Ron,

Super. In continuing with your great post yesterday,

Yesterday was an interesting day in America. A few days ago there was an excellent post on this board about what is wrong in America. Continuing with that theme;

The Disclosure Bill gets defeated in the Senate by a vote of 57 to 41. Just last weekend the republicans were all over talk shows claiming they are not the obstructionist party (the party of no), and low and behold here we have another example of where a 57 vote majority looses to a 41 vote minority. The party of no is still the party of NO, big time. What are they afraid of? What is the Republican Party hiding from the American people? Are they really getting money from foreign companies as many have charged (I saw numbers as large as 150 Million pledged so far). Who did they sell out to? We may never know now. And this is the party that wants more transparency??? I guess transparency only applies to Democrats.

The House passes the War Supplement Bill 308-114. Note this, 102 of the 114 no votes came from Democrats. In fact more Republicans voted (160) for the bill than Democrats (148). With the leak of over 90,000 documents related to the Afghanistan war I suspect this was a vote to bring home our troops. You have all seen many of my posts that I want our soldiers back home ASAP. I want us out of Afghanistan ASAP and use the money we were spending there here to create jobs and help Americans. But, they are there and we have to deal with that reality. I do not condone denying them support, equipment, etc. Once again I see politics being placed above our soldiers. I have voiced my opinion time and time again that if we have to have them there they need our 100% support to accomplish their mission. How do you think our service people are going to view those 114 no votes today? If you were there ducking rounds what would you think of these 114 politicians? How would you vote in Nov.? The only point I am trying to make is that war is not a political tool. We do not put lives in jeopardy to make a statement. There is another forum for that and the battlefield is not it. Do not mis-understand me here. I want our troop’s home safe and sound, but if they have to be there then they deserve our support and the best equipment that we can provide. Trying to deny that to make a political statement in my opinion is wrong and sends the wrong message.

As the Tax Cut debate continues to heat up we still see the pundits on the right trying to reintroduce the Voodoo economics of Regan. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, there is no proof that giving tax cuts to the wealthy creates jobs (the old trickle drop effect), nor do tax cuts increase revenue. Nice talking points but most economists (democrats and republicans) are saying this. So now we have the Republican Party pushing reducing the deficit. Their answer is to keep the trillion dollar tax cuts that increase the deficit. For the next decade this will cost Americans 3.8 Trillion Dollars and over 50% of those benefits will go to less than 5% of the people. Those that need the money the least are going to get most of the money. Once again we see how the republicans are the ones that are trying to redistribute the wealth. Take it from the middle class and give it to the rich. Robin Hood in reverse. See below copied from Newsvine last night.

Poll: Public favors Obama’s economic policies over Bush’s by wide margin.

As congressional Republicans double down on President Bush’s failed economic policies, a new National Journal/Pew Research poll finds that Americans believe President Obama’s “policies offer a better chance at improving the economy over the policies of his predecessor.” Interestingly, more Democrats favor Obama’s policies than Republicans favor Bush’s, while independents overwhelming side with Obama. Overall, despite continued tough economic times, 46 percent of Americans say Obama’s policies will do more to improve the economy, compared to just 29 percent who say the same of Bush’s:

The poll also found that only 30 percent of Americans support retaining all the Bush tax cuts, while a similar portion, believe they should all be allowed to expire. Twenty-seven percent favor repealing the tax cuts for wealthy, while maintaining the rest, as the Obama administration has proposed.

Nice work Ron & Retired... ;0)

Ron,

While I agree about the dangers a nuclear Iran could present, I still hear echoes of the same talking points that were used when we were being sold the Iraq War.

I would like to know HOW we "know" what Iran is building and what they are capable of.

I have seen this movie before and it didn't end so well. Wasn't it just a few short years ago when the intelligence community was telling us that Iran was not even close to getting a nuclear weopon?

Now all of a sudden, that is at the top of the list?

I mean, I am no foreign policy expert, but it would seem to me that North Korea has been a heck of alot more provocative than Iran as of late. . . we have got to be more strategic when dealing with this issue . . . the "attack and invade" model has proven quite costly and is only marginally effective.

If an invasion of or attack on Iran is necessary, I would like to see some real evidence and a real plan for success. . . as we have learned in Iraq, sometimes adding more instability to an already volatile situation does not always lead to the desired outcome.

Nashville Fan,

For once I have to agree with you.

North Korea seems far more aggressive, and with the situation in Iraq being unstable at best, a regime overthrow in Iran could plummet the middle eastern nations into a huge power struggle.

Before we consider any military action, we must have a plan for success and the troops and funding available. No soldier should be made to serve 2+ tours. The psychological damage of 1 tour is bad enough.

Good Morning Nash:

First of all, I am generally opposed to war especially preemptive attacks on a country. How we know what Iran is doing is a great question. I suspect several countries are keeping a close eye on Iran and their nuclear operations. I also suspect there are more than a few 'moles" tracking what is going on. It is too big a deal to mess up.

I also think the area is quite volatile. It could be that the existing government in Iran could be overthrown by Moussavi supporters. I'm just saying it may be too early to celebrate our troops coming home. Things are just too volatile.

Excellent, and thought provoking yet frigtening.

My thoughts are mixed on this subject. I feel the President has the intelligence, he has attempted diplomacy but Iran remains defiant. Pres Obama will use the intelligence wisely but WE cannot do it alone. It is crucial that should Pres Obama make the decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, our European allies, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Russia must stand with the USA openly and clearly state they concurred and that it was necessary for the World's security.

Ron

Stand Down in Iraq—Stand Up to Iran

That may be even more provactive now; especially, since Iran sent a letter to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, saying it's ready to start talks. What will the Chicken Hawks do now? Israel has nukes. So will the Chicken Hawks ask Isreal to sign on the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) too?

As usual you make a great point.

U.S. Navy. Another fine comment. Interesting that the poll numbers reflect the voters' beliefs yet there is so much talk about the democrats demise in 2010. If voters really believe Obama's policies are better, it makes no sense they would hire a majority of republicans.

Jody: I totally agree that we will need the support of European allies, and on this issue, we will find some allies of the Muslim faith. I recall your prediction regarding Iran was slightly different than mine and I'm hoping your insight prevails.

Nashville. Terrific post. You perfectly expressed the other side of my "mixed" views on this.

Nash and Ron,

Nice posts. I think we have to be careful where we go with this. I think North Korea is more radical than Iran at this moment in time. Tomorrow may be different with these two. When I say be careful I mean we really have to know what it is that we are going after. I got snookered (the word of the week) on Iraq. I believed (as did many) that they had WMD'S. I watched General Powell lay out the aerial photos etc and bought into it. The media was pushing WMD'S, he had yellow cake etc. I would not wish to go down that path again. Now with that being said, if it is determined that action be taken it should be with a clear and precise mission, we are going in there to fight a war with guns blazing, it cannot be a half-hearted exercise, proper equipment and support structure must in place, and a viable and timely exit plan. This is the problem we have in Afghanistan today.

Ron. Your post did what I believe was the intent--debate, honest debate before action is taken rather than after. I personally believe Pres Obama has this debate with his staff every morning and he asks questions of the intelligence.

Are you saying that you're in favor of this, Ron? That surprises me. Have we learned nothing over the past ten years? Might never makes right. It only makes more enemies and kills more Americans.

And the dust bunnies just move on down the road.

By the way, what exactly do you envision as a "pre-emptive strike"?

And what about Somalia? Shouldn't that be next?

US Navy

Very interesting post!!!! Voted!

I have one question. Maybe you can help me understand it better. How come it seems that alot of people are so against President Obama's policies but when they do a poll everyone is for him. Like you mentioned the people are for Obama's economic policies over Bush's by wide margin. I could be reading it wrong.

Anna Molly: My comment on preemptive strike was really in reference to Bush's preemptive strike on Iraq. Like Jody and many others, I am conflicted on this issue. I am opposed to preemptive strikes, but I think it could happen. Maybe not by us, but by Israel or the Saudis.

What I do believe is working is diplomacy; not with Iran, but it is working with China, Russia, the Saudis and others. They will likely stay on the sidelines when this boil comes to a head.

This is from early this morning --http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/27/iran.nuclear.negotiations/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

(CNN) -- Iran is ready for "effective cooperation" to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview with state media.

"We said that we will talk with P5+1 as of early September, but there are some conditions," Ahmadinejad told Press TV on Monday. "One of the conditions is that others should be present in the discussions as well."

The P5+1 consists of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France and United Kingdom -- and Germany.

The Iranian leader said the conditions for talks include the P5+1 members announcing their positions on Israel having nuclear weapons. Jerusalem has neither confirmed nor denied that it has a nuclear weapons program.

"With respect to the negotiations, they should announce whether they are after friendship or animosity. They should come and tell us if the aim of the talks is friendship or animosity."Ahmadinejad said. "And they should announce whether they follow logic or force and resolutions in the negotiations."

Tehran has been hit with a string of sanctions from the Security Council and the European Union for not cooperating on its nuclear program.

__________

It is a volatile situation in Iran no doubt. Glad you brought it up Ron.

Pat:

You wake up earlier than I. Thanks for the update. Sure hope this can be negotiated and Iran is not just buying more time.

TRR,

I wish I had an answer for you. It does seem to be in conflict does it not/ But then again the republicans claim they want to lower the deficit but want to keep the Bush Tax Cuts that will increase the deficit to a point higher than we have ever seen. Makes no sense. Look at all the legislation that President Obama has gotten through and still no credit for that either. Granted it is not perfect, but then nothing ever is, but little to no mention that he has provided some very strong tools and foundation to build upon.

I just do not know, every day we see conflicting information, the best we can do is what we are doing now, discuss it and try to make some sense out of it (I fall short on that one a lot, the making sense out of it part).

Thanks for the chance to talk, look forward to many more. Have a great day. I read your posts everyday.

Ron,

Great job. We are all talking and being nice, raising good questions and great follow up. This is an one ofthe best examples of what this board is about. Now with tht being said,we need to wait until later in the afternoon when the majority of the people across the aisle come out.

Great job Ron.

Sorry, Ron. The last time I was conflicted about a war was 1972. And there hasn't been a good one since, either. Even the first Gulf war. I'm tired of watching people with bright futures die and huge amounts of resources wasted over something that never seems to solve anything.

How many seas must a white dove sail, before she sleeps in the sand; How many times must the cannonballs fly, before they're forever banned?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

Admiral William Fallon, then commander of Centcom, fell on his sword by going public with his opposition to Bush's (and General Petraeus') plans to invade Iran in 2008. I believe he told Bush that would happen over his dead body. Maybe we should stop listening to Bush's generals ask Admiral Fallon why?

Anna Molly:

You are likely right-on and have great wisdom. Bush didn't keep his eye on the ball and Obama is watching. Our President has said many times that his first priority is to keep Ameica safe. Allowing Iran to sell/give nuclear materials to terrorists so they can harm the US is not acceptable.

Like Jody and Navy have said. I bring this topic to the table for discussion.

BTW, I read your "legal assessment" regarding the Arizona law. Again you are right, it is not about the law, it's about the political bias of judges. I hate that! Why couldn't it be about the law? The answer is "blown in the wind."

US Navy

Thanks for trying to help me understand but the way I look at it is that maybe sometimes people are laying low until November. Trying to scare the Democrats and make them head to the polls. No need to scare me I will always vote Democrat and I have since I was eighteen.

Ron

I bet John McCain will be very happy about Iran. Maybe he will make a cd with his favorite song. Ya Know Bomb Bomb Iran.

I do enjoy reading everyones post everyday!!!!

Everyone have a great day!!!!

Ron ~ I certainly agree that it is unacceptable for Iran to sell nuclear weapons to terrorists. But lately we've heard that Pakistan is helping them, too. Do we invade Pakistan? Because they've got nukes, and that's where the terrorists seem to be hiding these days. Since the old News Hole days, I've been much more afraid of Pakistan's involvement with Al Qaeda than Iran's.

We've got a lot of trouble, my friend. But mostly because our xenophobic approach to it never gets at the roots. We learned a long time ago that acne requires more than surface treatment. Why can't we figure out that the same thing goes for terrorism?

Anna Molly:

I'm learning to never debate an attorney. But maybe our discussion brings us to the heart of the issue. How do you negotiate with someone who does not want to negotiate? I sense this when our President wants to sit down with Republicans to find a reasonable solution for the common good, only to realize that there is no common ground; just self-interests on the table. In the legal system you go to court. When countries cannot resolve issues, they go to war. Until early this morning, Iran has shown no interest in negotiating.

My compliments to you one and all. A civil discussion of a very important issue. Wonderful. Kudos all around.

The question of Iran's nuclear program is extremely difficult. I agree, I am opposed to armed conflict when it can be avoided and I am hopeful that the negotiations in September go well and we get some meaningful concessions from Iran.

There was a small piece on one of the MSNBC blogs a couple of days ago that pressure is mounting on the Iranian government and the opposition is predicting a take-over of the government soon. I hope that is true as well.

Why Iran and not Somalia or North Korea? Because Iran is far more dangerous. If the Saudis say the situation is intolerable and they will be forced to take action against another Islamic nation then the situation must be very dangerous indeed. The North Koreans are contained and could be dealt with. The Somalis are thugs but on the scale of international threat they don't even jiggle the needle much less register.

By far Iran is our greatest threat right now and a NUCLEAR Iran would be very frightening indeed. Imagine what it would be like if Al Queda or the Taliban had access to a Nuclear weapon. Even the French are fed up with Iran.

We should remember the words of Teddy Rooseveldt and walk softly but carry a big stick. Diplomacy first, military action second, and only in support of the Saudis.

PEACE (wouldn't that be refreshing)

My thoughts are that we should use the same tactic as we did with Libya-strike the suspected sites and then use diplomacy if Iran will not accept Nuclear inspections. I guess I may have missed what happened, but what happened to the unclenched fist? I watched an interview that has the Iranian president blaming Bush for the failure to start a new era of compromise, but he also blamed Obama for failing to follow through with his campaign promise. Did that go away during the administrations statement of unfair elections?

Oh, pish, Ron. You ought to know better than to try that self-deprecating trick on me. I'm not buying.

Your question is a good one, for which I have no ready answer. How about that?

If pressed, I would say we've probably threatened the terrorists too much -- like Chicken Little -- and they don't take us seriously. As for republicans, I have to say we haven't threatened them enough -- or at least haven't shown them what would happen if they don't cooperate. We've taught them that obstruction pays. And now we may have lost our chance, at least with republicans.

All,

This is a serious issue. All the intelligence that I ever saw on Iran is that they will get a nuke and USE it probably just to make a statement. They know the U.S. and Isreal will wipe that country out with the right leadership at the helm. I do not think they see Obama as a threat otherwise they would not be so defiant. Bush just threw up his hands and you guys pounded him for that. Now Obama is seeing the same intelligence and he is getting the same finger Bush got from Iran. It is easy to criticize when you're on a campaign but when you're the POTUS, things look a lot different.

If Obama does not do something, Isreal will. Someone is going to be forced to do something whether it is Obama, the next POTUS, or Isreal.

N Korea is just flapping at the mouth. They have been threatening about "Team Spirit" since I was stationed over there in the 80's. They have nothing to gain by invading the South. Obama would be forced to wipe that penninsula clean.

Anna Molly:

I suspect you have seen every trick in the book. So all I can say is it has really been fun "discussing" this topic with you. You can have the last word.

When I think of having to go to war with Iran I can only think of one thing...We need to make sure citizens of Asia and people of Muslim faith understand WHY and the majority believe it is the right thing to do. If we fail to win the war of the minds in the middle east before taking that action it will only make things worse and halp the terrorist/extremist recruit and use the same propaganda they have used for years saying we are "satan" and are against all Muslims (Christians VS Muslims). They are winning this war of the minds right now but with Obama as president we can reverse that trend and gain the trust and respect of people of Muslim faith. The Bush administration as well as most conservatives don't think in these terms and that is why the election of President Obama was huge. This is why 8 years of Bush foreign policy in the middle east was devastating and almost irreversable. If we don't win the hearts and minds of a majority of Muslims before taking up arms with Iran and have close allies backing us we will only be accomplishing one thing...preventing Iran from going nuclear but turning the majority of Arab,Asian Muslims against us which feeds right into the terrorist propaganda and "JIHAD". WAR is temporary and has an end but the psychological effect and long term consenquences this will have on people in the middle east and the US will be irreversable and peace in the middle east will be virtually impossible. Our MAIN objective should be to WIN THE TRUST AND RESPECT OF PEOPLE OF THE MUSLIM FAITH ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER THE IRAN PRES AND THE EXTREMIST/TERRORIST>>>just my take

Well, Ron, if left completely up to me, then the last word is ditto.

br8ybnch-certainly valid points. I think that if we make a move away from oil in terms of energy and can create something completely new that we keep to ourselves and sell for energy, we won't need to worry about stability in the Middle east except for our own conscience. It's the world's money that makes these middle east countries have any relevance at all. So if we move forward, they can take care of themselves and fight over the scraps after they've fought their religious wars. And they won't have any money for atomic weapons.

We will not have to take military action against Iran. Thankfully. The Saudis have already stated they will turn their backs and clear their airspace while Israel decides how far Iran will go with their nuclear program. There is also the populace of Iran to consider.For the ruling elite to enter into a conflict with anyone may be the tipping point for the regime as it would be very unpopular. Even against the great satan.

At any rate we will not be instigating any pre-emptive strikes against anyone.

Is Obama overexposed?

When does he go on Jerry Springer? Surely, he has as lot in common with that audience - shouldn't miss the boat.

IR: Thank you for posting on the topic. I have a question for all you lawyers out there. If a judge says portions of the law are constitutional, and other parts are not, then what happens? Is the whole law thrown out or does it go back to the Arizona legislators for modification? Thank you for your thoughts on this.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe SB1070 states that if any part of the law is unconstitutional, then the rest of the law will still go into effect. So only the portions that the judge believes to be unconstitutional will be blocked, and the rest of the law will come into effect tomorrow.

Independent,

Great post. Lets hope that all 50 states get involved with this. I think we have the tools to gather the information the issue is getting it into the hands of those best suited to use it in a fast and effective way. The only thing I worry about that if it gets too big do we open it to becoming nonfunctional? The old too many cooks in the kitchen argument. I agree that a lot of this will get tested in the courts. That is OK in that it will make it stronger (at least that is my hope). With any luck this will be a great tool for law enforcement, eliminate as much as possible the possible negatives we see in the AZ law.

IR - this law in AZ is a disaster waiting to happen. The people of AZ have NO IDEA of the financial burden that this law is going to put on them IF it wins the current judicial challenge. It is obvious that AZ has NOT learned anything from Prince Georges County's (VA) Police Chief when he warned about 'unintended consequences' - on videotape - of enacting laws like this.

I have no idea what the Federal Judge is going to rule in the DOJ case, but in a wierd sort of way, I hope that AZ is successful and is able to enact their law as they want. I GUARANTEE you that within a year, AZ will be BEGGING the Feds to help them unload the burden that they have heaped on themselves. AZ has no idea of the cost of the legal challenges from American Citizens that will be 'baiting' AZ law enforcement just so they can sue. AZ has no idea of the costs associated with detention and housing of illegal immigrants caught in this dragnet.

With the DOJ challenge, you can bet that the Feds (ICE) will not be so willing to 'help' AZ with the processing of the illegal immigrants that they may have detained. I think that interagency cooperation will be at an all-time low. I SINCERELY hope I am wrong about that, but all indications point to interagency squabbling. In the case of Prince Georges County, according to their Police Chief, ICE was overwhelmed in their processing of these illegal immigrants, and Prince Georges County was STUCK with the cost of detaining illegal immigrants until ICE was able to process them.

Yeah. Just what AZ needs, especially when their budget is running a deficit.

So, This is a BAD deal all around. However, AZ wants this so I say - let them have it. Let them deal with the cost(s) associated with this law. Let them deal with the diminshed level of cooperation from their constituents because they don't want to get ensnared with immigration.

This is what they wanted, right?

Pietro Thank you but seeing as how I work there I just need to remind you that that is Prince William County in Va. Prince George is over in Md.

IR - my mistake. I guess I should have had my coffee this morning...

You don't need lawyer skills, IR, to predict the outcome here. Just an understanding of the current make-up of the Supreme Court.

5-4 in favor of the law. Against: Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Guess who's for it.

Ron: It may depend on exactly what questions are placed in front of the Court, and also whether they deem the unConstitutional provisions to be severable from the rest. That's often the case, but in this case, I wouldn't worry about it because whatever is placed in front of the Court, it's likely to be upheld.

I.R. Terrific post with plenty of facts. Obviously, the program is effective. It would seem logical to me that every state would be jumping at the chance to add it to their crime-fighting tools.

On a similar note, I have never understood why all employers do not use or have access to the computer system for checking legal status of people they hire.

Sadly considering the quality of justice that we have seen being dispensed by our court system here lately I fear that you are probably correct in your thoughts Anna Molly........ Pietro no worrys you aren't the only one that makes that mistake. Listened to a national pundit go on for about a hour a couple of weeks ago about Prince George's.

Pietro. I agree that AZ will likely find their law unsustainable.

To everyone else who posted a reply, good job; my understanding of what will or could happen and why has been improved--my lawyer skills are the basics.

Jody that is one of the other problems I see. While the E-verify system is availible to all and by report is effective in about 80% of the cases it is only used by about 6 % of employers.

More civil discussion of a thorny partizan issue. Good job all, please keep up the good work.

I personally have great concerns for the victims of the Arizona law. Our state legislature has inacted similar anti-illegal legislation here and it has caused great hardship in certain communities.

We have friends who are hispanic. They are from Mexico and are both here legally, work permits, the whole nine yards. But the stories they tell of the fear among the hispanic people here in Oklahoma is heart-rending. Ultimately it is the children who suffer the most.

It is a difficult thing to balance, enforcement of the existing laws while considering the impact on humanity.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and California were once part of MEXICO. We went to war with Mexico in 1846 and took those states away from another sovereign nation. Read David Eisenhower's SO FAR FROM GOD for an excellent overview of the war and the politics that caused it.

PEACE

Skip - in my research on this matter, I read about Oklahoma City and how your legislature dealt with this issue. What I am seeing is all of the legislatures that have enacted these types of laws have REGRETTED doing so after the fact. AZ will be no different. In ALL cases - these types of laws were either rescinded or modified to ask for citizenship AFTER and ARREST.

Unfortunately, it looks like AZ will have to learn the HARD way.

Actually, Texas gained its own independence and became its own sovereign nation before joining the United States.

Independent and sovereign in name only, they do cling to the stupid in Texas though.

Sorry, you are of course correct, you won your independance in 1836...let's see, oh yes, from Mexico, sorry for the slight mistatement.

PEACE

Exactly. I think it is also the Media driving the perception that the President is the only surrogate who can speak--I've heard plenty of WH surrogates, and politicians argue quite effectively.

I never had a problem with Bush speaking... matter of fact, I found it rather amusing. I even looked forward to his speeches so that I could cry so hard from laughter.

And you know this how? Amending returns does not constitute cheating! Also, anything paid for years after the statute of limitations expires (usually, three years after April 15) is VOLUNTARY!

It may not constitute cheating, but it certainly doesn't look good if someone has to fix tax returns. I mean, these people are probably already rich enough to afford hiring people that can help them get their tax returns done correctly (and legally). If those kinds of people have to amend their returns, it does smell mightily suspicious.

Joe,

Thanks so much for pointing out all the folks with tax issues in the Democratic Party. America is grateful for your insights on this matter.

I have another tax question for you:

How do you feel about Exxon and GE paying zero income taxes for 2009?

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html

How do you feel about the majority of corporations paying ZERO income taxes?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

Of course, I have posted this info before, but you have been strangely silent on the topic.

Sean, I have nearly four decades of tax work under my belt and I had to amend MINE a couple of years ago! Missed some deductions.

Joe in Albany,

Did Kerry break any laws? Tax cheating implies that he had deliberately avoided paying a tax due. The way I understand what he did (right or wrong) was to take advantage of buying a boat in RI and registering it n RI to avoid the sales tax in MA. If he did not do anything illegal why is he a cheater/ Just because he used a legal loophole to save taxes? I will bet you people all over the US purchase things in the same manner. Some states have laws that stop you from doing that, I do not know if MA has such a law. If they do not, then no case.

@Auntie:

I guess amending taxes, in a vacuum, isn't the problem. (My apologies for questioning someone with 4 decades of tax experience - I've only been doing the 1040EZ for the past couple years, which is as long as I've needed to - I'm 19.)

What is more important, and in the end more of a thought question, is whether or not he (Daschle) would've amended the returns had he not been put up to public scrutiny as the HHS nominee.

No the Kerry saga is not about tax cheating but more about blatant hypocrisy. A guy who lectures us about paying our fair share then use every little loophole to avoid paying them himself. In other word, do as I say not as I do.

I had to "amend" my return this year because I inadvertently left blank one line that supported another line. I filled in exactly the same amount that was on the other line and re-submitted the return.

Am I a cheater? No, just a ditz. If I liked line item accounting, I would have gone to accountancy school.

"How do you feel about Exxon and GE paying zero income taxes for 2009?"

Nash, I don't own Exxon stock so I can't help you there. You can look it up for yourself since you are so interested. Every U.S. headquartered public company's Annual Report to stockholder's must include in the footnotes a schedule that reconciles the U.S. statutory corporate tax rate to the actual taxes on their income statement.

I do own GE stock and I can help you there. What the Forbes article and GE's income tax footnote reveal is that they paid no U.S. TAXES, NOT "GE paying zero income taxes for 2009" as you claim above. The simple reason for this is that GE Capital Corp., a U.S. based subsidiary lost a huge amount of money in 2009, just like all the other major financial companies. When you lose a lot of money, you can't pay any income taxes because you don't have any income to be taxed.

The same rules apply to individuals on their 1040: Let's say you live in Louisiana and have a W-2 for $200,000, and you lose your uninsured $250,000 home in a hurricane. In this simplified example, your 1040 would show a loss for the year and you would not pay any income taxes for that year.

Your Reuters link did not work, so I can't comment on that.

Those who complain most about the tax failures of others most likely would be surprised to discover they, too, have made mistakes on tax returns or taken advantage of existing laws in other states. Is everyone who does something they think is legal a tax cheat? No. Whether it is an individual or a corporation, they take advantage of loopholes that exist.

Right Ray, it's natural for Conservatives to use the system as it exists, wrong for Liberals. No Ray, THAT is hypocritical. Kerry is working to bring more balance to the system, the Republicans are working to game it farther in the direction of the already wealthy with claims that they're being treated unfarily. THAT is hypocritical.

Um, Joe, alls I care about is U.S. income taxes, seeing as it is the U.S. economy that is feeding these corporations with profits, and then they use loopholes written by Congress critters that they have bought and paid for to pay ZERO taxes.

I love how you know every blessed thing when it comes to running down President Obama, but when it comes to corporations, if you don't own stock in them, you are clueless.

So you own stock in President Obama then? lol

Here's that "broken link" for ya:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

John B.

Thank you.

"Um, Joe, alls I care about is U.S. income taxes, seeing as it is the U.S. economy that is feeding these corporations with profits, and then they use loopholes written by Congress critters that they have bought and paid for to pay ZERO taxes.

I love how you know every blessed thing when it comes to running down President Obama, but when it comes to corporations, if you don't own stock in them, you are clueless."

Nash, what part of "multinational corporations" do you not understand? These companies have subsidiary operations all over the world. Your assertion "seeing as it is the U.S. economy that is feeding these corporations with profits," is simply ridiculous. GE paid no US income taxes in 2009 because it had no US profits in 2009, it had a US loss. All it's consolidated worldwide profits were from non-US operations.

Your next assertion "when it comes to corporations, if you don't own stock in them, you are clueless." is equally ridiculous. I'm simply not interested in wasting my time doing research on a company I don't own. Since YOU were so interested, I supplied you with the location where you could find your answer. My bad.

"So you own stock in President Obama then? lol"

If such a thing were possible, the stock's price would be measured by his job approval ratings and the right track-wrong track percentages. Surely you would agree that would have been a real loser investment since his election!!! LOL!!!

Nash, your Reuters link is still dead.

Joe, the link works for me . . . guess I have a "librul" computer! :o)

One final point - I understand what a multinational corporation is. Do you understand what "gaming the system" is?

P.S. President Obama's stock is doing quite well for me . . . maybe you need a new stock broker? lol

Not knowing any of the particulars on any individuals or corporations tax returns leaves all of us unable to criticize. We don't know the details. I, too, have amended returns for things in my favor or in the Treasury's favor. Anyone who thinks this is unusual or somehow an indication of "cheating" has never prepared any return other than the 1040EZ.

I can contribute an example of a corporation not paying federal/state income taxes. The firm I work for pays none. We are an engineering/surveying firm. On Dec 15th each year our owner does a preliminary return with our accountant. Every penny of profit for the year is put into our bonus pool. Every employee is given a bonus and the pool ends up with a zero balance on Dec 31. My husband does the same thing with his company. (yes the trickle down DOES work when the owners aren't greedy and selfish) We do pay property taxes, sales taxes, etc.

"P.S. President Obama's stock is doing quite well for me . . . maybe you need a new stock broker? lol"

Looks like the Planet Liberal stock exchange you trade on needs a MAJOR FINANCIAL REGULATORY OVERHAUL, because obviously the stock price is being manipulated by insider trading crooks.

LOL!!!

Point Blank: EVERYONE takes advantage of the tax laws the way they are written. It is hypocritical of KERRY only in the sense that he saying one thing and doing another. If he is so concerned about a level playing field then he should set the example and say (not after the fact you've been busted), I could bypass this tax but I'm going to pay it because it is what I'm promoting.

I don't have a problem with people or corporations using the tax laws to maintain more of THEIR money that THEY earned. No one likes to pay taxes and I would challenge anyone who is so concerned about some not paying to voluntarily pay it out of your money. I'll will be glad to let you pay mine.

Nash,

Good comeback

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined samples of corporate tax returns filed between 1998 and 2005. In that time period, an annual average of 1.3 million U.S. companies and 39,000 foreign companies doing business in the United States paid no income taxes - despite having a combined $2.5 trillion in revenue.

The study showed that 28% of foreign companies and 25% of U.S. corporations with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales paid no federal income taxes in 2005. Those companies totaled a combined $372 billion in sales for the largest foreign companies and $1.1 trillion in revenue for the biggest U.S. companies.

The GAO report, which did not name any specific companies, said that some corporations reported zero income before deducting expenses while others said they had zero net income after deducting expenses. Either way, those companies reported no tax liability, the GAO said.

But many of the companies the report found had paid no tax were likely small businesses that pay other taxes. Generally, many small firms, because they do not have shareholders, are able to shift corporate income to individual income.

"Small businesses that are going to be liable for a lot of income tax are likely to use other tax forms so they only pay individual income taxes," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

The study was requested by Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D, and Carl Levin, D-Mich., in an attempt to determine if corporations are abusing so-called transfer prices.

Transfer prices are charges on transactions between subsidiary companies within a larger corporate group. Companies may try to lessen their U.S. tax hit by improperly transferring income to foreign subsidiaries in countries with lower rates.

The GAO study did not attempt to determine if companies were abusing transfer prices, but it said that potential abuse of transfers could reduce the amount of taxes companies pay in the United States.

"The tax system that allows this wholesale tax avoidance is an embarrassment and unfair to hardworking Americans who pay their fair share of taxes," Dorgan said in a statement.

U.S. politicians disagree about how much income tax the government should levy on corporations. Currently the rate is 35%, but most foreign governments have set their rates below the U.S. level.

"The U.S. corporate tax rate stayed the same while foreign countries have drifted down, which increases the incentive for companies to report income in other countries," said Toder. "If the U.S. drops the rate to 30% but closes other tax loopholes, that may ultimately generate more tax revenue for the government."

First Published: August 12, 2008: 3:46 PM EDT

The estate tax: McCain vs. Obama

Juice economy again? It's a tough call

Thanks for posting that US Navy.

(Sigh) and you were all doing so well. No more Mr (Ms.) Nice Guy (Lady).

Does anyone remember what this report was actually about?

PEACE

and somewhere on the board today - a Republican is complaining that 50% of US Citizens don't pay any taxes either. They bitch to defend corporations and to crucify the impoverished individual. Same song, second verse - Cut entitlements to individuals AND apologize to BP for the unfair treatment,...same song, third verse - we are taxed enough already - and republican spending is necessary spending (deficits don't matter),...anybody else seeing a 'trend line' here?

ITM, there's hypocrisy in following the law as written? Because Liberals should just surrender their money voluntarily while Conservatives know how to spend their own money better than the government? You're asking to have it both ways here, claiming you're OK with it but at the same time you're not. I have no problem with Dick Cheney, George Bush, Richard Mellon Scaife, or any other wealthy individual limiting their tax payments to whatever they can get away with under the law. It's the law I have a problem with.

Nashville:

You might want to actually read the Forbes article, especially the section about Exxon and oil companies. Did you just read about GE and see the name "Exxon" in the article and assume it said the same thing about the two?

Richard:

Actually, Richard I did read the article. . . thanks for asking.

Nash,

Touche' - It is the damn if you do damn if you don't mentality of the media. It is all about ratings and they do not let the facts get in the way.

Perfect. Seems we were discussing over-exposure last year about this time.

Predictable, lame and LAZY.....and it's not journalism....just snark.

I have read your posts and appreciate the civil discussion. Please answer this question for me. If, in your opinions, the current administration is continuing to move in the right direction on all of the issues, then why does the polling show his approval ratings in the 40% range? The one poll above 50% approval is in his handling of the Afghan war and this was after a "Bush-type" surge.

In a word...........misinformation.

A valid question DA. Several factors at work here;

• The electorate won't be happy with much of anything until the economic recovery is well underway.
• The Administration and the Democratic party generally haven't been that good at explaining their positions.
• Constant Republican attacks, many of which are invalid, but they have great message discipline and 90% of the talk medium.
• Willingness of the MSM to submit to being worked by the above, and a lazy, false equivalence that defaults to a position that the truth must be halfway between option R and option D. See "Drudge rules our world."

Eric, your comments display such a profound ignorance of economic realities that I hardly know how to respond to you. May I begin by suggesting that the private sector produces goods and services (wealth) and the public sector does not. By raising taxes and increasing spending, the government transfers resources from those elements of our society that are producing goods and services, to those that are not. Haven't you noticed that communist countries are always poor, and the only people who are rich are the ones who are running the government?

For a generation, democrats have been attacking the tobacco industry, the oil industry, the automobile industry, the airline industry, banks, farmers, the textile industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and on and on and on. Now, with the economy in the tank, democrats wonder where the jobs are. Oh, and lest I forget, they blame Republicans.

We have gotten into this mess because for too long we have been too quick to impliment political solutions to our problems, with little or no consideration for the economic effects of our policies. We will not get out of this mess by doing more of the same. "Soak the rich" won't cut it. We need sound policies that are based on a clear understanding of the relationship between investment, productivity, wealth, and prosperity.

If my comments above do not resonate with you, I can only suggest that you take an entry level (probably 200) course in economics. You sound like a smart guy, but you really need to lose the hyperbole and start thinking about issues rationally.

The Public sector provides or produces NO?!? services??????????????????? Is that really what you are trying to say, Bob?

Hi Paul:

It is too strong a statement to say that the public sector doesn't produce any services, but look around. The public sector does not produce one barrel of oil, or one automobile. The public sector does not produce any lumber, or coal, or food, or medicine. The public sector does not produce wealth. Most of the "services" that government provides are merely transfers of resources from one person to another, with no economic value added. I am trying to think of one thing that the public sector does that is directly effected by some form of market discipline, but I'm having trouble. Maybe you can help me out.

In summary, I suppose that it is my position that most public sector activities, especially government activites, do little or nothing to make the economic pie bigger; government only takes pieces of the pie from some, and gives to others.

I'm looking forward to your thoughts.

Regulating the growth of the pie, a service, keeps the pie from exploding in everyones' face. Security, a service, keeps your assets from being taken from you. You could look at these things as a drain on your profits I guess, I think the more enlightened would rather compete economically, in a game on a field which has hired referees, instant replay officials, and security guards. In that way the true winner of the competition gets to keep the prize.

Bob, who's going to build your roads, put out your house fire, ensure that your food is safe, guard against confidence schemes (including or maybe especially those on Wall Street), certify that your doctor is actually a doctor, catch the burglars, provide courts to resolve disputes and punish criminals, and protect you from scary terrorists or foreign nations without government? You don't think those things have a lot of value, look at a place that's short on those worthless services that only take from some and give to others. Perhaps Mogadishu, or Afghanistan after the Soviet puppet government collapsed.

Good morning Pat -

With Rendell, I don't think it's so much a case of deliberately stabbing President Obama in the back as it is promoting Ed Rendell. This is a guy who never met a spotlight he didn't relish, and after working his way through several offices (and doing some good along the way), I think he's realizing that the light is starting to dim and he's not one to go gently into the night.

Loved the rest of your post (though trust me, you don't want to hear me sing!)

JoAnne, I love the state of Pennsylvania. But Gov. Rendell is really sticking it to President Obama and has been from the very beginning. And for him to say going on The View is undignified? Rendell has no problem going on Fox Propaganda.

The day a President reaches out to average every day Americans all across the nation on a program such as The View is a great day. McCain went on The View when he was running for President.

The hypocrisy is startling. First it's - where is Obama?! He's too cool. Now he's over-exposed.

When MSNBC needs a fill in host during summer vacations, they should think about hiring President Obama. His show could be like Countdown. One by one by one, strike down the BS that is constant in this country. And there's no one to slant what he has to say. No guests. No nothing. Just him in his own words, explaining yet again - what is true, and what is false. It could be quite entertaining.

Of course this may explain why I will never be a political consultant. LoL.

Pat

The handwriting is on the wall; I think. They, some of the Hillary supporters, still want Hillary for 2012. Nevermind, that the right wing nuts would do the same to her that they are doing to the President. Sometimes I really wonder if some disaffected democratics have not learned yet the republican meme: Divide and Conquer?

Hillary has gotten over it. I believe she is truly interested in keeping this party together; unlike her egomanical husband and Carville et al.

Beverly, they know. There is tons of history to back up what we end up with when they give up. Believe me, they know. Now they're saying they want something to run on, instead of against. What the ...?

Since when do you not run against the GOP? They've been doing it forever. Now it's an issue. Now. There is plenty to run on with this President. Plenty. But they aren't acknowledging any of it.

I am so so glad the President is going on The View. These people I would guess aren't left, aren't right anything. They're just Americans worried about the future. And now they get an hour to listen to him. These probably aren't viewers who watch the political shows like Meet The Press.

And Rendell says it's undignified? What is? Talking to everyday Americans? Oh please. Everyday Americans vote. They have families. And care about their futures. And they have a President who is going to listen to them.

Pat - If people had ever seen the news clips of Rendell officially opening the city pools every summer when he was mayor of Philadelphia by cramming himself into a too-small Speedo and being the first one to do a cannonball into the pool, they'd realize he has a lot of nerve talking about anyone else's lack of dignity! And trust me, he'd knock President Obama over trying to get on "The View" himself if he thought for one second that they'd invite him. Hell, he'd probably appear on "Jersey Shore" if they asked him. I doubt that many people are paying much attention to what he says about President Obama anymore - and I think that's his problem.

Absolutely, Pat. I like Rendell but find him to be all to willing to participate in the media's pushing divisiveness in the democratic party.

What better way for Pres Obama to reach millions of ordinary American viewers than to appear on shows people watch. I plan to tune in myself shortly and I rarely watch daytime talk shows.

Ed Rendell is old school. Our President is new school and anything but conventional. In Alter's book, he said that Obama is the first president who walks the halls of the West Wing sometimes munching on an apple, stopping to chat with staff or wish someone a happy birthday. If he has a question for a staffer, he rarely summons the person to his office; he instead heads down the hall and pops into the person's office. Alter can testify to that because while he was with David Axelrod, the President popped in. The staffers appreciate it and feel it makes them really part of the Team. In my view, it completely blows the right's complaint about Obama being arrogant and an elitist out of the water.

You have apparently never attempted to watch this wretched show...it's a bunch of uber-liberal gals with a combined IQ of about 46....Obama should be a good fit... the good thing is that nobody watches that network or that show so there will be an audience nationwide of about 134....

osamaobama: John McCain appeared on this program when he was running for President. Someone last night said LBJ appeared on The Merv Griffin Show to promote his Civil Rights Legislation. Richard Nixon appeared on Laugh-In and Jack Paar. Bill Clinton appeared on Arsenio Hall. There is nothing wrong with the people who watch The View. There is something to be said for those who watch Fox Propaganda though.

Sock It To Me. I think that's what Richard Nixon said, but I'm not sure. It's been a while since I've seen it.

Jody, I loved your post. And you hit it exactly. President Obama is a new generation. And that may be precisely why he won. These people from PA have it out for him it appears. Matthews, Rendell, Mitchell, Finemann, Smerconish. They seem more gossipy than anything. And I would think most of them weren't personally rooting for Obama to win until the very end of the campaign, if they in fact wanted him to win at all. Which they probably did after realizing their guy George W. Bush and John McCain were not up to the job. At least with McCain, the country was able to stop him. GWB we weren't so lucky.

I got on board with him early on, but not everybody did. There are Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich supporters still out there.

osamaobama "You have apparently never attempted to watch this wretched show...it's a bunch of uber-liberal gals with a combined IQ of about 46...."
I'm still laughing....Hasselbeck an uber-liberal gal.....you have GOT to be kidding! She's probably going to come after YOU for a comment like that.

Pat: Critics at large

Ed Rendell also said yesterday that he thought that there would be a Presidential primary for the Democrats. With friends like these, who needs.....them.

Hi guys (and gals) let me share something with you from someone who has actually run two successful political campaigns. A primary is not necessarily a bad thing. It gets you name out there, on TV, Radio, Newspapers, Internet in a campaign format that you can control. Run-off elections are likewise helpful for the same reason. Yes, they cost money, but you get to build up a record of successes that paints you as a "winner". You win the primary, but only by 48%..you won, but the margin was too narrow. You go to a run-off and win, thats two runs on base. It really can be a good thing. Now if you can win a hotly contested primary by say, 55% or better, that's good too. You're a winner, a strong winner. It's why they call it the "political game".

Just thought I'd share,

PEACE

Osamaobama.....With your screen name why would anyone believe that your not brain dead?

EXCELLENT post as always, Jody. I have a relative from Missouri, now very old but he said it best a few years ago. "If I have to pay taxes I must have made some money, so that's OK with me. I'm still ahead."

I do not know much about taxes except that I pay in to the federal government every year (in the 28% tax bracket). But I am not complaining about the taxes that I pay. I get good services for my money that I pay in. So, since I am no expert, what would happen if the tax cuts are continued BUT ELIMINATE the tax loop holes and all those deductions for those 5% who are incredible rich. What type of effect would that have? Would it make the tax paying more level? I can't find enough loop holes to reduce my taxes much, but I also do not have a tax lawyer looking. Would closing loop holes make much difference?

Something else that is keep well hidden from the population at large is the fact that no wealthy person ever pays nearly what their income tax bracket calls for, say someone’s annual gross income puts them in what used to be the 39% tax bracket, after an accountant takes advantage of the many loopholes placed in the tax code for the wealthy the actual tax paid on this income is around 11%, remember our tax code was designed by the wealthy for the wealthy. Fact of the matter is the only person in this country that actually pays a significant amount of their income on income taxes is the guy or gal that gets a weekly paycheck, buy the way you always here the Republicans saying the main reason jobs are sent overseas is the high corporate tax rates in the U.S., but they fail to mention that after all the loopholes and gimmies are taken advantage of in our tax code most corporations pay no income taxes at all, none. But the Republicans are masters at convincing people to vote against their own best interests and to completely ignore the facts, and it would appear they have the media on their side also so I fear November will be a sad reminder that the wealthy really can't be stopped, they own us and our country.

Thanks. You've each added more to the conversation.

Another absurdity I saw yesterday on this topic - that Clinton's job creation was somehow artificial because it was a dot.com bubble. I guess when a democrat is president and technology blossoms, it's a bubble; but when the republicans took the helm, computer technology somehow bottomed out and flatlined? really? Does a pretzel bend over and back on itself as much as republicans attempting to apply a double standard?

Are Americans NOT innovators? Have there not been hundreds of thousands of ways to make money using the 'puter tubes? What a country!

Innovation is really the key to American success. Thanks for pointing that out. I'd like to add that just because there was a dotcom bubble it doesn't invalidate ALL of that economic activity. If that were the case online commerce wouldn't be setting new records every year. Productivity wouldn't have seen the increases that have taken place over the last 15 years. Northern California wouldn't still have some of the most expensive real estate in the nation because all those people would've lost their jobs. Heck, we wouldn't be here on FR! In the end the business that had value survived the dotcom bubble. The ones that didn't failed. That's business.

John, thanks for picking up on my nuance. Can you imagine how impoverished Meg Whitman would be were it all just a .com bubble?

Why she'd have to settle for a lowly county legislator position rather than going for the State Top Gun! lol!

Cult - I'm going to disagree with you on this one and go so far as to say the President is actually UNDER-exposed. Wait, hear me out - the over-exposure is not of his doing; it's the 24/7 news cycle and the political pundits tripping over each other to pounce on every word he says and every move he makes, because like it or not, he is the biggest and most controversial name in the political world, and any controversy they can stir up or manufacture means more ratings. He's also over-exposed by the conservative opposition because it's much easier to rally the troops to the cause by being AGAINSt something than it is to be FOR something - especially when they have a hard time explaining what it is they're "for" themselves.

Where I think this President is UNDER-exposed is in terms of talking to the American people directly. I would actually like to see him do more televised press conferences, more speeches from the Oval Office, and while "The View" wouldn't have been my first choice, more national tv appearances in general, so that if people decided they approved or disapproved of his positions and plans for the country, at least they'd be basing it on what he said himself instead of what both sides of the media choose to cherry-pick and take out of context to package in convenient sound bites that support their own agenda.

I can remember a time when people always seemed to be complaining that a given President - almost any of them in my lifetime - was coming on tv yet again and pre-empting their favorite soap opera or ballgame or sitcom for another speech. I'd actually like to hear those complaints again.

While I understand what you say, I have the opposite view. WE the People should hear from our President as often as possible. I want to know what he has to say, I want to see him because he works for me and every other person living in this country. It is also critical that he push back against the 24/7 chatter, and a media which tends to focus on the chatter. If it means repeating himself, so be it. Just because he gives a briefing or takes a few minutes to discuss an issue does not mean he is not governing or working on the economy. He has a staff working long hours and long weeks. Part of his job is to be a voice to explain what is being done. Part of our job is to listen, even when we may disagree.

I disagree about lectures for this reason. My uncle is now retired but worked hard his entire life and he had little education. He said he likes that Pres Obama explains things in detail because it makes it easier for him to understand the whole issue rather than just sound bites.

Joanne and Jody

Thank you for your rhetoric's, I do get both of your points. To some extent I agree with you both. I suppose that his appearance on the view is what set it off for me. I do not want to see my president on the view or the daily show or glenn beck or any other talking head or talk show. I want to see some professionalism.

I personally think there should be a state of the union every quarter. I think the state of the union should be televised during prime time on all major networks. As far as making other appearances besides the state of the union, a president can, but at his/her own peril.

I guess if we are going to only have one 'professional' in DC - it should be the President, right? I mean Boehner and McConnell would NEVER stoop to such undignified means to get a message out?

This is Washington DC - 2010, right?

I say take your message to the widest audience as often as you need to. Some are going to bitch if they're hung with a new rope - no matter what you do,...disregard their empty poutrage for exactly what it is - sour grapes. What is more unbecoming, I ask, a President reaching out to the people of America OR a partisan snipe hunt with only one trophy in sight?

Cult - I'd support your quarterly State of the Union idea on one condition - could we leave Congress out of it? All of that prolonged (and half phony, depending on which party the President is from) clapping and then the not-too-subtle attempts at either appearing bored or rolling your eyes (if you're in the other party) really wear me out. I think there was a time when the applause was sincere - maybe it still is sometimes, but most of it is just theatrics. And the eye-rolling is just plain rude and inappropriate.

Thanks for some reasonable discussion - there seems to be a lot of that going on around here today!

I'd love to see him on the View (if I were home to watch it) and I'd love to see him on Stewart and Colbert! These are shows that do pretty well allowing the person to speak their piece, add a little humor for otherwise unhumorless public and put things into great perspective. Not that he won't be asked questions that are designed to put him on the spot, but he can then use his intelligence and humor to answer, which is when he shines best. The unhumorless media spewing of vitriol and negativism has got to have an effect on his poll numbers, rather than what the man has actually accomplished. And Eric, he has accomplished a lot, without (as I have said many times) no support from the Republicans (with the exceptions of Snowe and Collins and Brown), but even those idiot blue dogs who don't know who they are. He cannot change anything without their help and that is who you should be directing your criticism toward. I believe President Obama has given the Republicans and those blue dogs too much credit and thought they would behave as adults, but they have only one idea in mind and that is to protect their position any way they can, even if it means throwing the President under the bus. President Obama has demonstrated nothing to me, but courage, and supporting legislation that is aimed at helping the middle class and the poor. And ask yourself, what is your choice? The Republicans who believe that the rich should always get richer off the backs of the American workers? Talk about slavery? And I'm not saying that in a color-specific way. When you can't change a job you hate because your wages will be less at the next job you go to, and when you MUST work at that job because it is helping you pay your insurance, you have absolutely no chance to better your life. You're just a drone to that corporation, or that health industry, or to Wall Street - all us schmucks who lost all our pensions due to their chicanery and theft. What I hope will happen is that the BPs and the AIGs will be investigated, and that their be indictments, to show that there are consequences for bilking the public out of billions. Do you think the Republicans are on your side? If they were, we would have had a public option, if they were, we would have had stronger FinRegs. If they were, we would have allowed those banks to fail, split them up, gone after the bonuses, etc. Those are jobs that are up to congress, not to the President. He demanded a $20B escrow of BP, and you see how the Republicans reacted to that, they apologized to BP. When tax cuts for the very very wealthy come up, (and those making $250 also have tax loopholes and if they are incorporated they write off very much of their income as either investments back into the company, etc. so they are not paying taxes on the company, and only pay on their individual income, which is then again - if they have a good accountant - gone for expenses, gone for home offices, or whatever loopholes they can find) you will see the Republicans tout they don't have to be paid for. Why? Why doesn't someone ask them that. Ask them to justify that. But unemployment benefits have to be begged for, even those dollars spent add $1.60 into the economy. Ask them about that, ask them to justify that.

What I don't understand is why the MSM is not hammering the Republicans on these things. Why every word that President Obama says, every move he makes, from mom jeans to whether he should or should not get angry, should be spat out and given the impression that it is news, is beyond me. There is very little news on the cable news channels. And the news or the point of view of the news is what drives the engine, so of course he should appear on shows like the view and Stewart and Colbert. They certainly have a better handle on things than bitter loony people like Michelle Malkin or Hannity or Sludge has who have a very specific message about failure for this President. It would be nice if some of those stupid democrats would counter those messages with positivity rather than Ed Rendell. Maybe he thinks he should run against President Obama. I hope he reads the polls on that because I don't think many Obama supporters would turn around and support him, especially after his various treacherous remarks.

I said after the Presidential election that all of us were taking a break. Those who supported the President were pretty worn out after 3 years of monitoring polls, making contributions, making calls, canvassing our towns and neighborhoods, giving our time and effort and money. And we had a victory. All the rest of this mudslinging is ridiculous and if the only shows you watch are the primarily Republican wing of the news media, what a slanted picture you get. But Dems, keep your brains working, don't let the b@stards grind you down. We did take our country back from the zealotry of the so-called religious right, and are trying to take it back from the Karl Rove and Dick Armey diviseness that has been a part of the Republican fear mongering campaign since the days of Neuter Gingrich.

Keep your heads up, be proud, get out there and start working, register someone, take them to the polls in the midterms, don't let the Palins and Becks and Limpbaughs win. What would our world be like then. We literally, unless we were uber rich, all be slaves, just to get enough money to feed our children and pay our rent or mortgages and even then our cities would be crumbling - heard that one about the wimpy T-Paw, that no money had gone into their bridges and infrastructures for 40 years, but the people of his state now have to pay taxes so that their new platinum ball stadium is built, which is agreed that stadiums do not do much for our decrepit inner cities. It is just more taxes so that the rich can get richer, while the taxpayer takes the risk. That is a tenant of the Republican party. That is the Republican way of life. And if we don't talk them down, answer the innuendoes and the lies, then that will also be our way of life in the future. Now, I now all the Republican nuts on here will respond poorly to this, but if they actually thought about it, nothing I have said on here is untrue. It's a fact of life.

They never stop their lies, they just try to make them sound less crazy and claim that they are the victims.

Breitbart and the GOPers claim they are innocent because the NAACP called all of the Tea Party memers racists--the NAACP did not, they asked the Tea Party to address the racist elements within it.

I saw that about Boehner. You would think the last thing any republican would want to be seen doing is dining and drinking with lobbyists. Like McCain, it doesn't register that technology will find them.

Yea, Blow off the Boy Scouts of America inventation and go in the View!!! Classic move Obama!!!

I just hope that Joy Behar doesn't wet her pants!

I hope Gingrich runs in 2012! Food for thought.

Let us know when you find it . . . we'll leave the light on for you! :o)

With all the problems in this country, this is what you choose to focus on . . . thank God for you.

Yes, I admit that it's not much; but I still want to know the location of that authorization.

By the way, if you visit my blog, you'll see that I focus on a lot of other things as well. Thanks for your input.

Who said that the taxpayer's picking up the bill? Who says that it's not the DNC or the DCCC paying the bill, for campaign trips? As far as promoting his agenda, who said he can't?

Did you ask that same question when Pres Bush flew all over the country to do the same?

Did anyone comment about how Pres Obama took the mini-AF One to Maine rather than the big one to save tax payer money? Nope, not a word.

I've said it before, I did not have a problem with Bush campaigning via The Plane or with his taking vacations. My point--this is fluff, this is not something new. Every president did it.

Not only does every President do it, but the Secret Service would be in a frenzy if they DIDN'T. Let's say the President drives to save money. Now there's an entire motorcade traveling cross country. Now one of the streets I use most commonly is the main route to and from the Des Moines airport. I've been watching motorcades there since Reagan was President and it's an incredibly labor intensive process. There are cops at EVERY intersection with barricades that are put in place shortly before the motorcade passes. They start to gather well before the "event" and there's A BUNCH OF THEM. All traffic is shut down around the time of the motorcade. How much money do we save by traveling that way?

So I don't play that game. When a President travels he requires that level of care. That's how it is. What's the alternative, to make the First Family hermits at the WH? Of course there's also a potential debate over HOW MUCH vacation is appropriate. That's fine with me.

This begs the BIGGER questions and that is;

Why is it of a concern NOW?

Judy,

The reason why is because the area he went too can't land a 747. There's different planes just for that reason.

"Did anyone comment about how Pres Obama took the mini-AF One to Maine rather than the big one to save tax payer money? Nope, not a word."

John B,

It seemed like I was in Des Moines from 94-96 doing VIPS missions, mostly for Gore. It's really not that labor intensive. It's more coornation than anything else.

Good deal Paul. Hope you enjoyed Des Moines. It's a nice town and there's a lot more to do here now than in 96.

For Jody---

Yes, I did ask the question about Bush. [I'm not a Repub or Dem.]

Every Pres. does it--- yes, that's the point.

I don't care if any Pres. does it, as long as it's on his/her own time and own dime. But...

A President represents ALL the People (not just Dems or Repubs), so I'm beginning to question whether or not each one should undertake strictly partisan work. It seems to me there might be a conflict of interest.

Of course, nowadays not many people appear to care about conflicts of interest... case in point: Defense Secretaries who were on the Boards of defense industry mega corporations, and those same exact corporations get no-bid military contracts. [SAIC and Robert Gates, or VP Cheney (who was once Secretary of Defense) and Halliburton/KBR]

Just musing a bit. http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/

For Auntie Fascist---

You make a good point. I don't know if it's true or not, re: RNC, DNC, DLC.

Incidentally, I'm wondering if you know Mussolini's definition of Fascism: the perfect marriage of large corporations and the State. It is private ownership, but government control. I ask because that is precisely what's going on in the U.S. now, regardless of who is President.

Most astute observers agree that when it comes to the Corporatocracy, there isn't much difference between Bush and Obama.

http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/

Scott,

Presently the Corps hold a lot of power, for Pres. Obama to change things too quickly would have unintended results. I do feel that he will make changes that will lessen their power somewhat, but they have been building for over 100 years so it will take some time to dismantle their overbearing power. For the present he has to work within the present power/economic structures, and they are multinational and do not play by any Nation's rules, just their own. Making such changes will be slow and must be done carefully. You are very correct in that fascism is the joining of Government and Corporations, however, the real power lies in the Corporations, and they wag the dog, so to speak.

Hey Houston - that would be Michael Smerconish, one of the only sane moderate republicans left in our country and still on the air and not shot down in flames by the tea bagging crazies. SissyChris sometimes goes off on weird tangents and hammers on meaningless points while ignoring salient points. Yeah isn't it funny how the racist Fox Noose channel never bothers to mention it was Clueless George Bush and his corrupt DOJ who let the New Black Panthers go? Obama needs to grow a pair and tell the racist tea baggers to buzz off on any waste of taxpayer money into this little group of losers.

No one seems to be talking about how Clueless George's last corrupt attorney general, Mukasey, appointed a whitewash committe that recently whitewashed Criminal Bush for the obviously political firings of some US Attorneys. It took over 2 years for this whitewash committee to come to the conclusion that was preordained when it was picked, namely to coverup the truth and let Criminal Bush off the hook for any wrongdoing. Another waste of taxpayer money and a travesty against true justice!

Chris gets it right once in a while, but mostly just parrots the conventional wisdom. The MSM has gotten lazy in a way that accelerates our race to crazytown. Rather than taking responsibility for actually verifying ANYTHING they stand on the sideline and maintain that balance always means representing two viewpoints as having equal value--even if one of them is an outright lie, or downright nuts. That's how we end up in places where legitimately concluded legal investigations become zombies with no value except as political cannon fodder and proven falsehoods become serious political debates.

Eric,

Sorry about my atrocious spelling of Smerconish's name. I'm aware that he's one of that endangered species: a moderate Republican. We must act to keep them from extinction. Maybe wash them in Dawn detergent when they get covered in far right slime and put them in a special preserve.

However, all three people on Matthews' gab fest failed to acknowledge the salient fact that the case for voter intimidate was so weak that not even the Bush DOJ would prosecute it. That goes for the third guest as well, who was brough on to defend Obama. Naturally, Matthews had to choose a black guy to defend a black president so as to keep racial divisions front and center. But the black guy's defense of the Obama administration was pretty weak and he was as clueless as Matthews and Smerconish. Media herd mentality knows no racial nor ethnic boundaries.

Houston!

Not once did Matthews nor his other two guests mention that it was the BUSH DOJ that decided not to pursue criminal charges against the NBP idiots. As usual, Matthews cluelessly bought into the far right's smear without checking the facts.

That's because Chris Matthews, IMO, thinks he is Captain America and doesn't need to fact check. After all, he sits around the table and get the flavor of America from his republican family members.

One thing of note that came out in Clueless Chris' NBP blabbering: The Congressional Republicans want an investigation

Frankly speaking, I'm tired of tweety bird flying all over the political landscape. I used to enjoy watching him. But, lately it has become unbearable to watch him.

Chris Matthews "Hardball" has transformed into "Cheese ball". Yesterday Chris contradicted himself with one assertion--He doesn't like racial polarity yet he wants to re-open the NEW BLACK PANTHER INVESTIGATION. PLU-EEZZZE!

Houston!

great Post, I had no idea it was Bush's DOJ who decided not to pursue charges against those guys, i guess former president Bush need to get the word out that the NBPP was not a threat then and now. but the media and the consertives will say that because obama is black he had a duty to white americans to have another look. last night On fox there were at it again, while CNN was covering the Immigration issues in AR and the fact that in the gulf there were saying surface oil is getting harder to find. fox had there usuall round table, last nights topic was Obama tied to Islamic terrorist. it makes me sick to watch fox. but i feel i need to have a look i can report back.

i did not know that bill Ayrs was a islamic terrorist but according to fox Obama took care of a suspected terrorist kids one time. they sit there making these storys up, imbellishing the facts and not telling the real truth.

Houston. I second the SIGH. Reopen something just to appear unbiased? SIGH again. There was little evidence to prove anything--now that's wasting tax payer money just to look unbiased even when you are already unbiased because there was NO CASE. Even the republican lady involved said there just wasn't enough evidence to move forward.

I like Schmerconish and Matthews most of the time. Trouble is sometimes I think they speak just to hear their voices. Why are they even talking about it? It's THREE guys looking and talking tough but did not act on it, and they are not a gang of thousands.

Well, maybe we should give the Repubs what they want and call George as a witness and all his DOJ. I thought both he and Smerconish were giving in to the reverse racist storyline that the Repubs have been selling. They both need to do their homework instead of rabblerousing for the Repubs.

Houston,

You have your facts wrong, Bush did pursue it, Obama's DOJ dismissed it, even after they were found guilty, they never showed up and that made them found guilty.

"Not once did Matthews nor his other two guests mention that it was the BUSH DOJ that decided not to pursue criminal charges against the NBP idiots."

Bush was not the head of the DOJ, Mukasey was. We're arguing over the criminal behavior of three idiots who didn't have any effect on the outcome of any election, while we continue to ignore that Bush/Cheney stole their way into office, twice.

To paraphrase Charles Pinckney, billions for defense, but not one cent for unemployment compensation!

Auntie,

How long do you think Unemployment should last for? 26 weeks? 99 weeks? 126 weeks? Really, when is enough until it turns into a welfare program? Just wondering?

Bill:

Thanks for your lengthy response.

First of all, even though you keep saying I am "hostile" to business, that is simply not true.

As I said yesterday, I am hostile to crooks taking advantage of loopholes to destroy the U.S. economy and job market.

Big difference.

You can dress it up however you like, but the simple fact is, when companies make their money HERE and pay their taxes ELSEWHERE it hurts our economy. Period.

And you can feign being insulted all you want, but it is you who is always referring to "you people" and giving advice like "read the business section".

You reap what you sow Bill.

I asked you what your solution to corporate malfeasance was, and you said prosecute them. That doesn't do alot of good for those already blown up in the mine or after the Gulf of Mexico is already filled with oil.

You like to get into the weeds, but the simple fact is, regardless of what percentage of GDP corporations make up, it is not a FAIR SHARE based on what they ACTUALLY EARN.

Considering that conservatives claim to be so concerned about the deficit, you would think the news that multibillion dollar corporations are paying ZERO would be pretty much a no brainer as a place to start reforming the system, regardless of your politics.

But as always, the need to pit "you people" against the "sweet and blameless corporations" rules the day.

Does not compute Bill. Does not compute.

Nashville,

You mentioned that corporations do not pay a fair share of taxes based on what they actually earn. So how do you feel about the recent statistic that about HALF of all eligible individual tax payers, did NOT pay any federal income tax? Shouldn't there be a minimal stake in financing the nation?

Cult of Personality,

So glad you asked that question.

First of all, I have not taken the time to independently verify that number, however, assuming that it is true . . .

It would seem that if almost 50% of the American people were not paying income tax, it would reflect the fact that are not making enough income to pay.

So how would taxing these working poor help anything? A family of 4 living on $20,000 a year is not going to be putting very much in to start with.

So what is the most effective strategy for getting increased revenue to reduce the deficit, increasing income taxes on the poor or making Exxon pay their fair share?

Nobody is going to tell me with a straight face that Exxon made ZERO in income in the United States of America in 2009.

Geez, this is the second time today that I've had to put on my tax geek hat! I didn't read the article, but I wouldn't be surprised if most corporations DON'T pay income taxes. Many small businesses are incorporated; you're practically a damn fool if you DON'T incorporate! Small corporations can elect Subchapter S status. The corporation pays no income tax, but the income funnels through to the tax returns of the shareholders and they pay tax on the income. I'm neither surprised nor outraged if the bulk of corporations don't pay taxes. Your large multi-nationals, now that's a horse of a different color!

NF - you're quickly moving into "Feisty" territory with your simplistic and context free responses. You seem convinced corporations are evil, and nothing is going to change that for you. Your point of view obviously fits your dogma, and facts don't matter. Bill F provided numbers, context, facts, and used your very own sources to provide them, but still you are in denial. Do you know what GAAP is NF? And no it's not the space between liberals ears. Look it up, understand it, and apply it to the corporations you seem to hate. Most every company uses GAAP to provide evidence of their profitability, or lack there of. Now apply it to these evil corporations you rant against and you will see that many are in fact not profitable. And when there is no profit there is no tax. You can't tax loses NF, no matter how hard you try.

NF: Nobody is going to tell me with a straight face that Exxon made ZERO in income in the United States of America in 2009.

That much is obvious. No one can tell you anything because you have your mind made up. So now it's time for us to watch you wallow in your ignorance.

Nashville

I'm not saying that a family of 4 making $20,000 is going to contribute much (however what are the parents doing having kids with only a $20,000 income), but if you are concerned about fair share, they did EARN something. We have the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for the rich, shouldn't there be a Alternative Maximum Tax for the poor?

The article verifying that number is:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm

Joanna:

Please point out where I have ever said that corporations are evil.

The GAAP was written by people, and can be adjusted by people as needed dear.

You have not added any light to this conversation, but thanks for reading.

Nash:

Don't forget that the people who are too poor to pay federal income taxes are still paying state and local taxes. But perhaps we need to tax the poor more to pay for continuing Bush's tax cuts for the rich. I wouldn't put it past the Republicans to pull a stunt like that if they manage to lie their way back into power.

Auntie Fascist:

A popular talking point is the complaint about the "high tax rate" that corporations fall under, when the fact is that most of them don't pay anything approximating that, with a large percentage of them paying ZERO.

And as I am sure you know, capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than even the average Americans income tax, so once again the point is that we have all this HOWLING about "high taxes" by folks that have the lowest tax rate in America.

You might not be surprised, but the fact is that if we are REALLY trying to reduce the deficit, it would seem that getting the folks who actually are in control of the bulk of the money to pay a fair share would be a good place to start.

But of course, if the objective is just to use a bunch of talking points to confuse folks and create a class war, then we will pretend like none of this actually matters. (Not saying that is what you are trying to do Auntie Fascist - just pointing out how my "conversations" on this topic usually go.)

JoAnna

Who said "Why did you get me so drunk?" at a Capitol Hill bar? in case you didn't know it. It was the agent of Orange and the tax rebellion John Bohneor. Are you drinking this early in the morning too?

Did you see that graph Chris Hayes made last night? Or those confectioneries. Simply put, the greedy, fiscal, conservatives would be the gluttons eating all the cakes if conservatives have their way and extend the expiring Bush tax cuts. Wow,that is so true of the greedy, deficit, hawks. They are deceptive and gluttonous. Kinda like the FOX guarding the Hen House.

On the other hand, should the President gets his way and the middle class keeps its tax cuts, it would save $700 billion over the next 10 years.

But, if greedy deficit hawks usurp ( instead of going on a fiscal diet) they'll be keeping all the tax cuts for themselves only. It would also add another $2 trillion to the deficit. Better get some Rolaids!!

Also, JoAnna, let me set you straight; my name is Beverly not Bevvy. And unlike you I don't babble.

Cult of Personality:

You ask what are the parents doing having kids if they only make $20,000 a year?

Perhaps when they had the kids they were making more, and then one of the parents got laid off.

Perhaps they are working for an employer that refuses to pay a living wage so they can pay out bonuses to all the top management.

Perhaps they are poor folks who love each other and want to have kids.

What kind of question is that really? Is there a certain income level that is "qualified" to have kids? Seriously?

If it will help you sleep at night for the poor to pay an Alternative Minimum Tax, that will be just fine with me. . . then maybe we can get around to closing tax loopholes for corporations and closing all those off shore accounts and tax havens in the Carribean.

I won't hold my breath.

Will corporations be paying an Alternative Minimum Tax as well . . . or would that be too much of a hardhship for them?

NF - you've been discredited so many times, it's a wonder you come back for more, but yet you do.

NF: The GAAP was written by people, and can be adjusted by people as needed dear.

More context free gibberish from you. So do you understand that the current set of rules allow for corporations to not pay taxes when they do not make a profit? If so, then why in the world do you continue this head first run into the wall act you continue to be doing? If you have a point, make it, otherwise read an Accounting 101 book and get back to us after you figured it out. And if you don't like the current accounting rules, then argue for their change. But quit with this constant whining routine about "Do you believe Exxon, BP, Corporation ABC, didn't make a profit last year?"

JoAnna:

I have given a lenghthy reply to other thoughtful and respectful posters on this topic.

Read that if you actually are looking for my views on the matter.

I have tried to have "discussions" with you numerous times, and you have proven that you are more interested in being a smart a$$ than discussing the issues.

I don't have time for your foolishness today.

People write the laws that deterimine how profit is calculated, and people can adjust those laws as needed. Time for an adjustment in my opinion.

Bev, I think you are addessing me, but it's not clear why. You ask me about what John Bohneor said in a bar, and then imply that I'm currently drinking? Um, okay. No. No I'm not. But nice try at a low brow cut.

Bev: Did you see that graph Chris Hayes made last night?

No. And who in the world is Chris Hayes?

NF: People write the laws that deterimine how profit is calculated, and people can adjust those laws as needed. Time for an adjustment in my opinion.

Then argue for that and cut this constant whine about corporations not paying taxes when they don't make a profit. It obviously a big deal for you, but it isn't for the lawmakers because nothing changing those financial rules was in the comprehensive finance reform bill just signed into law. To my knowledge, the subject never came up in any discussion of that reform. You are really off the reservation if you think this is some kind of a big deal.

JoAnna:

I do not need your permission or consent to have my own opinion and shine a light on an issue that I feel needs to be addressed.

Perhaps you should work on your social skills instead of trying to micromanage my posts.

Yes, JoAnnaSmith I was addressing you.

You're the only one who calls me Bevy. Chris Hayes is an American journalist and the Washington, D.C. editor of The Nation. His work has appeared in publications such as In These Times^[1], The American Prospect, The New Republic, The Washington Monthly and the Chicago Reader. Hayes resides in Washington, D.C. He is a frequent guest on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hayes_(journalist)

I 'm sorry you don't expand your knowledge and are so keen on FOX NOISE aka Republican Campaign Headquaters which gives it's talking point to right wing Radio, print and other right wing nonsense.

You might try Googling to aquire a better grasp of what goes outside right wing world, if you what to learn something.

Well if Hayes is on MSNBC, that explains why I don't see him.

And just for your own info, I don't watch Fox either.

Bevy,

I can't blame JoAnna for being confused. That rant you posted earlier makes it sound like you've been hitting the sauce a little too early.

I suppose that what Chris Hayes says is gospel? By googling the omnipotent Chris Hayes and looking his bio up on wiki (because whatever is on wikipedia is the truth) we can be as cultured as you?

Nowhere in JoAnna's post did she mention Bush's tax cut's. She was trying to explain to Nashville about Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. These "rules" determine when a corporation must report revenue, the different ways to report your taxable income (whether you use FIFO or LIFO, unrealized gain or loss on investments).

P.S. not everyone who does not watch MSNBC watches Fox. Just like JoAnna, I don't watch either of them. I prefer my evening news, and local paper (and HLN for that quick news injection)

JoAnna -- thanks for the support. It really is amazing how these people are in denial about so many things. When confronted with facts that don't fit their narrative they just ignore the facts, change the subject, and carp about something else. Go figure.

And that same 47% who pay no federal income tax, also contribute in the form of payroll taxes.

How sad, some defend big Corporations who use every tool to avoid as much tax as possible as perfectly acceptable yet complain about Americans who don't make enough money to pay federal income tax. Don't hear those same people complaining about the richest 5% of the population who mostly pay a lower percentage in fedeal income taxes that the middle class--because of deductions, loopholes, investments, depreciation legally allowed but that the other 95% do not have the luxury of enjoying.

The debate should be: it is a disgrace that 47% of the American population do NOT make enough money to pay federal income taxes and what can we do to change their fate.

Bill,

You can say alot of things about me, but "ignore the facts" and "change the subject" certainly don't apply.

You like to "win" arguments by presenting a blizzard of irrelevent facts that don't go to the central topic: our current tax code is VERY favorable to business, and yet they are still complaining.

And you still have not explained how litigation after the crime helps protect the American people from corporate malfeasance.

And you still keep using phrases like "these people".

Bill, you are a real trip.

why would JaAnnaSmith watch or read news when she can just make up her own 'facts' and stats without cover of actual sources?

Silly, Bev, really - Barney Frank and I agree that trying to talk to JoAnnaSmith is like trying to have a conversation with a table. Or as IR VA would say - trying to teach a pig to sing,...you know the rest,...time to just move on.

Well said Jody . . . it is amazing how this simple fact is simply glossed over in an attempt to portray corporations as victims. Pretty ridiculous.

I watch the national and local evening news, read the papers and enjoy MSNBC, PBS, The History Channel and numerous others--all of which contribute to my thinking. I do not have to agree with everything on any of them. That's the difference, I form my own views based on digging, reading and listening to many sides. People can watch FOX and enjoy it but the problem is too many who do believe everything said.

As for denial, well truer words were never spoken and spoken by those who really are in denial.

I looked up Chris Hayes. Bio says a BA in Philosophy from Brown. Married to Associate Counsel for Obama. That's all nice. So what does that have to do with some tax and economic policy Hayes was talking about? He doesn't have much of a background in those areas, at least education-wise. Looks like he's just another talking head with someone feeding him talking points. Was anyone with him to discuss or dispute what ever point he was trying to make? If not, that's a real clear indication he's a just rattling off talking points someone else wrote.

As for Bush tax cuts, as of now I do not think they will be extended, for anyone. Pelosi is on record as to saying they will be allowed to expire. Reid too is indicating they will not be extended. Obama seems to be playing the political winds and trying to figure what to do, but his liberal base will abandon him if he does anything to extend those tax breaks.

One thing is clear, the extension of none, some, or all of the Bush tax cuts will be a major issue in the November elections.

And my news sources are the NYTimes, Wash Post, Wash Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, The Economist, Bloomberg, USA Today, and Real Clear Politics (good variety of articles from multiple sources), to name a few.

NF: it is amazing how this simple fact is simply glossed over in an attempt to portray corporations as victims. Pretty ridiculous

NF, now you've crossed over from the ridiculous to the absurd. Who is portraying corporations as victims? Yet another straw man argument from you, and the weakest one yet.

The conversation started with you bellowing that corporations where essentially cheating and not paying their "fair share" in taxes. You finally have relented when told these corporations are following the standard rules (GAAP) for reporting income (or the lack of) and then argued that these rules should be changed. That position is a fine one to take, and if you want the rules changed, then you can advocate for those changes, but I doubt you'll get much support.

And Clara, good to hear from you again dear! Nice day where you're at? Hot and humid here. Have a nice day Clara.

JoAnna:

Any system that allows Exxon to pay zero taxes on their income is a bad one. I asked you to point out where I called corporations evil and I see you have chosen to ignore that, like you always do.

The GAAP between your ears grows larger everyday . . . the difference between what I actually type and what you read is mind boggling.

But of course, that is the tact you have chosen to take after your attempt last week to convince me that Exxon was not a profitable business in 2009 could not pass the smell test.

You always want to make me the issue, when in fact, corporations gaming the system to avoid paying taxes is the issue.

And I am going to stay focused like a laser on that issue whether you like it or not.

NF - now you have crossed over from the absurd to the deranged. If a corporation loses money , they don't pay taxes. That's the rule. You don't like it change it, but then what are you going to tax, loses? Name one corporation in violation of these rules. You can't. Name one corporation the IRS is suing because they are in violation of the tax rules. You can't. You can't keep jumping up and down saying "No one can tell me Exxon lost money". Prove they didn't. If you did prove that, you should work for the IRS.

You talk about gaming the system a lot. The system is what is, and the rules are what they are. You don't like them, get them changed. You won't get many takers for what your advocating though. Not even anti-business liberals Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, or Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangle are talking about changing any of the tax rules for corporations reporting income/profits/loses. So you're a One Person Screamer trying to get those changed. Two words on getting that to happen: Good luck.

JoAnna:

You still did not find where I called corporations evil did ya?

You are good, but I'm not buying your act.

You keep saying the same thing over and over again in an attempt to have the last word, all the while not answering anything that I ask you but pretending that you are talking to me.

You are dismissed.

NF: You still did not find where I called corporations evil did ya?

NF - Recall someone said, Bill of Fairfax I believe, you change the subject when you get in trouble. Here's a case where you're doing exactly that.

You took a beating today NF, a bad one.

Careful Nash, you're being hoisted by your own petard.

You stated: "You can say a lot of things about me, but "ignore the facts" and "change the subject" certainly don't apply." Sorry, but that's exactly what you do, and you've been doing it ever since I first started debating with you. You say I present a blizzard of "irrelevant" facts but they are only irrelevant to people like you who ignore those facts.

You say you don't change the subject, but in the midst of a discussion about corporate taxes you ask me to explain how litigation after the crime helps protect the American people from corporate malfeasance. Umm, and that is relevant to the corporate tax discussion how?

Yesterday you ranted about how the majority of corporations don't pay one thin dime in taxes (which I proved to be false), but today you switch gears to assert (without supporting documentation) that the tax code is very favorable to business. So which is it, is the problem evil corporations not paying taxes or is it the evil tax code?

I'll be leaving for the day shortly, so please don't beat up on me for not responding to your next penetrating insight until tomorrow.

Bill,

If you will review our conversation from yesterday, you will note that I asked you what you suggested we do about corporate malefeasance, and you said we should litigate after the fact.

I pointed out the problems with this approach (as I did again today), and you chose not to respond.

And now you accuse me of "changing the subject", when that is one of the subjects we were discussing. And you still have not responded.

The issue is not me and a petard, it is about reforming our tax system so that corporations are not able to contribute ZERO in income taxes when they are making a profit. How are all these businesses able to continue to function with no profits I wonder?

I said that the majority of corporations don't pay corporate income tax in the U.S. None of the facts, figures, and charts you presented does anything to change that basic premise Bill.

And I will not be requiring your penetrating insights today or tomorrow.

It is YOU who came to ME with your supply side fairy tale, and when questioned on the parts of the story that didn't make sense, you retreated into your safe cocoon of irrelevant "facts".

Consider yourself dismissed as well.

It is truly classic, that you and JoAnna think you have achieved "victory", when all you have accomplished is . . . nothing.

NF - It is truly classic, that you and JoAnna think you have achieved "victory", when all you have accomplished is . . . nothing.

Victory in convincing you of anything? That's been a failure. And it wasn't even a goal. It's an impossible task. You are convinced you are "correct" no matter what evidence is presented contrary to what you believe. Facts, especially relevant ones, the ones you have none of, don't matter to you. That is very much clear.

Pointing out to you, and anyone else that cares, about how the real world works with the current taxation and regulation of corporations: Mission Accomplished.

No one will convince you of anything NF. Your mind is made up.

Dear Clara and Nash: I always (if I have the time to be bored out of my mind and choose to respond) refer to her as poor little Joanna. I would hate to go through life being that bitter. She truly has my sympathy, and I hope her life gets better.

newdayDAWNING10

Dear Clara and Nash: I always (if I have the time to be bored out of my mind and choose to respond) refer to her as poor little Joanna. I would hate to go through life being that bitter. She truly has my sympathy, and I hope her life gets better.

Wednesday is No Phat Chixs day at First Read Dawn. Please follow the rules.

Wait, wait stop the presses. Before I go I gotta share one more little nugget since it has bearing on tax policy, whether it be individual or corporate:

"Although deficits during or shortly after a recession generally hasten economic recovery, persistent deficits and continually mounting debt would have several negative economic consequences for the United States. Some of those consequences would arise gradually: A growing portion of people's savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that "crowding
out" of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur. In addition, if the payment of interest on the extra debt was financed by imposing higher marginal tax rates, those rates would discourage work and saving and further reduce output."

By golly, that sure sounds like a supply side argument to me. Now, who would write such a thing? Larry Kudlow? Nope. Art Laffer? Nope. Steve Moore? Nope again. Would you believe CBO? Seems like the esteemed professionals at CBO have more of an understanding of the economic impact of tax policy than the leftists on this board. Oh and Nash, did you catch the capitalist fairy tale part about savings that are used to finance productive investment? Darn those wild and crazy CBO guys, I need to send them some Krugman material to get them back on the straight and narrow.

Ah, I feel so much better now. And now that I've been dismissed, I can go home to rest my weary bones and drift off into blissful slumber. With visions of leftist fairy tales dancing in my head. Yup, that'll put me to sleep PDQ.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf

A question to no one in particular:

How does litigating corporate malfeasance after the fact serve to prevent oil spills, ponsi schemes, and mine blasts?

It seems like too little to late to me.

More questions to no one in particular:

If I make the point that using our current tax code, the majority of corporations do not pay taxes, how is that an "anti business" position?

If another poster provides information that some corporations do pay taxes, how does that refute the premise that most don't?

If that same poster links to graphs showing that the percentage of GDP coming from corporations slightly increased, how would that change the premise that most corporations do not pay income taxes? How does a slight increase among the few companies that do pay make up for zero taxes from the majority of companies that don't pay?

If that same poster seamlessly replaced the phrase "income taxes" with the phrase "taxes", how would that effect the central premise that most corporations don't pay U.S. income tax?

If that same poster pointed out that many of the corporations not paying US income taxes paid taxes in other countries, how would that effect the central premise that most U.S. corporations don't pay income taxes in the U.S.?

If like minded posters chimed in to reinforce the above points, how would that effect the central premise that most corporations don't pay income tax in the United States?

If each question posed in response to this unnamed poster was ignored, how does that constitute a "conversation" or a "debate"?

Deficits are bad is a supply side theory . . . who knew?

Not Dick Cheney.

I mean, I thought we all agreed that deficits are bad. I thought the issue was how to prevent deficits in the first place. Apparently unfunded tax cuts is not the way, but of course, that is just the prescription that some continue to write.

Yet another indication that dismissal is the best course for those determined to "be right" instead of "make sense".

See what I mean, Nash and Clara: Poor little Joanna is a bitter, unhappy person. No matter she is a rightie. She fits perfectly.

NDD

Don't fret about JoAnna, dear. Does beg the question, "how did she get in?" Wouldn't you think the party of Big Tent would also be the party of Big Tent Dresses? Get with the program, JoAnna - you don't get to decide who plays and who stays home. What you are suggesting is censorship. How's that working in conjunction with your 'fact' based analysis?

Personal attacks are just SO yesterday, aren't they?

Bitter, party of 1 - your table is ready on the balcony, right there next to G-d, so you can pass judgment on us all! Piety and deity right there side by side. So cute and charming, no?

Clara: That was hysterical! Thanks for a good chuckle!

Clara KCMO

NDD

Don't fret about JoAnna, dear. Does beg the question, "how did she get in?" Wouldn't you think the party of Big Tent would also be the party of Big Tent Dresses? Get with the program, JoAnna - you don't get to decide who plays and who stays home. What you are suggesting is censorship. How's that working in conjunction with your 'fact' based analysis?

Personal attacks are just SO yesterday, aren't they?

Oh Clara, lighten up. Gosh, you libs are just soooo, serious. Get a sense of humor, then a sense of direction, and then some common sense.

And Thursday is "Doesn't Have A Clue Day" at First Read. I expect you to participate to the fullest Clara.

And Thursday is "Doesn't Have Clue Day" at First Read.

__________________

And JoAnna will be first in line!

Shhhhhhhhhh.... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think JoAnna!

Bill of Fairfax, nice job putting the final nail in the coffin of the NF debate. That's the funny thing about details and facts, it confuses the libs. Don't ever think details and facts will convince this crew though. They are like Obama, they are looking for someones azz to kick, just so their sorry lives might have some type of real meaning.

Keep up the good work.

JoAnna,

Very funny that, you have vast problems with facts yourself yet you try to pin that on us?? All you ever do is ad homenim attacks and cut and paste, I somehow really doubt that you have the time to actually read all of the sources that you listed as your news sources, probably just the articles that back up your own positions. Nashville is actually rather well educated, and it seems to me that you folks, the rampant right wing trolls we have here, get frustrated so easily when given facts that you cannot in any way refute without depending on someone else's opinions.

My life actually has plenty of meaning, helping to raise to kids is extremely rewarding. Why I post on here is I get fed up with all of the blatant lies coming from the right, lies that you folks try to make with a straight face even though you Know they are lies. I happen to sleep very well knowing that your lies only turn more and more people away from the right because they see them too. Us progressives have had enough of people on the right trying to destroy America through economics, it is almost like you are doing the work of the Communists for them, ya know, like China and Russia were trying to do, you folks seem to have taken over the reigns and are destroying us more surely than they could have ever hoped to do, from the inside. I hope that you can actually look at your face in the mirror for all of that, and be able to look at who is actually destroying this Nation. But I guess that you are just too clueless to even consider that, let alone to give that any thought as you mindlessly post your fraudulent, trivial drivel.

I tend to ignore you Joanna, because all you ever do is troll, and trolls are ugly things. But there are still times when your lies and deceit go beyond the pale and I find myself calling you out on them for the greater good of Humanity and America. You right wingers seem to be hell bent on destroying America and that is something that I can just not understand. If you actually had rational, fact filled posts you would get a better response, but I guess that is just beyond you with your bitterness and hate. Try working to Build America, like us progressives, rather than to destroy it like Bush and co so nearly did with their excesses and abuses of Executive power.

Well if one woman feels this way, then obviously it must be true.

Case closed.

Hey Mixed Bag - you mean Illegal Alien Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Urinal, the worst in tabloid news and rightwing editorials? Sorry but the Wall Street Urinal's editorial page is nothing but rightwing lies. Yes pinning the racist tail on the elephant has been effective at getting people turned off to you facist racist tea baggers. If you're gong to sleep with the Neo-Nazi White Supremacists and racist John Birchers and Birthers then don't cry about getting tagged as racists.

Is Mary Frances Berry a "racist facist (sic) tea bagger" as well, Eric?

Hilarious...Eric the anti-Semite suggests that I'm a bigot.

No one can match Eric for sheer, utter, complete, and stupefying obliviousness.

Now, that makes about as much sense as keeping the tax cut for the weathy insisting the debt will take care of itself--President Obama is polarizing America. Wonder if it occurs to Ms Berry that it would not matter what Pres Obama does or says--someone will turn it into a racial discussion and make the victim, the guilty one. Ms Berry just fell victim to the FOX, Limbaugh, and Breitbart's daily talking points--it's Obama's fault because he's the racist.

Since 2007, when hasn't race been the topic. It happened during the primary campaign--the media spent a lot of time discussing white voters, black voters, he's losing the white vote, he's losing the hispanic vote, he's losing women, is he black enough, is he white enough. When hasn't the topic been about race and Pres Obama had nothing to do with it.

Jody

You realize that Obama thinks that we need to be knocked down a peg as a country right? That we need to be on the same level as the rest of the world right?

We have elected the first president that actually hates his own (?) country

Larry, as entertaining and facile as you always are, would you please provide a citation to support what you have said? Also, waiting for the one on Jefferson.

Won't ever happen Dawn. Larry takes everything on faith. Except for what he doesn't want to hear or see.

Feisty, is it not amusing that poor Joanna can only come back with Jr. High insults when she is challenged? Poor soul.

I think you are absolutely right, Paul, and haven't had a chance to say hi in awhile. So, hi.

Hey newday. I always enjoy reading what you have to say.

You too, Paul, I started off with some misconceptions. Sorry about that.

I'm used to that, no offense taken dear.

I seem to remember that being the case on an episode of The O'Reilly Factor I watched once as well, that Bill would interrupt his guests before they could finish a question entirely. However, this was also a couple years ago, so if his game has changed, I know nothing about it.

I find Matthews habit of interrupting guests annoying. I believe that even wacky rightwingers should be allowed to complete their sentences (although some of them like Sarah Palin seem to have trouble doing that).

O'Reilly and Matthews both have an annoying habit of interrupting guests but at least they (unlike KeithO), have guests on that they disagree with.

I find Matthew's constant interrupting annoying as well. He asks a question but before the person starts to answer, he asks it in another form and then adds to it expressing his idea then another form of the question--meanwhile the guest gets not one word in and the segment is over. I haven't been watching Hardball much since spring and Matthews went ballistic over the BP disaster and why doesn't Pres Obama plug the hole which every reasonable person knew the Govt or Pres Obama did not have the technological knowledge to do so. Haven't watched much of Morning Joe either because Joe S does the same thing--interrupts constantly and his ego became tiresome.

Eric,

I read that article just a few moments ago. It appears that it may be worse than Gibbs lead us to believe. These documents do contain names and where people live etc., nothing like giving our enemy a ready made hit list. I pray that nobody end up dead because of what these people did. I agree that the American people have the right to know the truth so we do not get snookered (trying to capitalize of the word of the week).

Nice post.

Great to see that Eric has expanded his support of Islamic terrorists to now include those that are killing our troops in Afghanistan. The leakers should be tried, convicted and executed. And if a few of the bullets fired during the execution somehow accidentally hit traitors like you, that would not be a bad thing.

I cannot agree with this simply because disclosing classified information is the same as treason. Yes, Americans have a right to know what is happening but we do NOT have a need to know everything being done to fight wars or terrorists. I worked with classified documents and programs, I signed the briefing statements to safeguard the information.

Whoever released these documents to Wikileaks should be prosecuted to the fullest. I believe in freedom of information but I do not believe that having such information at the risk of those who are protecting us is justifiable.

As with a lot of things, this is pulling me on opposite directions. Part of me applauds him for uncovering classified documents. However, another part of me wants him arrested for disseminating classified information.

Since what appears to have been uncovered isn't some kind of authoritarian conspiracy or being kept secret for the sake of not embarassing the government, the side that wants him arrested is winning on this one.

There's a right way to leak and a wrong way to leak. The Pentagon Papers leak was the right way; the War Logs leak was not. (I can't be certain about Collateral Murder.)