So we redistribute the wealth of the top 1%? Why not the top 3%? Whats the criteria? I want to know because as you need more money, I want to know how far down you go. Or will you just keep taking the top 1%?

If I personally own a 100 million dollar company and my total worth is 101 million dollars....do I have to sell the company to pay the tax? What if I sell the company to the Chinese? Start thinking about implemenation before you get to grab happy with other people's money.

Alex jones rolled Pierce Morgan on the second amendment rights, hillarious in your face smack down.

Great idea, lets just steal it from the rich -- problem solved. Mob rule, I'll go get some torches and pitch forks. But wait a minute, what happens when we have no more rich people?

Why raise the debt limit? Let's eliminate our deficit and debt 'problems' instead. Consider the following:

Increasing the top ordinary income tax rate by only 3.5% to 39.5% on marginal income over 250K ( Obama's original proposal ) would generate about $70 billion a year; but letting it rise from there to 70% over 400K ( the pre-Reagan top marginal rate ) would generate about $700 billion a year.


 And applying this 70% marginal rate to any combination of all forms of income over 400K ( including stock grants, options, dividends and capital gains ) would generate hundreds of billions a year more.
 The result would be a budget surplus.

And since the richest 1% have accumulated a total net worth of about 20 trillion dollars ( most of it just wealth 'redistributed' upward since 1980 because Reagan's flatter, 'fairer' tax rates did not increase the inflation adjusted rate of GDP growth ), an effective 
( loophole free ) top estate tax rate of 90% on marginal wealth over 50 million dollars ( the pre-Reagan rate was 77% over 10 million ) would generate enough revenue within a generation to eliminate our national debt.

And the families of the richest 1%, with 4 trillion left, would still be the richest 1%.

We need to raise revenue on rich corporations and cut bloated military budget. The majority of americans believe this but the House of Representatives believes in welfare for the rich so they can destroy jobs with investments overseas. No wonder the working class is putting their boots on and knocking on doors. Maybe that noise I hear is democracy moving forward.

I don't see any path to a fair America without entirely public financing of lawmakers' campaigns and retirements, that's why I push for it so hard.

Regarding your last sentence: The economic system that we now have is NOT Capitalism. Consider the following arguments made by Adam Smith, the founding father of Capitalism, in his book "Wealth of Nations"; -

For a labor based economy:

" Labor was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased."

Against outsourcing:

" By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he [ a businessman ] intends only his own security; and by directing that [ domestic ] industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this led by an invisible hand to promote an end [ the good of his country ] which was no part of his intention. "

" The ultimate object [ of Capitalism ] is to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the export of the materials of manufacture 
[ natural resources ], and of the instruments of trade [ machinery and factories ], in order to give our own workmen an advantage. It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture, in order that our own people may work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities." ( the Reaganites have us doing the exact opposite )

For progressive taxation:

" Our merchants and master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. In reality high profits tend much more to raise the price of work than high wages."

"The rate of profit of merchants and manufacturers is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

Against corporate control of government:


" Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counselors are always the masters."

“The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [ merchants and master manufacturers ] ought never to be adopted till carefully examined with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men who have an interest to deceive and oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."


Against bought laws:

“ which the clamour of our merchants and manufacturers have extorted from the legislature, for the support of their own absurd and oppressive monopolies: Like the laws of Draco, these laws may be said to be all written in blood."

For a minimum wage that will support a family:

“A man must always live by his work, and his wages must be at least sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family.”

For economic justice:

" Every man, so long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way."

Don't trouble too much over the old man I saw Alice. Perhaps telling his story might help motivate people to action. At least his hardship would have some meaning. He was a lesson to everyone, as well as a National travesty.

Also, he was probably in the street because he had kids. A parent's dignity is seriously threatened when they burden their children. It's the last thing they want to do; especially, as the last thing they actually do.

I know if I didn't call my father routinely to check up on him I still wouldn't know he was sick or in the hospital. When he didn't answer the phone for two days or return my call I went to his house and discovered it empty and the back door broken down. At first, I thought he was kidnapped. The neighbors told me an ambulance took him away after he fell down. He told them I was out of the country. I later learned that he told the ambulance drivers, doctors, and care givers at the convalescence hospital that he didn't have any children.

How could I have scolded him? He was about to turn 90 himself. I knew he just didn't want to burden me. It's natural not to want to burden your loved ones. That's exactly why we pay into things like Social Security and Medicare. We must all demand that these entities are funded properly and with priority and never cut. In fact, the funding needs to be drastically increased!

People want to leave their loved ones with property and money that they can use to remember them fondly--not unpaid bills. You're actually quite fortunate. Being childless, like myself, you and I can run up as many bills as we want and not worry about burdening any children. People with children know they can't.

Also, hopefully, by that time you or I ever finds themselves in that predicament, society will grow up and realize it's responsibility to the preservation of the human dignity of everyone who's ever spent their lifetimes serving society; and neither we, nor anyone we know, will ever again have to spend their final days worrying about how their final liabilities due to the universal life stage called death are going to burden their loved one's future.

If wealthy people really didn't agree with that then why do they complain so much about the Death Tax?

Tell everyone you know to call President Obama and their Congressmen and demand: "NO CUTS WHATSOEVER TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE!"

Yes, the President is responsible for enforcing the law. Certainly the Congress cannot choose to refuse to pay its legal debts that it created itself. Imagine what would happen if the Congress passed a law requiring the President to spend then took away the money required to pay the bill. This is an easy one for me, do not bother about the Congress, use the power of the Presidency to pay all the legal bills that are incurred by the actions of the United States Congress.

So JOHNGUTTA, do you think that we will soon see a return to a balanced playing field.

I remember hearing Cornelle West state during an interview that if we are to ever have a return to a more fair and balanced economy between the middle class and upper wealthy class we will have to start having average everyday people elected into office...specificly; more teachers, scientist, working class people, and less lawyers and corporate buisnessmen. As well we may need to recognize that unregulated capitalism is the fuel that flames class warfare.

Kend - The solution to our national debt "problem" one more time:

Because the richest 1% have accumulated a total net worth of about 20 trillion dollars since 1980 ( most of it already existing wealth 'redistributed' upward from the working majority by Reagan's flatter, 'fairer' tax rates because his economic policies did not increase the inflation adjusted GDP growth rate ), an effective 
( loophole free ) top estate tax rate of 90% on marginal wealth over 50 million dollars would generate enough revenue within a generation to eliminate our national debt.

And the families of the richest 1%, with about 4 trillion left, would still be the richest 1%.

YES! If Obama doesn't sidestep this deadbeat Congress, nothing will ever get done.

"what the hell has happened to America" the bills are coming in and goverment is trying to find out how they are going to pay for them. 16.5 trillion, $52,152.00 per person doesn't that scare the hell out you guys.