It's impossible to deny (ok, I guess they will try) all the facts and figures that show the TREMENDOUS growth of ownership in wealth the the upper strata in the Bush era.

Point is, they even grew in wealth in the Cliton era with those tax structures, it's just they were on steroids in the Bush regime.

This is simply balance back the scales, because, as this conservative Republican economist states, your choice is back to the potential of middle class growth of the Clinton era, or the USA becomes Argentina.

When ex-McCain advisors admit that the Bush cuts should, then they should go.
Period.

I am all for taxing the rich more than the poor. After all, it is logical. However I feel that Obama is going a bit too far with his fiscal policy. No offense meant but one would think that he suffers from some kind of personal grudge against the upper class in general. I am afraid his policy would make the economic condition of USA even worse. But let's all hope for the best. :)

Disclaimer: I am neither a rich fellow, nor an opponent of Obama.

This is very interesting because it signals an evolution on the right away from their blind tax cuts are the answer orthodoxy.

the republican/conservative monolith is clearly cracking. There is the crazed extremists that have commanded the republicans all through the Clinton years and the bush/cheney regime. And clearly the above statement could not be said about them at all.

But now that they have caused such extreme troubles for the US, and the majority of the electorate is much less easily fooled by them, even with a compliant and supportive MSM continuing to promote their insanity, there is a small portion of the republican cult wanting to step back a bit. They're still nuts, but not quite as much as the rabid core. The above statement could only maybe be said about this small fledgling faction that is trying to find its way separate from the hard core wingnuts.  

Becuase the democratic answer to everything is raise taxes.....

This is good but some comments...

first, was the Clinton era really that good for the middle-income groups, workers and farmers as well as the middle class?  Even the commentator above admitted that economic maldistribution grew under Clinton as under Bush, just not so much.  All that period had to offer the mass of the population was a whole lot of low-wage, part-time, temporary jobs.

second, if you really want to restore fiscal stability to this country, let's repeal ALL tax cuts, going back to 1964.  Let's bring back 90% top rates.  Above all repeal Kemp-Roth (1981).  Oh, and while we are at it, let's cut military spending to below $200 billion a year.

I think your notion of tax cuts being fiscally irresponsible is incorrect.  demjim mentioned the Kemp-Roth bill.  If your goal is fiscal responsibility you need to focus on money in - money out.

1980
Federal Revenue: $517 billion
State Revenue: $368 billion
Total: $885 billion

1988
Federal Revenue: $909 billion
State Revenue: $766.9 billion
Total: $1676 billion

With the exception of one or two years coming out of the 70's federal revenue increased every year.  This is not a matter of getting less in taxes our government just increased our spending.

Lets not redefine the meaning of fiscal responsibility.  Come on.  
If you really want to restore fiscal responsibility in this country....spend what you bring in if there is any left over put it to principle on the pile of debt our representatives in Washington have built up over the years.  

Maybe it will play with some, but I don't think it is accurate.