waiting for? What magic comes of this. It's pretty obvious that the true effect here is that the wealthy continue to enjoy increased tax savings. That's nice. But somehow they didn't require those breaks under Clinton. Yet they were still able to watch their money grow. So... what was the problem with that?