Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Johnjosiah" data-source="post: 1849634" data-attributes="member: 8177">We still need to define &quot;rich&quot;.&nbsp; Then we can discuss taxation.&nbsp; My definition of rich may different than yours.&nbsp; I&#039;ll start it income &gt;1.5 million a year or net worth &gt;15 million. Recessions are not built IMHO during one administration.&nbsp; Bush 2 was not my favorite of course neither was Clinton, or Bush 1.&nbsp;&nbsp; Obama is the worst of the bunch also IMHO.&nbsp; We are just paying for 70s, 80s and 90s.&nbsp; 2000s too but I think that decade and this one is politicians try to fix the previous 30 years of foul ups and get re-elected at the same time.&nbsp; No politician wants to make tough choices.&nbsp;&nbsp; It may get kicked down the road again but also this could be decade of economic restitution.&nbsp; I really think economy wise you have to go back to Jackson for a good one.&nbsp; But he had his own social issues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Johnjosiah, post: 1849634, member: 8177"] We still need to define "rich". Then we can discuss taxation. My definition of rich may different than yours. I'll start it income >1.5 million a year or net worth >15 million. Recessions are not built IMHO during one administration. Bush 2 was not my favorite of course neither was Clinton, or Bush 1. Obama is the worst of the bunch also IMHO. We are just paying for 70s, 80s and 90s. 2000s too but I think that decade and this one is politicians try to fix the previous 30 years of foul ups and get re-elected at the same time. No politician wants to make tough choices. It may get kicked down the road again but also this could be decade of economic restitution. I really think economy wise you have to go back to Jackson for a good one. But he had his own social issues. [/QUOTE]

Verification