TheRealMafoo said:
While all three could be wrong, only two are competing for the save meaning. The 19.5% thing is only the tax collected from the rich. The point of the article is if you raise it to over 90% (like we had in the 60's), the rich just do something else with there money (like invest it or spend it off shore). There is one common thing about the rich. They want to make the most money they can with the money they have. When you make it less attractive to spend that money in the US, they find better places to spend it.
|
That is right, I forgot. Once again though it would help to have some "solid" sources, which I know can be difficult to come by.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
