well guys, I'm off to happy hour.
enjoy your weekend.
with out the bottom, there could be not top.

for that, I'm grateful to you.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

but you are going to miss the Pièce de résistance!

GFY i present:

"The other major sponsor of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, which, like Americans for Prosperity, is promoting events in Washington this weekend. Under its original name, Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks received $12 million of its own from Koch family foundations."

Buffett also said his federal income tax bill came to $6,923,494, or 17.4% of his taxable income -- two points he revealed in a New York Times op-ed in August urging Congress to tax the wealthy more.

$6,923,494, thats more then all the flapjackers together here included 12clicks.

please stop presenting facts.it makes 12 angry and he will have call you names.

Oh Warren Buffet cant take him seriously he is only the third richest man in america.

You do realize That as US passport holders, no matter where we live, we owe taxes for the rest of our lives. No one else makes their citizens do this. And renouncing your citizenship won't really help. If the Feds decide that you are renouncing citizenship to avoid being taxed, you still have to pay tax for 10 years. For the purposes of this statute, persons are presumed to have a principle purpose of avoiding taxation if
1) their average annual net income tax for a five year period before the date
of loss of citizenship is greater than $100,000, or
2) their net worth on the date of the loss of U.S. nationality is $500,000 or more
(subject to cost of living adjustments).

So be prepared to pay up. Even people who were born to US parents abroad and have NEVER stepped foot in the US are being extradited back to the US in order to pay "back taxes" for the last 10 years, including fines, and interest.

This is why we decided that my wife will keep her South African citizenship, and just keep her green card, rather than become a US citizen. It's highly likely that we will move outside the US and there is not point in her being a tax slave to this country for the rest of her life. It's crazy that the US does this when no one else does.


.:2 cents:

Ok, Here is some thoughts on that, in conjunction with what Warren Buffet has been saying recently:

Most simply, Warren Buffett is almost definitely lying about the tax rate of his secretary. Now, it?s possible to pay any tax rate if you really want to, by paying more than is required. You can just send in a check. Since Warren apparently refuses to do that, let us dismiss that option for his secretary. The typical person making between 50-75k, according to this IRS tax data, pays an effective rate of about 14%. 14% is less than 30%. Even adding on payroll tax, it?s nowhere near 30%. CBO data, including payroll taxes, shows that someone making about $64,000 per year pays a total effective rate of around 14.3%. We asked an accountant to run the numbers in general for someone like Buffett?s secretary. The results: if they were single, 14%. If married, 7.6%.
Buffett is comparing two different taxes. One is a tax on income, one is a tax on investments. They are two different taxes on two different things. Want another scandal? Warren Buffett pays less in sales tax than his secretary does in income tax. We better write another law.

Warren Buffett has already been taxed on that money. Here?s an oversimplification to explain what I mean.

You earn $100 in salary.

TAX #1: Uncle Sam takes $35, leaving you with $65.

You then invest that $65, and that investment earns 10% or $6.50.

TAX #2: Of that new $6.50, Uncle Sam takes another $1.

Now, add up the earnings: the original $100 + $6.50 = $106.50.

And, add up the taxes: $35 + $1 = $36.

On $106.50 in earnings, you were taxed $36, or 33.8%,? about double the rate Warren Buffet claims he?s paying. This gets more complicated with margin, outside investment, and a million other variables, but this how it works in general. (Dividends are worse: you get taxed on initial income, the company gets taxed on their profits, then when they give you a slice, it gets taxed again.)

So, how does Buffett justify his low tax numbers? He acts as if TAX #1 never occurred. Then he tells you that the rate of TAX #2 is too low. It?s a completely disingenuous shell game.


Buffett is an exception to the rule of the mega rich. While he earns around 90% of his income at the lower rate through investments, the typical person who earns more than $10 million per year only earns about 38% of their cash at that rate. Sure, someone who is mega rich is an exception to the rule. But, Buffett is an exception to that exception. Basing a rule on his experience is not sober policy making.
Buffett?s secretary is an exception to the rule of secretaries. She/he makes $60,000 per year. While I?m not exactly blown away by Buffett?s generosity in his pay-scale either, the average secretary makes about $33,000 per year. Instead of the 14% tax rate of Buffett?s secretary, the typical secretary pays more like 10%. This information makes something like this, even dumber than you previously thought.

Rich people pay far more than the middle class in both total dollars and percentage terms. Don?t take my word for it, listen to the Associated Press: ?This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes?Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.? Those numbers aren?t even close to what Buffett is claiming. Did I mention he is lying? (Quick side note?a tax is nothing but a fee you pay to the government to run the structure that maintains society. In theory, each person has equal access to government services. Even in Buffett?s (false) example, he?s claiming that he pays over $8 million, and his secretary pays $18,000 for the privilege of living here. Does that really sound so unfair even if it was true? (It is not.))
Rich people already carry far more of the burden than the poor or the middle class. The top 10% of tax payers carry 73% of the income tax burden. The bottom 51% of tax payers carry 0%.
The Buffett rule has nothing to do with wealth. The ?problem? Obama is describing is a ?problem? with professional investors, not rich people. To get a rate of 17.7% on your income as Warren Buffett, you have to earn roughly 90% of your earnings from investments. But, you don?t have to make tens of millions for this to happen. Anyone who makes 90% of their money from investments could theoretically pay right around 15% whether they earn $50,000 or $50,000,000. Yet, Obama just keeps talking about rich people. This is one way to be completely sure this is really about class warfare, not tax policy.

Obama?s rule doesn?t actually target people like Buffett. Forget everything we?ve talked about here for a second and strip things down to the core. The claims about secretaries are just false. But, in theory, someone making $1 million could complain that he pays a rate that is slightly higher than someone making $11 million. Those 7 figure earners are victims to the tyranny of the 8 figure earners! Cry for them! In other words, the really rich get slightly screwed as compared to the really REALLY rich. But Obama?s rule, just targets anyone making $1 million or more?the rule actually ?screws? the people being ?screwed? most by the ?problem.?
The rate on investments should be lower than the normal rate?for many reasons (see #3 and #10 for example). But in addition to those: when I go to work, I receive a salary. When someone earning their living through investments goes to work?they may LOSE money. It?s wonderful to focus on the ultra-rare person like Warren Buffett who is so successful that he/she is able to acquire tens of billions of dollars. But the average person who invests might just bet wrong and get hammered. When he/she bets right, it makes sense that he/she gets taxed at a lower rate. They?re playing a different game than you and I, and therefore pay a different tax.



.

In my limited experiences with the tea party locally, them seemed to have a main focus, they didn't want to pay taxes and they wanted to hold the politicians and govt accountable for *how* they spent the tax money collected, to make sure it was spent responsibly.

The thing I always found *interesting* about the tea party is when Bush was getting us 11 trillion in the hole, they didn't say much if anything. It wasn't until Obama got in office that they started their campaigning about a balanced budget and cutting back govt spending etc.

So you are grateful to GFY about you being a gay top. Who's ass (bottom) here are you fucking .... LOLOLOL

Interesting quote

Ultra wealthy asshats hired right wing idiots to scream and carry around signs saying Obama is hitler under a tea party banner. Now labor unions are hiring left leaning idiots to sit in a park and chant.

Neither is helpful for our country. The bottom 40% has been split into two opposing factions. People from 41 all the way up to 5 are too busy working to avoid losing their sliver of the American pie to devote time to any of this. People from 4 to 1 are posting on message boards about it and having zero impact.
People in the top .1 are laughing at the rest.

Where it becomes a real problem is what happens when it turns really violent? All you need is one idiot in the crowd to fire a shot and you have full on violence ignited. It's a much more dangerous possibility than some people understand.

BAM!!! And that's how you tell it like it is...

I would love see, just for shits and giggles, the top 100 riches people, in the area they are protesting, give ALLL their money to the protesters... Do you think it would help them??? I think not... Let's say they devided it up and everyone got the same amount including the richies, and see if the richies make their money back and what the protestors do with the money given to them... if ya don't earn it or work for it, you usually piss it away or come to rely on another hand out... but hey if the answers to all their problems would be solved if the rich people they are protesting just walked outside and gave all their money to them, just walk out there and said here it is and magically jobs would be created for them and ALLL their problems would go away, then they are more insane than the smell and filth they are soiled in...

Fuck the "entitlement" attitude. Everyone in this country has more than enough opportunities to be successful in life.... but it takes a lot of hard work. The problem here is that these people don't want to do the hard work, they want it handed to them. They see the rich person and think how unfair it is that the rich person has sooo much money and yet they are broke. But they don't realize for one second that #1 How much hard work it took to EARN that money, and #2 They have the same opportunities to be rich, but they need to do #1.

They just simply don't want to do the work.

Nothing good ever comes from giving people shit for free. Make they fucking earn it. You freaks need to get off your asses and get a job or start your own business, if you want something go earn it instead of crying that you "deserve" it or entitled to it. Fuck that, earn it or live with out it. If you want to control the politics then get out and work your asses off to get people to vote. Picking in the street will get you no where. And while you at it, since you hate the rich so much why don't you boycott all the products that the rich corporations sell, you know like your cell phones, ipods, designer clothes, computers, etc.

Can someone get me the email address of the vast right-wing conspiracy? I still haven't received a Koch paycheck for laughing at communist hippies, damnit.

nonsense as usual.:1orglaugh

Wow, you know so much...

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

There are plenty of jobs and ideas out there which can make you money. I think of new shit all of the time. That being said, I am not saying they are jobs I would want to do, especially requiring manual labor. However, if I had a family to feed, I would swallow my pride and do them as you can easily make $5-10k a month with a good idea and some motivation.

People forget the golden rule about working smarter, not harder.

Are you kidding? This is about corruption and influence. It has nothing to do with ideology.

The rich control everything and now more then ever they spit on the rest of the country.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...-about-2011-10

Click the link to the charts.

http://www.livescience.com/16518-5-f...1-percent.html

Our media is controlled by 6 giant mega-corps. They know if the Tea Baggers and the OWS movement merged, they would be fucked, so they instantly began a smear campaign. Newscorp jumped on this immediately.

As long as we are divided, we get fucked.

The OWS movement has not been hijacked yet, so at the moment, it is still very dangerous to the powers-that-be.

Media coverage is/will polarize the OWS movement, to divide us further, from both sides.

Otherwise, they are fucked.

Who in their right mind only wants 6 monopolized media sources, for example?

You can probably contact them here:

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/national-site


That is one of the so-called "grass roots" movements founded by the Koch brothers. Replace grass roots with astro turf and you'll have a more accurate description of what it really is.

Yeah, instead of funding tea douche bags the Koche brothers were busy selling shit to IRAN through shell companies... YAY AmeriKKKA!!!!!!!!!!!

These guys watch Billy Mays infomercials and think its the news... You're shoveling manure man....they wont get it until it is too late.

When you see Obama announcing they will legalize illegal immigrants you will know its being hijacked. Because at that time the real war in streets will start, just about the time the troops come home from Iraq...already lubed up for killing...

The OWS movement is gaining momentum even from ex employees of Goldman-Sachs...The OWS movement is more about the corruption, the CEO's of failing companies making 350 times their average employee, its about votes not being counted, districts being redrawn...its about 22 year olds graduating from college with a mortgage size debt to contend with...

The people running the US, controlling it, are corrupt pieces of rat excrement bent on sucking the world dry of anything of value, at any cost...for their own gain - what a shit concept for life. FREE Trade agreements benefit the few and ass-rape American workers. Its proven when they report there will be increases in trade, they are lying. They never give the NET, which tends to be a DECREASE. Americans are finally waking up that major corporations are fucking them and future generations in a serious and deadly fashion.

What a fun winter it will be...

Looks like you missed some important information.....

Just above what you quoted btw: Americans for Prosperity Foundation?an organization that David Koch started, in 2004

Just below it: At the lectern in Austin, however, Venable?a longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994?spoke less warily. ?We love what the Tea Parties are doing, because that?s how we?re going to take back America!?....

.....And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Kochs, ?They?re certainly our people. David?s the chairman of our board. I?ve certainly met with them, and I?m very appreciative of what they do.?



Yeah, that Melissa chick is basically full of shit.. at that, plenty of articles, with proof, sources, emails even show they ARE without question tied to the tea-party.

The OWS movement will only grow, and it WILL change the status quo!

That was an accidental rhyme on my part, but it's pretty catchy!

I'm gonna pass it along! Feel free to do the same. :)

Yeah protests are so stupid, I mean look at those occupy wall street losers with thier iphones, what hypocrites. I saw one guy their with Guess Jeans, he's pretty rich so what does he have to complain about. Instead of hating the banks they should hate who actually controls everything OBAMA!!!

Just look at whats happened since he's taken office!! He's turned america into a socialist shit hole. He has spread the wealth so much that the lions and 49ers are the biggest game this weekend!

I hate OWS because all those people voicing their opinions makes America look like a bunch or un sophisticated commies instead of blue blood elitists. Thats why the tea party is against OWS, your supposed to hate the government, not the corps that control it

Very good summary. :thumbsup

And then what?

Will unemployment go back down to what it was during most of the last 30 years? Will destroying all the big companies fix anything?

Other than a desire to "get" people and/or companies that have done well...what is the end game for this? What is the goal that is going to make a better life for most Americans who DO work hard and are a little smarter and faster than the next guy?

Those corporations, as in the ones you describe, or Apple, Microsoft, Guess Jeans as someone else said, and so on... aren't "the problem" - the focus is not those corporations or corps/business in general. They did nothing to create and profit from what took place.

Just like jobs aren't the focus... while some do have that message - for them, that isn't the core focus of everyone, at any level.

Depends what the end game is. If the movement shines a light on the corruption of money in politics, and of money trumping the common man's voice in how national and international business decisions are made, then it will hopefully serve to provide a better, and more inclusive environment, where all people have the right and ability to achieve their dreams on a fairer playing field.

The middle class is disappearing. If the OWS movement helps to restore balance again, then we all benefit.

I've said it before - the media does not benefit from this movement, so overall, the coverage will be slanted, and the participants will be vilified.

You said yourself, that our problem is in taking hard political sides, and I agree.

The politicians in Washington, on BOTH sides of the aisle, are not fixing the problems of the middle class. Neither side seems to have the courage (or ability) to work for the common good of the common people, so a movement is in order.

The Tea Party was not, and is not, that movement. The TP was, and is, as partisan as can be, and was, and is, funded by right-wing rich folk, who don't give a shit about us.

Newscorp jumped on the OWS movement right away. They see the danger, and are doing everything possible to protect their interests here. All their talk about George Soros, Socialism, Communism, Nazis, etc., is all designed to divide us, and apparently it works like a charm.

Yesterday you were very adamant that the Government is to blame, and not the super wealthy that buy it out from under us. The blame game can go either way, but in the end we are still the ones who get screwed.

I watched Fox for a while yesterday, and I see why you are nuancing the message. Like it or not, you are repeating the Fox mantra... the government is the problem, the government is the problem, Obama is bad, Obama is a failure.

Without a movement like OWS effecting policies moving ahead, we are only destined to continue on the unsustainable track we are on. You think a GOP president in 2012 will help UNITE the country? What are they gonna bring to the table as it stands? More tax breaks for the "job creators" ?

None of the people at the OWS protests are currently carrying pro-Obama signs, but as long as the right pushes and vilifies, where do you think it will go?

:1orglaugh

Some of you are reading waaaaay too much into this. Here's a clue: nobody at these protests believes they are entitled to anything. That is just the standard rebuttal to OWS.... "Go get a job instead of marching." .... "They aren't entitled to anything." ... "Losers hate capitalism, yet they own an iPhone." .... The rebuttals are irrelevant banter.

At the heart of the OWS movement is anger over middle class wealth being redistributed to the upper class. Not because it makes a bunch of lazy people cry, but because it's a danger to the US economy.

The top 400 households in the US hold 60% of the nation's wealth. That figure was about 50% just five years ago. A lot of money has been removed from the free spender portion of the US economy, which has contributed greatly towards unemployment.

Can anyone here provide an argument in support of wealth being moved upwards that results in a healthy economy? If not, you should be marching with OWS instead of calling them names.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

I'm not parroting Fox News. I'm just opining from my own experiences and what I see happening.

Yes, I do think the govt. are a bunch of crooks.

If the TSA, the Patriot Act, wars all around the globe, while the debt grows and grows without them even pausing on the spending...all paid for by our tax dollars (and a ton of Chinese debt) doesn't convince people of that then I don't know what can.

As for "Obama is bad, Obama is a failure". Again, I'm just calling it like I see it. To ME he has been a huge disappointment. No different than Bush when it comes to the REAL issues.
He has done exactly what every other politician has done...no difference in him at all. And the fact that he already has raised over 70 million dollars and is out CAMPAIGNING for re-election while our country desperately needs someone to lead...doesn't sit well with me either.

But again I have to ask...
WHAT is going to be the end result of OWS if it is "successful" in whatever it is they are trying to accomplish?

You said:
"Without a movement like OWS effecting policies moving ahead, we are only destined to continue on the unsustainable track we are on. You think a GOP president in 2012 will help UNITE the country? What are they gonna bring to the table as it stands? More tax breaks for the "job creators" ?"

So what are the policies that OWS is going to "effect". And what's the new SUSTAINABLE track that they are going to put us on? And do YOU think that Obama being re-elected in 2012 will help UNITE the country? What is he going to bring to the table after not doing anything the first four years? And will RAISING taxes on "job creators" suddenly make them hire new people?

What I typed sounds foolish doesn't it? All I did was ask the reverse of the questions you asked. And the answers are JUST AS BAD IF NOT WORSE.

So again I ask...other than getting on television...what is the PURPOSE of the OWS?
HOW does bringing down Wall Street and raising taxes on corps and people who make good money do this:
"If the movement shines a light on the corruption of money in politics, and of money trumping the common man's voice in how national and international business decisions are made, then it will hopefully serve to provide a better, and more inclusive environment, where all people have the right and ability to achieve their dreams on a fairer playing field."

How? I think most people are pretty much aware of money in politics. And how does a "common man" have a "voice" in the way another person decides to run THEIR company? And what "Dreams" can people achieve if once they reach their "dreams" they have them taken away by the next group of OWS people who are pissed that they got rich?

Change could/should come from reversing the laws and unenforced regulations that have allowed this mess to occur, and by reinstating and/or creating new laws and measures designed to prevent it in the future. This includes a sea-change in finance reform laws as well - ie, taking the money out of politics, and forcing politicians to answer to the regular people they are supposed to be working for.

As far as Obama raising money goes, what is he supposed to do? At the moment he is operating within the confines of the game that is in place. Until the game changes ALL politicians will be on the take, or they will not win. The game needs to change. Social movements cause change. It's often ugly, messy, and crazy, but in the end, they ALL effect change, and change is what we need.

If you have a better plan, let's hear it.

Realistically, what do you want Obama to do? The GOP refuses to work with him. They budge on nothing because their voters believe doing nothing is better than compromise with the Dems. They would rather tough it out for awhile until (in their mind) they can elect a Republican president and have full control of the government again.

Ultimately, I think the end goal is to have it become much more difficult to go from rich to super rich than it is today. No society has ever experienced benefits from vast amounts of wealth moving upwards. We have seen this in dramatic fashion here in the US since the 1980s. It has gotten exponentially worse in recent history to the point where we are now testing the wealth distribution limits of successful capitalism.

IMO if this wealth vacuum continues and the wealth is not redistributed from the top down through higher taxation, our entire system could collapse and send us into a full blown depression.

My plan would be to start electing "Unelectable" people.

Yeah. That's my plan.

Start VOTING and not allow ANY politician to stay in for more than one term. Keep them honest.

I still don't have any idea HOW to stop our govt. from invading other countries. And I don't know how "taking money out of politics" is going to end the giant prison industry, the "war against drugs", and the military spending.

But maybe keeping career politicians out would be a start. And yeah...keeping the pharmaceutical companies, insurance conglomerates, and their lobbyists from keeping our health care costs higher than anywhere in the world would be helpful as well.

And ALSO...a lot of things that the "left" won't like either.

We have to get the costs of producing goods DOWN in the U.S. so that we can compete in the world market and keep employment high and costs of living LOW. And that's gonna mean lower wages. I know that will go over like a lead balloon with the Union lobbyists.

But that's the real problem we have: It's not "issues" that keep the govt. in gridlock.

It's the MONEY that each side of crooks is on the take with that keeps them in gridlock.
The "left" won't do anything to jeopardize their big money contributors and the right won't do anything to piss of theirs.

Once they are ALL eliminated...guess what? The Tea Party will scream that their voice is no longer being heard...and the OWS will be screaming the same thing.

It's all about greed my friend. None of it in Washington is about you or me.

If you believe that ANY politician in Washington D.C. or even your local govt. is concerned about your welfare...then I have some nice swampland to sell you.

Reality is...we're probably all screwed. :(
And I place the blame 1000% on greedy politicians.

If they don't TAKE the money offered them, then there none of the companies or "wall street" would have any leverage in Washington to do all these horrible, horrible things now would they?

Both Bush and Obama talked out of both sides of their mouths on that issue. And BOTH handed out federal money to them like it was candy.

Quit falling for that man. It's their game. Obama...Bush...there is NO difference when discussing the corruption of our govt. and the effect it has had on the economy and those poor people protesting.

Remember...Apple products are mostly made in China. So I hope they are protesting against the late great Steve Jobs as well.
He KNEW that he couldn't afford to pay overpaid American workers to produce these products for the price we pay for them. If he had tried...an IPhone would be $2,000 lol

I think it looks really bad that he's out there campaigning. And that refusal to budge is a two-way street. Neither the Republicans OR Democrats are willing to pass anything. The Republicans have come up with plans too and had my Senator (Reid) refuse to even allow things to be voted on. So the Dems are just as "guilty"

First off...I've seen that written several times. But can you tell me ONE society that "wealth moved upward" and things went "bad"? No, I'm not talking about Kings and Queens and Lords & Ladies from the Middle Ages. I mean in modern times in a democratic society with opportunity for anyone to "make it".

Also our idea of "wealth" is a bit skewed in my opinion.
I was down in Peru in the mid-1980's and saw what REAL poverty was. And down there was NO middle class. You were either rich, or you lived in the mud. Not a house, not a trailer, no telephone, no nice clothes, no going out to the clubs....you lived in the MUD.

Having a nation full of people who own cars, have cell phones, and live a nice lifestyle going out on the weekends, etc. is not what I'd call "bad".

Yes, the rich did and do get richer. Why shouldn't they? If I'm smart and fast enough to "get rich" in the first place...am I supposed to just say: "Well that was fun. But now I'm gonna just spend all my money and make sure that I only break even every year".
OF COURSE NOT! lol

And also keep in mind the fact that a person who has gotten rich now has capital to INVEST in new things and expand their portfolio of holdings. Only a complete fool would NOT get "richer" ...and yes, exponentially so.

But that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to get "poorer" does it? And if so...then how do you explain the last 30 years of prosperity and low un-employment in this country?
I was under the impression that we've had one helluva run here.

How do you explain the guy who started FaceBook? Or Twitter? Or Google?
They are now FILTHY RICH. And getting richer faster than you can blink. Are they next on the chopping block? Have we as a society decided that they are "rich enough" yet and need to be "taken down a notch"?

Where does that end? And what do I have to aspire to in this world? Can I get rich, and if I do will I then be the target of the OWS?

Enlighten me, cause I really don't see what the end game of this is other than to make everybody "equal".

I think we are the example.. we could stretch and say China, I wouldn't say it's moving from one class to the wealthy, but it for sure isn't moving down or even befitting the truly poor. I guess that could change if wages increase...


Agreed... Peru is real poverty, Americans "earn" at poverty levels - mixed with active social programs, add in different costs of living throughout the country and our poor have it pretty good, well as good as shit dirt poor can get I guess.


Google, facebook, etc, aren't rich enough. Rich in this case is the elite class, those that create money out of nothing based on systems and algos "you" can never access, and even if you did they do it at speed you can never replicate.

It's not a fair system because we have several classes of wealth above the what people call wealthy based on the tax bracket. The tax code, hate it or not, is based on taxing us on how much we make or based on the percentage of income we earn - thus how much we can each afford to pay in taxes. Based off how the system actually works, screw if you like taxes or not... it's not fair that someone making 350k a year pays the same tax rate as someone that earns 15 million a year - based on the tax code, it's not fair.

In short, it means the working rich pay a higher burden of the taxes than the elite class do. And to finish it off, they're the ones that got 1.4 trillion in bailouts o f our tax dollars to pay for the screw-ups they created, ie scam/fraud system that sucked away 1/3 of our countries wealth and damn near bankrupted several States, oh yeah - then took a massive bonus, and are basically setting everything up to do it all again...

The end is when that level of greed and influence can be removed from our Gov... from Congress being able to know insider investment secrets and invest in them without getting into trouble (ie: pure influence on what goes through), to massive corporate money influence that changes laws/rules and creates regulations, that benefit those corps at the top to ensure people like me and you can't ever compete.

Starting at the top and correcting a few massive problems, will quickly filter down and solve many little micro issues...