Fruitless to you is not agreeing with you. Atleast I offer a contradictory theory instead of throwing down my hands and pouting. And, you've never substantively argued with me, lines like including "prattle" aside. Your idea of arguing is saying, "you're wrong, why don't you see that?" What's the "reality?" What's your version of how economies work? How does drastically cutting taxes make for a healthy economy when government spending is going up? It's odd that people think that we can foot a $600 billion dollar tax cut and STILL pay $80 billion for five months worth of war, among many other program increases. Atleast you're arguing this because you have a stake in it. Many people who argue for cutting all taxes on the rich don't even have a stake in it.

I agree, if you're going to earn less, SPEND less. We're not though, we're going to earn less and spend MORE. If Bush were cutting programs and spending, then tax cuts would be okay.

Even if the rich pay all the taxes which is true eventhough corporations pay less than they are supposed to because of tax loopholes, we'd be in fiscal ruin if we increased spending and brought in less.

Does that make sense? There are two factors, principle and responsibility. You'd like to see rich people pay no taxes out of principle. Even if that principle weren't wrong, it would still mess up the economy and in the end, no one would in good shape.

Fine, you want to drastically reduce taxes for the rich, but answer this: who would support the economy? The rich would be laughing all the way to the bank for a few years until inflation and interest rates kick up.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside