Col Gene's views boil down to a pretty straight forward argument:

Assumptions:

1. Deficits are bad.
2. The only way to get rid of deficits are to raise taxes.
3. The best way to raise taxes would be to target the rich since they can afford it.

Therefore, if you don't agree with this view, you are ignorant.

The problem is that plenty of people disagree with all 3 assumptions he makes.

I agree with item #1. But there are plenty of people who don't see having 3% to 4% GDP deficit as a big deal.  They're not ignorant. They simply don't agree. And Col Gene comes across (To me anyway) as an ignoran blowhard because he focuses on the billions of dollars rather than % of GDP.

Item #2 is disagreed with by most Republicans.  I have, in the past, taken the time to prove that you cannot eliminate the deficit by raising taxes.  Item #2 isn't about opinion, it's fact. Raising taxes alone will not eliminate the deficit unless you rased them to unprecedented levels.  It is not particularly difficult to look at last year's tax receipts and put in some theoretical tax increase (say 40% tax rate on the richest 5% of the population) and see what the difference would be.  The result: Deficit spending still. 

And that's with the huge assumption that such tax increases wouldn't have a negative impact on the overall economy which I think they would.  Raise taxes and the first thing you'd see happen would be a $10 per month fee to be on this site.  The last tax cut paid for the development and maintainence of this site.

Item #3 again has a ton of subjectivity on it.  First, he sets himself up as the person who would decide what is an adequate living standard. 

Two weeks ago I worked a 111 hour work week.  Since Thanksgiving, I have averaged working between 70 and 90 hours each week.  This last week I worked 83 hours.  However, as a result, I expect these endeavors to generate millions of dollars in revenue.  Some of that revenue will go into my pocket. I make no apologies for that.  I will be substantially wealthier than I am today.  However, a significant portion will go to hiring more people -- creating new jobs and new opportunities. 

You tax me high enough, however, and the incentive to work those hours goes away.  Why should I be busting my butt so that most of my income is confiscated and handed out largely to the idle (regardless of why they're idle).  I am quite certain that even on top of my taxes, which range in the hundreds of thousands per year, I still probably give far more in raw dollars to charity than Gene does. I am quite certain I give more to people I see in need than Gene does.  Confiscating my income would not help those people and it would certainly not help the economy.  You take away my incentive to work and create jobs then you ultimately hurt the economy. 

There have been plenty of demographic studies on the top 5% income earners in the United States.  They're rich because they create wealth that is mostly passed on to others. 

I find it ironic that the same people who support "Rich guy" paying 50X in taxes than the average person throwing a fit if same Rich guy makes 10X more than the average person.  I won't say how much I make but you can assume Gene would find it obscene. And yet, it's really just a relatively small percentage of the money that I generate each year. 

I'm not motivated purely by money, not even close.  But I am definitely DE-motivated by taxes.  Which is what counts. Taxation is a demotivator that far outstrips the motivation of money for most people who are in that top 5%.

If Gene wants to call me ignorant, that's his right. I would be willing to compare my resume to his any day.