The more shrill the dem shills get, the better a policy is for the US and prosperity in general. Conversely, the more supportive they are, the worse the policy is. History very convincingly backs me up on this.
Higher minimum wage which eliminates entry level jobs? Go for it.
Lax border security , which endangers citizens through increased crime and lowers wages while flooding the market with unskilled labor, depressing wages, and stretches health care to the limit with dependent freeloaders. Great idea.
Useless regulations that stifle business and hamper job creation? Wonderful!!
Regulating C02 in pursuit of policy that further stifles business/job creation while justifying massive transfers of wealth out of the US while accomplishing nothing of substance? What could be better?
More government control and regulation over healthcare adding to spiraling costs and diminishing quality of care? We need that!!!
The list goes on and on.
But a tax cut that allows people to keep more of what they earn while promoting business investment and creation? It's ARMAGEDDON!!!
Because, in the final analysis, leftist cannot exist without dependency on government. Creating victims and fostering dependency is job one.
Some people read history books written for people who cannot read. Reminds me of a book Roy keeps alongside his "heat."
that might be a good question if it had any basis in reality.
the top1% earn 20% of the income in the US. If they have managed to parlay that into holding 90% of the wealth, they have done very well, but the highest reasonable estimates are closer to 33%.
Also, your question is based on the premise that the 1%, (who's members change dramatically from year to year) are the only job creators.
In addition, your question seems to assume that the top 1% are the only beneficiaries of the tax overhaul which on it's face is preposterous. The actual beneficiaries have not really been quantified yet, but it obviously extends well beyond the top 1%.