Do you honestly think people should be retroactively taxed on their "wealth" in addition to "earnings"? I hope you understand the difference.
Sometimes you're a gentleman of few words, and sometimes you stoop low like this time. Your article confirms a $35,000 fundraiser, but not that Obama accused the rich audience to their faces that they are greedy, with them nodding agreeably, which is the whole point of Point 1 in the opening post. Since your own useless article doesn't back you up, you added your guess that it is only logical that he must have told them off. Don't you feel like a chump?
Here's my vote for what's "only in America." Other countries don't commit financial suicide like the U.S., because they simply tax the main beneficiaries of the system, the rich. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/29/172858/cash-strapped-europe-nations-are.html
So Obama was talking about some other "rich" people to the rich peoples' faces? Or is it homeless people or middle class ones that can afford $35K for a dinner with THE MAN?
You brought up what percentage of "wealth" the "rich" had, as if that is relevant to how much yearly tax they should pay. Perhaps you should get snarky because your comment didn't make sense? I don't know what this means.
An insight into the mind of the Left: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/why-liberals-think-what-they-do/?singlepage=true
I see it as obligation for every American to know his/her Constitution, and then expect it to be followed by holding those elected accountable for doing so. The amendment process has been sorely under utilized while the Commerce clause is worked overtime, all while the tenth amendment has gathered dust.
