way to go, NTR, starting a rebuttal with an UNPROVABLE assumption!<quoted text>Well, if he started his tenure with tax restructure in the midst of near disaster and the country headed off the fiscal cliff, I would have thought he was nuts if he began by fiddling around on tax codes. Does that help? Who do you listen to when you're trying to keep the economic engine alive? I don't know about you, but if I were in his shoes, I probably would be listening hard to what business said they needed in order to keep going and keep us afloat. He did listen, and they did keep us alive. He has been a friend to corporate interests who, in turn, have repaid American labor poorly for the accommodations. They've recovered. Working America has not.
You're a HOOT...
HOW does one prove a negative? do I need to explain that to you?
an INEQUALITY is an inequality yesterday, today and tomorrow, right?
the Tax Code was INEQUAL before 2009 and remains inequal to this date. yet, your chosen Pres opted to put his effort into a 'need' that is YET to go into effect, right? whilst the INEQUALITY lingers....
just 1/2 months ago, HE was offered Tax Code reform by the Party of Protectors and HE PASSED! what IS that man of yours thinking?
yes, Obama is Bush III, isn't he? when it comes to Bailouts and tax INEQUITY. sooo, YOU voted for Bush III! now, THAT's a real HOOT!
we can't say for a provable certainty WHAT Romney would have done, can we? he DIDN'T win, did he? do you wish to put forth as an argument another 'negative'? another 'what if'? yet, it was HIS Party that DID offer Tax Code reform AFTER the election.LOL
and, now we have Bush III still trying to get Immigration Reform (read that as AMNESTY) passed once again like in 2006,lol remember that? it cost the Reps the Congress, didn't it?
"I didn't want to return to the bad ol' days of Bush. That's why I voted against Romney." that about sum up YOUR argument for 'staying the course'? now, we have Bush III!!LOL
who's a HOOT, NTR?