everything that the rnc chairman said. i m just saying because i want to keep you focused, and i want you to answer the question that candy asked. why shouldn t millionaires pay more in taxes? they should. we should reform the entire code. so you support the buffett rule? there s a big difference between the buffett rule and reforming the tax code. i don t quite understand how you if people enjoy the majority if not all of their income from investment income, you have to raise the capital gains rate because they you have to raise the dividend rates. i don t know how you i don t know how the buffett rule addresses that fully. again, as i ve stated time and time again, my concern, and i think john probably articulated it best and more artfully, i d like to see a full growth agenda put on the table. no doubt the fairness argument around who should be taxed and how much should be a part of it. but the country wants more than anything for high wage jobs to come back to the count
extremely high on the wealthy. why? you have wage earners building wealth. it s a fairness argument. people get it, very simple and easy to make that argument. why shouldn t warren buffett not pay the same tax rate as his second. republicans have never been able to show a connection between more largess for the wealthy and more jobs. it hasn t happen thad way. the presidents that have raised taxes have ra resulted in higher job growth. and president o i think it boils down to a three-letter word for the obama campaign and that s war. they are about the war on the milledle class, the war on women. what they will try and do is rile up the american public to think that the democrats are
would have picked to really make a cornerstone of a huge speech with a lot of cheering people. bret: steve? to go back to the judge s point about whether president obama knows the economics, he does know the economics of it. he gave an answer back in august of 2009, which n which he was specific about the economic impact of raising taxes on the wealthy. this was during a reception. i think it applies during a slow recovery where he says it sucks demand out of economy and punishs business. the president made the argue in the august of 2009. he fully understand what is he is doing here. the question is how is it benefiting him politically? i think that is exactly what we re seeing. they think that the fairness argument is the arguement that wins. wins. it s reprehensible for him to assault something as base nick the country as who pays what you know what in taxes when he knows it s intellectually disingenuous and doing it to stir the pot among the base, which may be unhappy with hi
we have to go to growth first. unless we invest in education and infrastructure and we aren t doing that under the ryan budget. this is the fiery speech of the economic fairness argument. let s listen to the president. here in america we don t give up. here in america we look out for each other. here in america we watch each other get ahead. here in america we have a sense of common preface. here in america we can meet any challenge. here in america we can seize any moment. we can make this century another great american century. thank you, god bless you. god bless the united states of america. 50 years from now the republicans will be coming on a show like this saying, all we have to do is cut taxes and we will have economic prosperity. no matter what the tax rate is. if it is 2%, they say lower it, we will have more fun.
conrad pull up on the sunday show over the weekend, things might be going great now. you don t want to go back to mitt romney, they put together the economic policies that got us into this mess in the first place, i ve not heard a retort to that. what are those economic policies? are they the bush tax cuts? that s what they seem to allude to. if they were so bad, why did president obama keep him in place in 2009 and 2010 when he had 60 democrats in the senate and 255 democrats in the house. you notice the democrats aren t very specific about what the so-called policies got us into. i think one of the policies they got us into it is the absence of regulations in fannie and freddie and on this issue, they opposed this regulation and republicans were in favor. what about today he ll be pushing the buffet rule and we cited the third way the moderate democratic thinktank, they say the independents in the next election don t buy the fairness argument. don t buy the class warfare argume