Whine & Cheese

From the article: Gee I wonder why those were excluded. It couldn't be because they are substantial percentages of lower middle class and working poor salaries, yet have caps that limit the proportionate effect on high income earners. After all, the math for applying these is quite simple. Also these taxes aren't even applied to investment income, and who has the lions share of that?None of that could be the explanation because that would mean that the numbers offered up were an incomplete, misleading picture. But the article then goes on to use the misleading info anyway.I'll also note that these numbers are a bit dated. It's a 2007 article. Taxes on the wealthy are even lower under the Obama adminstration than under the Bush administration.So why might the article be written in a way to promote the interest of the one percent? Please. An article published on the website of the American Enterprise Institute? Let's look at a few more articles linked to from the article Buz cites:The Origins of Envy By Max Borders .
Tim Tebow and the Atheist’s Dilemma By Lee Harris
How Many Jobs Did Romney Create at Bain? By Steve KaplanIf you read the articles you'll find that they are all heavily spun in exactly the direction any article that Buz cites would spin.'Nuff said.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I thought it was a pretty good speech too.But the most fun part of any state of the union speech is listening to the present talk about a clearly partisan policy using patriotic platitudes that nobody should be able to oppose (e.g. shared personal responsibility, americans having each other's backs just like the Navy Seals) and trying to spot people sitting on their hands while large portions of the audience jump to their feet and applaud loudly.I also enjoyed his calling out of Boehner, who appeared to wish he was anywhere else short of Hell during the entire speech. But I'm generally a lefty.

Shh! You are only supposed to talk about this stuff in quiet rooms.