Feisty;

They are still pushing the tax cuts for the top 2% at a cost of 830 Billion (700 + 130) andthen talk about reducig the deficit. Cannot have both.

Now that the House is in the control of the republican/tea party one of their big pushes is the Tax Cuts again. Back in October I posted about the lies that the republicans were spewing about the tax cuts and it is time to review these again.

When the GW Bush Administration took office the National Debt was at $5.73 Trillion Dollars. When he left, the National Debt had increased to $10.63 Trillion Dollars, an increase of 85%.

When Clinton’s Administration left office they left a $86.4 Billion Dollar budget surplus and created 23 million jobs with a tax rate higher than today’s. Under the Bush’s Administration of mismanagement and incompetence, they left America with a One Trillion Dollar deficit. This is the deficit that our President Obama has inherited and is still dealing with 21 months after later. These are facts from a party that claims “Fiscal Responsibility”.

David Stockman (previous Regan – “Budget Chief”) said the "debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." The next day, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who famously helped sell the 2001 Bush tax cuts to Congress, declared them simply "disastrous. Google it yourself, these are facts.

After all, the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again during the tenure of George W. Bush. And as it turns out, the Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy accounted for almost half the budget deficits during his presidency and, if made permanent, would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession - combined. Of course, you'd never know it listening to the leaders of Republican/Tea Party.

Lie #1: Democrats Plan Across the Board Tax Hikes on January 1st

First the Democrats did not plan anything. The tax cuts were signed into law (via reconciliation) by President Bush and his administration; they imposed the 10 year time frame. When the time runs out in January, and the cuts expire, everybody will get a tax increase back to President Clinton’s schedule, but this is on the Republican Party, NOT President Obama. And President Obama’s plan will only increase the taxes on the 2% that got 50% of the benefits last time (on Taxable Income for a family over $250,000, they will keep the tax cuts for under the 250K ceiling). This increase will be 3-5% depending on bracket, and again it only applies to those taxable dollars over $250,000.

Lie #2: Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half -- 48 percent -- of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.” And guess what, we Democrats do not either. This lie has also been exposed on Fact Check, and most major news outlets including the ones documented above. Tax cuts do not raise tax revenue, they add to the deficit which adds to the National Debt. This kind of blows the Republican/Tea Party argument that they want to lower the deficit and National Debt but keep the Tax Cuts which will do just the opposite.

Lie #3: Expiring High Income Tax Cuts Will Hurt Small Business

Of course, they're not talking about small business. As CNN concluded in October 2008, "fewer than 2% of small business owners would pay more under Obama's plan." But in case there was any doubt about the Republican/Tea Party’s' deception on the point, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center quickly put it to rest:

“Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike”. It has also been exposed on MSNBC, CNN, etc., that the Republican/Tea Party has a very unique definition of Small Business. It is NOT the mom and pop store, small local manufacturer, local convenient store or restaurants, etc that we think of as small business. Their definition has nothing to do with Revenues or Employment numbers BUT on how many owners. The Republican/Tea Party includes such companies as Bechtel (Billions in revenues), Chicago Tribune, Hedge Fund Companies, Fortune 1000, and a bevy of others with 100’S of Million of dollars in revenue. There is an old saying that “figures do not lie but liars figure.” This is a perfect example of how the Republican/Tea Party plays very loose with the facts, creating their own little reality that has nothing to do with 98% of the population.

And there are other lies like Estate Taxes Destroys Small Family Farms. This is another outright lie. Under President Obama’s plan there are about 100 such farms that would be eligible, under the Lincoln-Kyl proposal this would drop to 40 for those that have an estate greater than $5,000,000 (Five Million). So those that may be exposed the tax would apply to values over 5 Million. No estate tax on the first 5 Million. So far, there is no record anywhere that any family farm has even paid an estate tax.

Another favorite is that Tax Cuts for the richest 2% will stimulate the economy.

As reported on a Bloomberg News web site yesterday a new Moody Report answers the question do the richest people put the tax cuts back into the economy? From one of my previous posts:

The entire article was on Bloomberg News yesterday 9/13/2010 and may be accessed there.

Excerpts from Bloomberg News article

“Hand the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it. Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.”

“Some economists voice caution about the promised effects of a change in tax rates. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in January analyzed policy options and possible short- term effects on growth.”

Comment: The CBO and other economists agree that tax cuts for the richest 2% has the lowest effect on the economy when compared to other programs. If I remember correctly, they compared about a dozen programs, and the tax cuts for the top 2% was at the bottom.

“Policies that temporarily increased the after-tax income of people who are relatively well off would probably have little effect on their spending because they generally would be able finance their consumption out of their income or assets without such a change,” CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified to Congress on Feb. 23.”

“On the other hand, tax relief for families with “lower income, few assets and poor credit would probably” spur spending, he said. Elmendorf said because of job losses and a drop in assets over the past two years more families “probably fit that description now.”

I'm SO glad you have obsessed ALL weekend about something I said last Friday!

You really do need to get out more CU...

Imagine my surprise when over the weekend Cindy McCain recanted *insert snark*

The smug smirk on McNasty's face on MTP yesterday told me that he had a talk with the little woman!

My bet is Cindy won't be going off script nor will we be seeing her in public for a while...

You have a nice day as well!

I believe Mr or Mrs Farley has a crush on you. Usually those that have low self esteem rely on other people to acknowledge them for self value and worth. I'm just sayin'. Just ask Steve.

Feisty, Are there any millionaires in the DEM party? It would sure be stranger than fiction if there isn't

any? To you Dems, rich people are evil and exploiters of the people. Right? Good learning from Marx.

Good morning Feisty and Friends

the art of compromise: Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Mark Warner are floating these tax-cut trial balloons, per the New York Times. Schumer "proposed limiting an extension of the Bush tax cuts to incomes below $1 million instead of $250,000," while Warner "would keep the lower income cutoff and use roughly $65 billion, the amount that would be saved by not extending the rates for higher income for two years, to cut taxes further for small businesses."

Now this is an proposal that is do-able!

President Obama and the WH would be well served to promote this idea... It would back the Republicans into a corner by having to side with millionaires...

It's called compromise for a reason!

Are you kidding, the Republican/ Tea Bagger Party will never compomise they are not called the Party of "No" for no reason.

Taxes should not be collected more proportionately from the poor than from the rich. It’s bad for the economy. The rich have money that decreased economic activity in the last 10 years. Because the middle class and working poor have had to spend what they had and the rich could sit on it. Economic justice require that the rich should pay more. Of course, this is unthinkable in the republican/tea baggers world. They think the rich give them jobs? Again, where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner? There needs to a refuted theory on IQ

Feisty and USN, you're both right. My preferred course would be to let the tax cuts on earners $250,000 and above expire in order to avoid exploding the deficit, an outcome that was inevitable from the time Republicans passed the cuts through reconciliation.

Unfortunately the President has to deal with the remaining Blue Dogs. This group has truly been a mixed blessing, mostly bad. Democrats got to brag of a substantial majority, but most of the Blue Dogs never did anything for the caucus, instead taking the money for their campaigns then voting against and talking down the party at every opportunity.

While the attention has been in Michael Steele's foot in mouth disease the party leader who really failed was Tim Kaine. He should go, and soon. The "back anyone willing to call him/herself a Democrat" strategy has been a millstone around the neck of the party.

Meanwhile someone has to come up with a way to handle the tax cut conundrum. If it has to be then a temporary, 1 year extension is the way to go. NO WAY should it be a 2 year extension that would just let the Conservatives use it as a campaign issue again in 2012.

Juvenile Bachan-

Oblaba? Really? The man has made your life better since your lord and master, Darth Cheney left office. You guys truly are lead astray by the Big Bad Wolf known as Limpbaughs.

Stop acting Juvenile.

"While it may come as no surprise to anyone that your ex-husband (or anyone) would beat you,"

CU, this is the worst of your constantly over the line comments. Disgust doesn't go far enough.

JuvenBachen, that goes for you as well.

Both statements are clear violations of COH.

Well Farley, you and Juven have stooped to a new low.

I don't know what you are referring to, I missed that string of messages last week, but it really isn't important.

Domestic Abuse is a serious problem not only in this country but around the world. It is made even worse when people like you use it as a grounds for personal attacks diminishing the victim of the abuse.

Juven, shut up. I believe in free speech but not hate speech and you NEVER say anything other than spew rascist hatred. In my opinion you should be banned permanently from this board. But I know that MSNBC likes it when the likes of you stir the pot with your ugly postings so I guess my hope of a "juven free zone" on this board will go unfulfilled.

Farley, I'm guessing you are a domestic abuser yourself. You probably keep your better half in line with a little smack now and then don't you?

You, likewise, rarely have anything constructive to say. I think you need to do some community service in a battered wives shelter and then you might, and do mean it's a slight chance, but you might realize the harm you are doing through your uncaring ignorance.

STFU! Both of you.

I have an idea that when President Obama and WH staff have commented they are open to discussion, that this is what they mean. People, including democrats, forget that within that 2% there is room for negotiation; some of us have said exactly what Shummer and Warner said; perhaps they are FR fans. I do think it is important to let the upper brackets expire but don't forget, the WH is more likely to have to negotiate with Blue Dog Dems than with republicans.

usnavy - try keeping your numbers right - budget surplus is not federal debt

clinton - gross adjusted federal debt was $5.6 trillion when he left

Bush - adj gross fed debt start was $5.9 trillion at start and $8.2 trillion when he left

obama - adj gross fed debt start was $8.4 trillion at his start

Does rather make one suspect the old saying of "figures don't lie, but liars figure"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Are you kidding, the Republican/ Tea Bagger Party will never compomise they are not called the Party of "No" for no reason.

Cut out the bold font crap. It's hard to read.

They're called names by the left. The things the left said "yes" to were what got them voted out, cost us over a trillion dollars in bailouts alone, double the entire amount the US has ever borrowed in it's history in just 3 years, and got their popularity to under 20%. I'm surprised you guys are still marching to the "say yes to anything" music.

Sometimes, the answer really is no.

Wow the usual liberals once again patting each other on the back for their posts about how terrible the conservatives are and how wonderful liberals are. If there is anyone that needs to get out more, I would have to say Fiesty, that belongs to you. You have the nerve, living in Illinois, to question the affairs and the laws passed in my state, which sits on the border, without any knowledge whatsoever of what is actually happening on the ground here. I am sure liberal news CNN and MSNBC keep you well abreast of that coverage...NOT! Of course, I suspect you people 2000 miles away are as dunderheaded on the subject as the liberal Milwaukee councilwoman Peggy White, who says Arizona shouldnt concerned itself with immigration issues since its "far removed from the border." And the liberals call themselves the smart ones?

While we are on the subject about how obstructionist the Republicans supposedly are, lets take a small sampling of how true obstructionists the Democrats are:

The Republicans requested the unemployment aid be taken from the unused stimulus funds instead of adding fresh debt to the rolls. The Democrats said NO.

The Republicans requested amnesty be off the table in any form before taking up immigration reform. The Democrats said NO.

The Republicans requested the border be secure before any talk of immigration reform (sounds incredibly logical to me). The Democrats balked. Of course they need votes.

Republicans requested a smaller version of Obamacare to start with points that are agreeable to all, such as pre-existing conditions. Why government takeover of student loans is even in a Healthacre package, I will never understand! Democrats said no.

Republicans requested Fannie and Freddie reform be included in the financial overhaul. Democrats, since they are in bed with those 2 (Barney Frank especially...and I mean that literally), said NO.

Democrats complain of how Republicans helped ship jobs overseas. While that is true, its the Democrat policies that are keeping them there fostering this atmosphere of uncertainty passing 2400 page bills that no one even knows whats in them.

Feisty,

I can agree that $1,000,000 would be considered rich in my book. If they allowed the tax cuts to continue for everyone below that number, I could compromise, but I still think that we could bring in more money by going to a flat tax.

Navy,

I think that floating numbers of a 10 year period is just another media spin. Maybe you should adjust your numbers to equal per year instead of re-quoting the president's men and saying $700 billion, which might be true over 10 years, if the unemployment rate drops, but if it stays high, that won't happen either.

And you must remember, our nation's budget is figured upon what might come in, not what does come in. Even though Clinton might of had a budget that would leave a surplus, if everyone was working and paying their taxes. But that did not take down the debt, it was just his budget had a surplus, of only $86 billion according to you. WoW is that about 3% of our budget today. When the government starts running on what it actually brings in, then we can compromise on taxes, but until the budgets quit going up over 10% each year, under this president, you don't have a lot of room to talk about the GOP.

Witt? Well you're half-right.

The republicans do not care about a balanced budget. their goal is to "starve the beast" C. They want to cut tax revenues, so that no social programs remain funded.

The dems just love to collaspe everything. From conservative remarks to our economy.

It's amazing how people like to either support or rally against the wealthy about taxes yet no one will look at the 500 billion that is costing the U.S. taxpayers called illegal immigrants. When everything is tallied up that is a whopping figure to deal with. At least the wealthy are a positive instead of a negative like illegals.

The wealthy like to hire illegals. It is cheaper than hiring an American.

There was a point in time when I would actually read the entirety of verbiage from FIESTY and the US Navy Vet. Lately it is lacking and worthy of only a skip over.

The next time you want to quote what administration is responsible for defict and surplus budgets, why don't you include the congressional budgets that were passed and the amendments that were offered. (Of course I would not expect you to be so truthful.)

The position that "there are no new jobs" from the 2003 tax cuts is erroneous and the position that one of your heroes, Mr. Clinton was solely responsible for the prosperous 1990's is another pompus statement.

The best news of all today was that Senator Schumer actually inderstands that $250k per year is not rich and that a compromise is in the making and has some potential.

And one more thing. Cool it with the $700 Billion over ten years and the $130 Billion to service the debt. You would be more credible if you also noted the $3.3 Trillion you seem to have no problem with spending on the rest of the tax cuts for the 53% of the tax filers that actually pay them. If you want tax reform, start with all the facts on all the taxpayers and get an education on basic economics and recent economic history.

Independent - there is NO deficit servicing until the Government is able to generate at least 1.5X more than we are generating now.

Wikipedia has the Federal budget from 2002 through 2010. I am sure you can look it up. In my conversations with Big Bear and Chef Darrell, these are the numbers that I have been using. I would say that the numbers in Wikipedia are probably about 80% accurate.

If you look at all of the Bush years and the 2 Obama years, you will see the revenue from the taxpayer has remained the same (basically). You will see that the revenue from Corporations were basically static for that time period as well, but dropped to $222 BIllion in 2010.

Without doing ANYTHING else, the Government needs to maintain its revenues if there is any chance of reducing the deficit. The issue we are facing now is that the monies spent for the 2 wars - which can be classified as DISCRETIONARY - SHOULD have been spent in America. To butress that spending, we had a credit boom that was NOT real revenue for the Government. It just SEEMED like we had the money.

Now, the credit gone and we have to pay up.

Spending cuts by themselves will NOT take care of the deficit. If we RAISE revenues and proprtionally reduce spending, we will only be able to reduce the deficit 25-45% at best.

To eradicate the deficit, we need to overproduce (produce at 200%) and the overproduction will DIRECTLY reduce the deficit.

The issue that we are wrestling with is this: what Government REVENUE stream will be created to pay off this debt? Is it any wonder that the debt ceiling continues to be raised?

Tough choices will need to be made. A NEW Government Revenue stream needs to be created (I have a feeling that is where Cap n' Trade came in) to be able to service the deficit.

Until we get another Government Revenue stream (more than one or a combination of small ones), and stop spending $15 BILLION a month on a war, we will NEVER be able to reduce our deficit. There is no politica will to do so now, and these 'lawmakers' are giving you lip service.

Pietro - have to disagree with your assertion that "REVENUE stream" is the answer. If someone can't control their spending, it doesn't matter how much money they take in - they will always be in the red. That's the situation we have now. Even if we did get your 200% overproduction, it wouldn't matter if spending habits don't change. In fact, I think adding revenue is probably the worst thing you can do - it's like giving heroin to an addict to get them to quit shooting up.

Now, if government starts to show it can cut costs, then I'm up for some tax increases because I think it's going to take both cuts and increases to get us out of the mess we're in now. For increases, my preference would be to let all of the Bush cuts expire. There's been a lot of talk about 700 billion in revenue from the upper 2%, but I think it's something like 2.3 trillion for the other Bush tax cuts. For cuts, pretty much everything is game for me (probably starting with defense, then moving to agency staffing and salary levels, agency consolidations, and then to benefit cuts).

Ron - OK, we disagree.

Remember that it is SIMULANEOUS Revenue stream production AND proportional spending reduction that will get us out of this mess. The American taxpayer is burdened with a 15 TRILLION dollar deficit and the best that the American Taxpayer has done - in regards to Governmental REVENUES - is $1 TRILLION every year, that is divvied up.

This is why you need NEW Revenue streams. If we had 15 Governmental Revenue streams each bringing in $1 TRILLION a year, then the deficit can be paid off without much issue. The trick is getting those Revenue streams.

Pietro,

What gets me in the 2010 budget we have been looking at, is the fact that they estimated the US would bring in $2.381 in tax dollars, yet they budgeted $3.55 trillion dollars with multiple increases like we talked about last week.

That is $1.2 trillion more than they expected to bring in, and some people on here are excited about the president lowering the deficit. How can anyone on here be happy about $1.2 trillion in overspending? Yet certain departments like the state dept, got a 41% increase, why, Does Hillary have to travel that much?

Yes, revenue streams would be great, like I said earlier, hunting/fishing licenses go back to the department of interior for lakes, rivers, streams, and national parks.

Gas taxes that pay for roads, bridges, monorails (my personal favorite), and cleaner energy.

But these things will take time to do, yet in the meantime we need to cut spending, cut federal employee salaries, by at least 5%, and learn to balance a budget.

Pietro - You seem to be reasonable in your response. Unlike a few others that repeat over and over the economic half truths.

I dissagree on both sides of the tax and spend delema. What is needed is very modest 1-2% cuts on the spending side right away coupled with very modest 1-2% tax increases on a longer period up to the Clinton era tax tables everyone likes to reference. To fix the economic outlook and not single out a particular federal program, department, class of citizen or most importantly job creator, we need to remove the two uncertainties from the mind of the investor / job creator. 1) what will I pay in taxes and 2) are we serious about controlling deficit spending.

The cuts have to be modest as in and of themselves they will cause a bump in unemployment. Perhaps a long overdue bump as there is definately waste in many programs. The tax increases have to be modest and be phased in over the next 6-10 years for the same reason. And they must go across all tax brackets. The $700 Billion for he top 2% over ten years is not enough. Rolling back to the Clinton era rates will bring in $4 Trillion over the same ten years, but once again, we cannot increase taxes at that quick of a pace without damaging the economy. So you have to slow the adoption of the tax increases and use a more reasonable and moderate 16-20 years to get back the $4 trillion. The the next decade can bring another $4 trillion, then the next. And after 30 years, if we have actually controlled spending we will finally have zero federal debt.

It took several decades to create the mess. It will take just as long to fix it.

Thanks for re-posting those facts, Navy. Here are some more to add to that...

A little history on Bush's tax cuts: These tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003. Both were passed by reconciliation. Reconciliation is a parliamentary maneuver that requires 50 votes instead of the 60 needed to stop filibusters. Republicans used reconciliation because they did not think they could get the votes—even though Republicans had majority control.

Brief Digression –

Republicans have used reconciliation 14 times

Democrats have used reconciliation 8 times

Yet Republicans slammed the idea of passing health care reform with reconciliation. In the meantime, Republicans filibustered 70% of major legislation. (The filibuster is a parliamentary procedure used to obstruct legislation, requiring 60 votes rather than a simple majority of 51 votes.)

Back to the tax debate –

The 2001 tax cuts were across-the-board rate reductions for all tax filers, though the wealthy saw the biggest drop in their tax bills. At this time there was still a surplus. It was passed by all the Republicans and 12 Democrats in the Senate.

However, the tax cuts were not made permanent because the bill was passed under reconciliation; the Byrd rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation to alter federal revenue for more than 10 years. In other words, it is a spending stop gap for legislation that is not paid for.

The 2003 tax cuts were more controversial because the 2003 tax cuts mostly accelerated the original tax cuts and:

1) Put in place new tax cuts for dividends and capital gains, which gave a bigger break to taxpayers with higher incomes

2) The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were now at issue

3) The cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit that passed that year

None of the above was paid for, and was causing the deficit to skyrocket. In the 2003 vote only two democrats joined Republicans. In the Senate the vote was 50-51, with vice president Dick Cheney breaking the tie.

Knowing how Republicans "jammed this down our throats" via reconciliation, and knowing how high the deficits are, why do Republicans want to extend the tax cuts (i.e., override the Byrd rule), especially for millionaires who are the only ones that benefit from tax cuts on dividends and capital gains?

Independent - I wish I had your patience :P. I agree it's taken several decades to get where we are now, but I'm worried that if we go too small now (when people actually seem to care about the deficit), when the economy recovers people will forget about the deficit again and the planned cuts/tax increases won't happen. I'd feel better if we took a bigger hit now. Also, I'm not sure how negative the hit would be on the economy. Once the 2 uncertainties you listed (taxes and deficit spending control) are taken care of, I think a lot of the money that's on the sidelines now will start flowing back into the market. I could be wrong, but I suspect more robust measures now would be a net positive for the economy.

Pietro - I don't want to overstate my objections on revenue...I do agree more revenue is needed (and I was against the Bush tax cuts when they were first done)...I just want to see real spending cuts also.

Independent,

I am jumping in here also, I just don't believe we have to raise taxes as much as we need to end loop holes in our tax system, simplifying it. In fact, over the long run, a simplified tax code, and flat tax would bring in more money than we already have. Especially if we get rid of all the deductions and limit our tax code to simple easy to understand tax credits.

One can legislate long term but modest spending cuts and simultaneous tax increases. Moderation is key. I hate the pork as much as the next person but the spending cuts will reduce federal payrolls and compound the anemic recovery.

A tax law that slowly raises all brackets back to Clinton era rates 1-2% over several years can solve the revenue side. (I hold my nose while typing the idea.)

A spending growth freeze coupled with mandatory modest 1-2% cuts across the board with no federal department escaping the scalpel over a 20 year time span will also provide the counterbalance.

If there is one thing I have learned about market economics, the changes have to be moderated over time when it comes to tax policy and federal budgets. Anything larger that cannot be absorbed by the taxpayer and employer marketplace will have economic consequences. That is why they have to be done in modest yet consistent chunks over several years. At least a decade or more in the case of cuts to get to a 10-15% reduction in the size of the federal outlay.

I find much to recommend in your approach, TI.

Do really believe that those lucky people making $l,000,000 should continue to have a tax cut? Really? Americans you need to wake up. Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs. But then, perhaps you all believe as Rand Paul said - we need to understand that we all either work for the rich or buy from the rich. They are very important to our economy. What a bunch of lying individuals these guys are. Shame on them.

I dont know about you fellas but I dont feel like I should be taxed anymore. The tax rates people keep talking about are just the tip of the iceberg. Once you factor in the host of state and local taxes, I am looking at less than half of my paycheck to actually spend on bills and a freakin movie once in awhile.

Lets see, federal and state income taxes, SS tax of 6%, Medicare is what 2%? $300 a month in property taxes, sales taxes of 10% of everything I buy, gas tax of 15% on every gallon of gas, then the host of excise taxes and taxes on utility bills.

So no, I do not think taxes should be raised. I believe the more you give govt, the more they spend. And the govt. spending rarely benefits the people as a whole.

Independent - I like your approach and I think that your assessment is probably correct. The fact of the matter is that we overdid it with the spending over the last decade and we need to pay back what was borrowed. I agree that moderation is the key. As we can see, the American electorate CANNOT - and will not - accept radical change. It has to be gradual and consistent and it will take at least a decade for us to work through the budget difficulties.

Big Bear - I agree with you that the tax code is too complicated and it needs to be redone. Period. The problem with that is that those who are taking deductions are NOT going to give them up without a HUGE fight. Do we have the political will to actually FIX the tax code?

People talking about the Obama bailout of GM, it's going to make Obama look like a genius when the GM's IPO opens this Thrusday and the government get a big chunk of the money back. at $50 a pop and the government has millions of stock to offload. So far Fanny and Freddie hasn't fare well from GW Bush bailout. I can already see Obama will be elected again in 2012, just at the dismay of Boehner and Connelly. It just goes to show you that there's more ignorant people in this country than people care to admit, otherwise why would anyone vote Republican? They all for themselves and their lackey, their lobbiest and millionaire backer.

@ juvenBachan,

Of course both parties are comprised of millionaires. From opensecrets.org, here are a few:

Darrell Issa (R-Calif)

$164,650,039
$251,025,020
$337,400,002

Jane Harman (D-Calif)
$112,318,335
$244,796,667
$377,275,000

Herb Kohl (D-Wis)
$163,510,027
$214,570,011
$265,629,996

Mark Warner (D-Va)
$73,315,204
$209,700,598
$346,085,992

John Kerry (D-Mass)
$158,643,501
$208,801,275
$258,959,049

Jared Polis (D-Colo)
$50,737,134
$158,173,566
$265,609,998

Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla)
$-68,340,597
$142,432,692
$353,205,982

Robin Hayes (R-NC)
$55,633,318
$126,865,159
$198,097,000

Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa)
$60,196,019
$94,306,010
$128,416,002

Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ)
$47,632,169
$74,744,094
$101,856,020

The above list is the top revenue earners - I am certain there are more under the criteria outlined in this analysis. But I would like to see john Kerry, Vietnam Veteran, pay more than me.

The Republicans probably feel that Karl Rove is the one who deserves credit for any victories, not Michael Steele.

Thanks for the condolences, Ron---what a long night that was. We do have some injuries but that doesn't change the fact that we were whupped, as IR might say. Patriots do have our number, for sure. Good luck to your Colts next week, they'll need it. Congrats, Pat---your guys were impressive. Are you wishing you'd taken my bet last week? You'd be rich today!!

If he'd be rich today, I suppose you would expect him to give you roughly half of that money since afterall, money people make isn't their own according to you libs right?

Ron, I'm still hoping Sarah Palin will pick Steele up as her running mate in 2012. I"ve come up for a campaign slogan for them. Palin/Steele 2012, Black, White and RIGHT!

Ron Indiana

I read that Michael Steele's days may be numbered as Chairman of the RNC. It's not surprising...but usually when your party does well the chairman is rewarded. Looks like that will not be the case for Michael.

HAHA

Payback is a BEEOCH; isn't it?

Remember the "Red Bus Fire Peloisi Tour" and campaign? Well, Nancy is not touring to fire Steele; the Republican/Tea Party is with their 3 ring circus.

Can't you do better than that tired Conservative narrative, Mark? We all make a living somehow, some of us are in or have been in positions of authority.

We believe in Capitalism, but a well-regulated Capitalism with a modicum of fairness instead of the Capitalism of Dickensian England. We believe in the ability of people to rise to the level of individual ability, not the aristocracy that comes from all the benefits going to those born with silver spoons in their mouths. We believe in a hand up to those who fall of the ladder, allowing them to get back to a life of which they can be proud and productive, instead of an ever-increasing pile of discarded humans at the base of the ladder.

We believe in dignity in life, the current flavor of Conservatism believes in dog-eat-dog, winner-take-all, FYIGM. for me it's an easy decision.

You're right about Michael Steele. Republicans regretted their election of him within a few weeks.

I do so enjoy the right's continued support of 2% of the population who actually pay less taxes than they do. The tax rate might be 35% but most of that 2% pay far less than that. It is deduction city for them. As for liberals being anti-rich, that is also another talking point. There are as many middle income and poor conservatives as their are democrats and guess what, they're probably as tired of subsidizing more for that 2% rich as are their democratic counterparts.

Dear Steeler_Fan & Ron: It was a good game for us. However, I maintain that the Steelers and Giants are the teams to beat this year, even though both lost yesterday. Every team has their ups and downs during any given season. The Patriots got killed last weekend by the Browns. Killed.

I think it is the Colts that will have a tough go of it. This is the part of the calendar where it gets interesting.

________

Is this the end of the road for Keith on MSNBC? Perhaps until Comcast steps in?

The broadcasting industry is strange. Mere talking points is okay nowadays. Lies are okay nowadays. What is the job of the media in the news business? I don't know any longer.

If you look at the Sunday programs and all the political programs, it's obvious that all anyone cares about are the rich white folks. Mostly male.

I'm surprised the country stands for it. Remember when journalists never made much money?

Now they're part of the establishment elite. They make millions and millions of dollars. And none of them are standing up for the working and middle class.

They just talk amongst themselves like they know something about regular working class Americans.

They could care less if the rich get their taxes extended. That's because they're just as self-centered as the CEO's.

Watch Keith. For however long he is on MSNBC. You will never see anyone like him again. The wealthy won't allow it.

I hope Keith and Phil Griffin can work out their differences. They have known each other for many many years. It appears they are/were genuine friends, something rare in the broadcasting industry.

I don't know how anyone can eat oysters. LOL. Yuk.

jody et. al. - support change or simplification of the tax codes then. Or have you become so obsessed with vilifying anyone who disagrees with you that you can't start writing to your members of congress to change the codes?

Thanks for the back up with Mark, John B. Here's what I don't get---I make a light-hearted remark to Pat about a friendly sports rivalry. Regulars to this board will note that different people will have back-and-forth on topics, political and non-political. And Mark feels a need to chime in with a comment about liberals and taxes---one that is nasty and incorrect. And he isn't the only one on the right that does this. Is everything always negative and nasty in their world?

j. wesley: You're done with us? Us? The ones who want equality for all, who want health care for all, who want Congress to do something about jobs, who want our troops taken care of, something which wasn't under in the prior administration. Who want to end the wars your idiot party started which saw hundreds of thousands innocent people killed. Killed. For what? Fear? You cowards.

The more idiotic a person is, the more your party wants them running our United States Government. And it's clear from the teabagger rallies, that these weren't the people demonstrating for civil rights and an end to the Vietnam War.

The ultimate sell outs to our country. Support the rich. They don't give a **** about you or the direction this country is going.

Think Progress: Another phony in the GOP

However, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), one of DeMint’s supporters, appears to have been playing “Santa Claus” by Lee’s definition, demanding money from the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s health care reform law enacted early this year. Over the summer, Ensign sent a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting grant money authorized by the law for the University of Nevada School of Medicine for “Primary Care Residency Expansion.”

_________

Are you going to stand up against Sen. Ensign for wanting to use the new health care reform? Isn't he becoming a socialist now? Behind closed doors of course.

And what did the republicans show us? A financial collapse that put this country on the brink of bankruptcy, a political system where undisclosed sums of money (Foreign and Domestic) can be used to buy political favor, reduced regulations that kill employees, a boycott against virtually every bill that would create jobs, denying 9/11 First Responders Medical Care, opposing the National Defense Bill, etc. There are over 400 Bills sitting hostage in the Senate that could help move America forward. But, NO, the republican/tea part see the destruction of this economy and the Middle Class as their path to the White House.

That is what you have shown us lately. A party that is not interested in helping this Country. McConnell is only interested in making President Obama a one term President, Boehner vows not to compromise and you think this is good for the country.

God Help us All.

Poor J. Wesley, lived all his/her life in a Socialist country and doesn't know it.

Wake up JW. It's the 21st Century, not the 19th Century, you've overslept your time.

JW is doomed to repeat history because JW doesn't understand history.

JW, quick history lesson. In the late 19th century, where you are from, Robber Barons controlled most of the wealth in this country. They build lavish palaces and literally lived like kings or feudal barons. They made uncountable millions and millions of dollars a year when the average working brought home 25-50 bucks a week, if they were lucky.

They employed children, all workers slaved in unsafe conditions (you probably don't remember the great Shirt Waist sweatshop fire that killed dozens of young women, it was in all the papers).

They also produced shoddy goods. Likewise you probably don't recall the scandal involvind processed foods where a whole MOUSE was found in a can of vegetables along with hair, and small bits a metal.

There were several examples of the above referenced canned foods from more than one manufacturer.

Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican by the way) led the way in regulating the processed food industry to insure sanitary practices (no mice in the canned vegetables please).

The abuses of the robber barons lead to our current child labor laws, minimum wage and the rise of the labor unions you so despise.

Is that the period in our history you'd like to return to? Are those the good old days of "True Capitalism" you so admire?

Ain't gonna happen Spankey. This is the 21st Century and we live in a country that successfully combines Capitalism with Socialism and that's what makes America great.

We're all Capitalists and we're all Socialists by definition. So wake up and smell the coffee or your going to miss the 21st Century as well.

skip, wonderful post!

US Navy, they know all this. They don't care. They truly don't care. I have not seen one republican on this board who has shown any kind of heart for our Nation and its future.

It's all about "them". Fine. Watch the GOP exploit them even more. Is see Rand Paul out there making excuses for BP.

We must be NICE to corporations!! That's the GOP message going forward. John Boehner has a lot of promises he needs to keep as well. Not to us.

To the CEO's.

Bye Wesley. Good luck in that quest to repeal the 20th Century.

j.wesley

LOL-0-------lLghten up girls, I keep telling you that I have a copy of the the Liberal Manifesto

Actually, the Liberal Manifesto is on Glenn Beck's blackboard and his strange head; which by the way no one pays attention to except Beck's pupils. LoL LoL LoL LoL

JW

You should hook up with Witt21 and between the two of you, you might be considered to share a single wit.

As it is, you have demonstrated repeatedly you're both half-wits at best.

The Liberal Manifesto, indeed.

What you describe as the "liberal manifesto" could be the guidelines for Rush's EIB Network. More like The "Limbaugh Manifesto" if you ask me.

Your turn, and you'd better make it good, you're really starting to bore me.

Bev & Skip

You both beat me to the punchline,...what JW doesn't realize is that Glenn Beck took the cover off our playbook and swathed the Repub playbook, and then sold it to him with phony tears and a chalkboard. It is embarassing how these twits believe up is down, front is back, grass is blu and skies are green. They just keep grazing, like the good sheep they are.

Thank you, Seattle Sue... I want to ask these idiots who say keeping Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs where the hell all the jobs are that were created for the past ten years? Give me a break. I hope the American people aren't stupid enough to fall for that one. In general, I don't like paying taxes, but without them you have no roads, no bridges, no police or fire protection, no public education, no military, etc. Just cutting taxes is one of the most short sighted, idiotic and selfish things we can do.

Seattle Sue;

You are correct. See my post above about tax cut lies.

And ScienceCzar,

And if we already have this, why is it that our president wants another stimulus to fix the roads, bridges, and make signs saying he did it.

Why is it that the unemployment rate started rising after the Democrats took charge of the congress in 2006?

I also believe in a strong military, would like great roads, bridges, & education, but the money we pay doesn't seem to be going to that. We would rather pay for social welfare programs like, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, & unemployment insurance for almost 2 years. Why is it that federal employees are getting paid more, and expecting raises when private sector workers are working their butts off and paying their salaries?

Why do we have such an unfair tax code, where 47% of the people don't pay taxes, yet 2% are expected to pay another 3-5% because they make more? They already pay 35% of their earnings to the government, how much more should they pay. The church only asks for 10%.

For people on the left, you use to fight for fairness, but you all look at people who have something and expect them to make life equal. It is what is killing America, not everyone is going to make the same amount of money, there is no competition anymore, we don't keep score, everyone gets a trophy. Since we started this, it seems like the have nots are keeping score for those that have.

BigBear, you make alot of sense. Good luck trying to make sense on these vines!

Czar, its not about creating jobs, its about being able to keep the employees you have. If my taxes go up, I may have to let someone go... All those taxes you mention are at the state level (or should be) with the Military being the exception. The taxes you meant to include are Crystler, Omnibus, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, etc.

BigBear62

And ScienceCzar,

And if we already have this, why is it that our president wants another stimulus to fix the roads, bridges, and make signs saying he did it.

BB - "Engineers think the U.S. will have to spend $2.2 trillion over 5 years to bring the overall grade for infrastructure up to an 'A.' "

This is because the US spends less than 2% of our GDP on infrastructure. Neglect has brought us to where we are now. Additional spending is necessary because the first stimulus was a mere drop in bucket.

Not only does this type of spending create jobs, it is an investment in our future.

Czar and VtGirl,

The president got $28B in the porkulus bill and is now asking for $50B to do the same thing. Where is this money going? Under the current administration you're paying more taxes for nothing to be done.

"bigbear declares: yet 2% are expected to pay another 3-5% because they make more? They already pay 35% of their earnings to the government, how much more should they pay. The church only asks for 10%."

=======================================================================

There is not one person in the top 2% that pays 35%, none, the tax loopholes and gimmees are all designed for them because they write the tax laws, try more like 12% actually paid, but we'll keep that to ourselves right bigbear.

w bush,

How do you know exactly what they pay? Because you heard some democrat liberal tell you that? That is the current rate for taxpayers at their level. I guess we could ask John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Charles Rangel if they cheat on their taxes. Oh that is right, we know they do. Boxer couldn't even remember she owned a home in San Francisco, even though her son lived in it.

So you are saying we don't need to raise taxes, we just need to close the loopholes? Something I have said here for weeks.

Again, our churches only ask for 10%, why should the government get more?

Seattle Sue:

I hear you...

I am still waiting for the MSM to inform the public (which is your job) about all the lies that were advanced by the Republicans to get elected.

For example, we now know that Republicans are not going to vote to eliminate earmarks; they have no idea how to reduce the debt or deficit; they don’t want to touch entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security even though that is the only avenue to reducing “real” government spending other than ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and lastly where is there jobs program. Boehner constantly harped on the President by asking “where are the jobs, Mr. President”?

Well, Mr. Boehner it has been two weeks…where are the jobs?

The Republicans keep whining about tax increases for the wealthy being a bad idea because they are the “job creators” yet they do not explain why they did not “create jobs” before 2008 when they had the benefit of the Bush Tax cuts since at least 2003.

What’s up with that?

MSM, can you find out why the Tax Cuts for the rich did not create jobs before 2008?

BTW, money managers are reporting that if you wisely invested $100K on Inauguration day 2009 your portfolio should now be worth $177K.

I’d say President Obama has been very, very good for the “haves”! Those would be the ones who voted for the Republicans on November 2nd. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

BB, I don't need "some Liberal Democrat" to tell me how much the wealthy pay in taxes, I do my own research. To wit;

The poorest quintile, then, pays 4.3 percent of their income to the government, but only makes 3.9 percent of all income dollars each year. In contrast, the richest quintile brings home 55.7 percent of all income dollars each year, and pays 25.9 percent of that in taxes.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/04/19/social-class-and-the-tax-burden/

So the rich have a pretty good deal in the US. WAY better, in fact, than my group, the third quintile. Please excuse me not being keen on the fact that people who make a lot more than I do pay a much smaller proportion of their income in taxes.

John B,

Did you look very closely at your statement?

Let's say the average poorest quintile individual makes $20,000/YR, $20,000 x 4.3% = $860.

Richest Quintile average makes $5,000,000/YR, $5,000,000 x 25.9% = $1,295,000

Oh now I see your logic...those evil rich people...how dare they pay so little!

johnb - change the tax code then. better yet why not post numbers from the IRS rather than social images. Bet that referencing IRS numbers directly would better sell your "I do my own reseach" ideas.

So, Dano, are you saying it's appropriate for the poorest quintile to pay a higher proportion of their income as taxes than ths wealthy? This really passes your fairness test? You're really prepared to defend the right of the rich to pay a lower proportion in taxes than anyone else?

Why not? That's the Conservative position.

american, if you have contrary data feel free to post it. In lieu of that I stand by my statement.

VG: BB - "Engineers think the U.S. will have to spend $2.2 trillion over 5 years to bring the overall grade for infrastructure up to an 'A.' "

So, who's doing the grading. Let me guess. The engineers perhaps?

Teachers do the same thing. They tell the taxpayers "Give us money and we'll give your school system a good grade."

VG: This is because the US spends less than 2% of our GDP on infrastructure. Neglect has brought us to where we are now. Additional spending is necessary because the first stimulus was a mere drop in bucket.

"Brought us to where we are today"? So where exactly are we? Roads are still there, bridges still work. Airports are A#1. What exactly are you proposing with all this 'infrastructure' you Libs keep babbling about? When it's completed will the commute times in Los Angeles be half of what they are today? Will there be an airport in every city? Will Amtrak pay for itself? Will the cost of hauling freight drop by 50%?

Now lets wait for the first Lib to jump up and down and sputter, "But, but, but, that bridge in Minnesota collapsed!". Yup, one bridge fails, and we should spend 2.2 trillion dollars because of it. And that bridge didn't fail because of a lack of funding Libs.

VG: Not only does this type of spending create jobs, it is an investment in our future.

And here all along we've been told "Children are our future". What's changed?

So who exactly should grade the structural integrity of roads, bridges and dams, brakemen? Conductors perhaps?

Infra Structure

It is estimated that we need to spend $2.2 trillion over the next 5 years just to elevate our reliability grade from a “D” to a “B”. And of the $787 billion approved for the stimulus only 9% ($71 Billion) was appropriated for Infra Structure projects.

Roads, Highways and Bridges

We have 4 million miles of roads 47,000 miles of which are Interstate Highways.

Our roads are in such poor shape that State Highway Agencies use the phrase “Patch & Pray”. 27% of all bridges are listed as “Structurally Deficient” as was the I-35 Bridge over the Mississippi in Minneapolis.

Water & Sewer Systems

We have over 800,000 miles of water pipes that are steadily deteriorating. 240,000 mains rupture every year. Water pipes are leaking 6 billion gallons every day and increasing rapidly. In Buffalo they are loosing 40% of their water supply via leaks. Leaks also allow contamination to water supplies. Boil alerts for large cities like Atlanta are on the rise.

There is over 1 million miles of sewer pipes and most are over 50 years old. In many of the older cities sewage and drainage lines are combined. This is a contamination problem. In St. Louis they dump 1.3 billion gallons combined sewage & drainage into the Mississippi River every year. Across the US more than 9 billion gallons of waste is dumped into fresh water each year.

Dams & Levees

There are over 85,000 dams in the US with an average age of 51. 4,000 are listed as “unsafe”. In Texas there are 7,400 dams and only 7 inspectors (1057 per inspector). With the expectation of every dam being inspected once a year how do you think Texas is doing?

There are 100,000 miles of Levees in the US. Of all the Levees, 177 are at high risk of failure like New Orleans in 2005 and the Midwest in 2008.

Rail Systems

Hundreds of thousands of miles of track go unused and unrepaired. High speed rail here is 80-90 mph while in Europe and the Pacific Rim high speed rail is 200 even 300 mph.

Electric Power Grid

We need to spend $1.5 trillion over the next 20 years to update, expand and create a “Smart Grid” or the number and duration of Black-outs & Brown-outs will increase sharply.

John B,

You are delusional...how in the world can 4.3% be more than 25.9%. It is very simple math.

Let me explain the graph;

• The bottom quintile makes 3.9% of total income and pays 4.3 % of their income in taxes...Not a lot but they don't make much.
• The 2nd quintile makes 8.4% of total income and pays 10.2% of it in taxes. They aren't getting a particularly good deal from the tax code.
• The middle quintile makes 13.2% of total income and pays 14.2% in taxes. As the "average" group you'd expect them to make about 20% of income but in this case the bell curve is skewed WAY to the right. Notice that the lowest 60% of Americans takes home only 25.5% of all income!
• The 4th quintile makes 19.5% of total income and pays 17.6% as taxes. This is the first group that is anywhere close to proportional in terms of the population vs how much they're paid in income. It's an indication that we're becoming a society of haves and have nots.
• The top 20% make an astounding 55.7% of ALL pretax income but pays only 25.8% of total taxes. It's a tax rate that's in no way proportional to the benefit they receive from the wealthiest nation on earth.

If you need an illustration of what this inordinately flat income tax rate does, consider that the middle quintile increased their income by 21% between 1979 and 2006, but the top 1% increased their income by an astounding 256%!!!

Great, so the argument will be that if we expect the rich to pull their fair share in this country they'll just jump ship for someplace more to their liking? Well, good luck with that because they're going to have trouble finding such a place. The wealthy get a better deal here than anyplace in the world, certainly in any industrialized country;

This bar chart puts the United States as the dubious front runner with the highest income inequality among 20 wealthy nations. With the exception of Japan, all the countries have European heritage. In 2000 the United States’ inequality stood well above all other rich nations.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/01/22/inequality-among-affluent-nations/

John B,

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Each year from 2005 to 2007, the top 1 percent's constantly growing share of income earned and taxes paid set a record. That trend reversed in 2008. In fact, the income share for the top 1 percent of tax returns was lower in 2008 than in 2000, largely due to differences in capital gains

The IRS data below include all of the 139.96 million tax returns filed in 2008 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. These figures exclude those tax returns filing a return merely to receive a stimulus check.

From other IRS data, we can see that in 2008, around 52 million tax returns were filed with either positive or negative AGI that used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2008, but some even received more back from the IRS.

Another indicator of this reversal in the income and tax shares of the top 1 percent is that during 2007, the top 1 percent had actually paid more in federal income tax than the bottom 95 percent, a comparison that was much remarked on a year ago.

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes

Now I hate to mess with your figures, but the top 5% of earners in this country pay 58.7% of the income. Gee, and you think they don't pay enough already. 52 million Americans in 2007 filed a return just to get more government money back. That is over 1/3 of the American taxpayers in 2007, and we know in 2009 47% of the people did not pay any income taxes, yet you expect the top 2% to pay even more in taxes.

I'll tell you what, you get the 47% that don't pay taxes to pay their fair share, even at 4.8% and we can raise taxes on the wealthy. By the way, just read the social page here, and found out that Courtney Cox and her hubby are splitting up. Hooray!!!

So your data is coming from U of Minn college liberal arts. Which means the comments ar of course coming from either a group of students or a college professor and this is supposed to make me comfortable how? I am not debating the figures mind you but I do feel you are looking at this way too simply so let me put it back to you simply for a rebuttal:

Say I work 50 hours a week as an analyst so that I can have 10 steaks a month. And lets say you are working as a cashier at the local grocery store 50 hours a week but you can only afford 3 steaks. Is it your assumption that I should give up more of my steak because you can't have as many? If so your thinking is beyond repair and I need to stop the discussion right now.

I do not adhere to Socialism and you do so apparently we are at a stand still.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Many thanks for the backup!!

Vermont Girl,

Thanks - What many seem to miss is that it takes both strong educational system and a top notch infrastructure system to create and maintain a strong economy. The rail and Interstate system of the 50’s plus the best educational system in the world kept us as the world leader until around 2000 when the decrease in interest in being the best educated and the decline in repair and maintenance of our infrastructure has allowed us to lose that lofty position as number 1.

BB, the top quintile pays a little under 70% of taxes http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026634.php but owns almost 85% of all wealth. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/estimates-of-wealth-distribution-are-widely-wrong/

They pay more because they OWN more, and it isn't even proportional. That's my point.

Oops – Our economy is still #1 but it is estimated that China will overtake us before 2030 and if we don’t fix our many problems like infrastructure, education and debt very soon they will, in fact, overtake us as number one and we could end up as number 3.

As Warren Buffet stated, he pays less taxes than the cleaning lady. He's a billionaire, does that mean he pays millions in taxes? I seriously doubt a cleaning lady would pay millions in taxes let alone make over a million a year. The rich has the safety of tax deduction which makes them pay about $0 dollar in taxes even though they're supposed to pay 25% in taxes from their income, the poor doesn't have that luxury.

Buffet pays an effectively smaller RATE of taxation. He pays much more in taxes, than his employees, but they pay a higher RATE as a ratio of their incomes.

They, "the rich", are supposed to pay 35% on their ADJUSTED gross income over $250 thousand. The squealing is over a 3 point increase going back into effect.

And only on that part of their income over $250,000. That's an important point usually missed. With the Democratic plan EVERYONE gets a tax break. On the Conservative plan the wealthy get an EXTRA tax break that those of average means can't hope to benefit from.

And Fiesty, good job getting under Farleys skin. Don't know why those folks are so good at dishing it out but so bad at taking it.

Thanks Frank! Did I mention how delighted I am to have ruined CU's weekend? lmao

FrankH;

Great summary. I was watching BBS this morning and we are basically in a bind where the deficit is greater than all the discretionary spending. SO in effect we could cut all discretionary spending, let he roads continue to crumble, and all the good stuff and still not have a balanced budget.

You are right, cutting spending alone is not the answer. We need revenue as well.

How come the recent "Cat Food" report had nothing in it on taxing the financial sector? The majority of the pain was shifted to the middle class again. One of the bankers is pissed because his bonus was only 9 Million.

Something has to give and soon.

Oh, no, reducing spending could not possible reduce the debt. Likewise, you can sit on your couch, eat all you want, and still lose weight, if only the congress would pass a bill allowing you to do just that.

Do any of you people have any brains?

Want to understand wasteful spending? Payoffs to supporters? Read on.

Buried in the Financial reform bill is a little goodie for a group of Obama contributors- to the tune of ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

Seems a few of them got together and formed a little group, which said little group helped WRITE the bill. They are now supposedly using the funds to help Wall street comply with it's provisions.

Who are these people? Why, Wall street tycoons who are regular, large democrat donors. Nice, is it not, that you and I get to make sure that the democrat gravy train travels smoothly?

Funny how none of the members of the Fourth Estate happened to notice anything funny, or fishy, happening. Ah, well, they probably would have noticed if, say, Obama were a republican. As long as he is a democrat, he can skin kittens in the Rose Garden, and every single media member will happen to be looing at the Goodyear blimp.

You can rant all you want njnb. Payoffs to supporters? Yeah, yeah, none of those wall street tycoons were republican or donated to republican candidates. Tell us about the rest of your dream world.

We're talking about paying down the national debt. How do you propose we do it? Just cutting spending is not paying it down.

Once again our resident economic expert fails to notice that reducing spending by a degree and taxes to a greater degree leaves us even worse off than we already are.

Just lowering the deficit will not lower the National Debt. You need a surplus, Like President Clinton had, to lower the National Debt.

US NAvy is correct in his assessment. To reduce or eliminate the debt, we would have to produce at LEAST 1.5X MORE of what we are producing now to even address it. That means that the REVENUES for the government must increase either proportionally or incrementally proportional to any cuts that are made.

Budget cuts ALONE, as many are proposing here, will not cut it.

The EASIEST thing that can be done is to raise revenues, and I do not see any effort(s) being put forth to do that.

frankh - you are saying that there are no wall st tycoons who are democrats? Or that bribes (earmarks, if you will) were not made to house and senate members to pass healthcare, financial reform etc.

Ever think that cutting spending would send a message to those who can create jobs that Washington wants to have jobs created and are willing to create an atmosphere of job creation rather than an atmosphere of unknown future expenses to business? Reduced government expenditures + increased tax revenues from job growth will pay down debt faster than either by itself.

johnb - and you are naturally an economic expert yourself? I myself know how to balance a check book and how to restrict spending based on income to bring down debt.

navy - clinton still left us with a national debt, not a surplus or can't your disability comprehend this?

pietro - wrong answer:

The EASIEST thing that can be done is to raise revenues, and I do not see any effort(s) being put forth to do that.

You are merely postponing the pain of political fiscal responsibility (R or D) to further down the road. Basically you are sending the message to those that create jobs and revenue that their cost of doing future business will only increase, necessitating them to increase the cost to the consumer.

Control spending first then you can show the taxpayers that taxes neeed to also be raised to further pay down debt. Little pain now or great pain latter.

American;

navy - clinton still left us with a national debt, not a surplus or can't your disability comprehend this?

This is not what I said. We were tlking about the deficit (Budget). My comment was that Present Clinton left a surplus as it pertain to the deficit/budget discussion. I never said he eliminated the National Debt, that is a lie and typical republaic/tea party trick. Try and spin a comment to prove yor own impotent agenda.

Sorry, nice try, but I ever said President Clinton eliminated the National Debt, and to indicate I did is a outright lie. Here issomething else for you.

David Stockman’s Critique of Republican Financial Policy. David Stockman was Ronald Regan’s OMB (Office of Management & Budgets)

The details are what makes Stockman’s take so astonishing. Here are his most important observations, of which I find little to disagree with:

• The total US debt, including states and municipalities, will soon reach $18 trillion dollars. That is a Greece-like 120% of GDP.

• Supply Side tax cuts for the wealthy are based on “money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesiansism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.”

• Republicans abandoned the belief that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — government, trade, central banks private households and businesses.

• Once fiscal conservatism was abandoned, it led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy.

• The Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement.

• Who is to blame? Milton Friedman. In 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold.

• According to Friedman, “The free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct.” What actually occurred was “impossible.” Stockman calls it “Friedman’s $8 trillion error.”

• Ideological tax-cutters are what killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.

• America’s debt explosion has resulted from the Republican Party’s embrace, three decades ago, of the insidious Supply Side doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

• The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine.

• It was Paul Volcker who crushed inflation and enabled a solid economic rebound — not the Reagan Supply Side Tax cuts.• Republicans believed the “delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.”

• Over George W. Bush 8 years in office, non-defense appropriations gained 65%.• Fiscal year 2009 (GWB last budget): Tax-cutters reduced federal revenues to 15% of GDP — lower than they had been since the 1940s.

• The expansion of our financial sector has been vast and unproductive. Stockman blames (tho but not by name): 1) Greenspan, for flooding financial markets with freely printed money; and 2) Phil Gramm, for removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation.

• The shadow banking system grew from a mere $500 billion in 1970 to $30 trillion by September 2008 (see Gramm, above).

• Trillion-dollar financial conglomerates are not free enterprises — they are wards of the state, living on virtually free money from the Fed’s discount window to cover their bad bets.

• From 2002 to 2006, the top 1% of Americans received two-thirds of the gain in national income.

I find it fascinating that the most incisive criticism of the irresponsible GOP policies has comes from two of its former stars: Bruce Barlett [3] and now David Stockman. Sure, Krugman, Stiglitz, DeLong and others have railed against Bush policies for years. But it seems to take an insider’s critique to really give the debate some punch.

Pietro,

Did you have a good weekend? Not many Ohio teams did well in the games yesterday, but OSU destroyed Paterno, I loved that. I can't stand Paterno, but that is just because he won a National Title, many years ago over SMU when he had been beaten by Alabama--who went 4-6 that year. SMU did not lose a game--just had a tie. But the got the media to back him, and got that 1st National Title. Sound familiar?

Pietro, as we have talked the past weeks, I have said that cuts are important, and we could save millions, if not billions by cutting the budget. You are also correct that we need to raise revenue. And while having almost 10% unemployment, we are going to have a hard time doing that. But with cuts, putting people back to work in the private sector, and using our investments (TARP/GM) we could pay down the debt and raise revenues. I am certain that a flat tax rate would raise revenue, especially since last year 47% of the people did not pay federal income taxes. But it would take a lot to reduce the debt, maybe we should get Jerry Lewis to do a telethon to reduce the debt?

But Navy,

You keep using his budget surplus to somehow indicate that he did something wonderful with the debt. That is a least how you are spinning it. And that was a project surplus that year, projected of everyone paid their taxes and there were no natural disasters that took away money.

American - no, my answer is NOT wrong. Since we are in a hole, we have to literally DOUBLE our revenues to have the EXTRA amount applied to the deficit. There is no way around this.

Cutting spending will increase the revenues that can be applied to the deficit, but you have a breakeven point where the spending cuts have no effect. In this economy, there is a base amount that is MANDATORY spending, and the deep cuts you are proposing WITHOUT raising revenues will not decrease the deficit. You can cut BEYOND the mandatory spending, and that will affect your revenues (as they will suffer).

The bottom line - you CANNOT just CUT. You have to RAISE your revenues simultaneously or else there is not deficit reduction.

This is the reason why all of these 'proposals' don't work. They focus on the CUTTING and NOT on the raising of revenues.

We literally have to overproduce just to stay even. We are not doing that because we have official 10% unemployment. We would need to be almost fully employed - 2% or less - and raising revenues that DOUBLE what we have now - over an interval of time - or else this whole exercise is a waste of time and effort.

The only otherway that I can see AMERICA effectively attacking the deficit is by having a VAT (Value Added Tax) on ALL goods, with that money being used to pay the debt down directly AND having cuts in non-essential operations in the government.

As we can see here on this board, determining what is non-essential is a very difficult thing to do.

Big Bear - my weekend was OK. I did have some time to sit and look at the numbers that you and I crunched last week, and my calculations suggest that we need to look at a different strategy other than cutting.

Remember when I showed you the Corporation figure of $220 BILLION in the 2010 budget (which was down from $339 BILLION in the 2005-2009 budgets)? That figure just did not seem right to me. The taxpayer has been paying close to $1 TRILLION consistently over the past 12 years, but the Corporation figure actually DECREASED in 2010.

If these tax cuts go through, then it decreases REVENUE by $70 BILLION a year. This is opposite of what we are trying to do. We need to boost REVENUES by at least 1.5X of 'NORMAL' to reduce the deficit. If we don't do that, we will not reduce the deficit and any DECREASE in revenues INCREASES the deficit.

That means that the Government would need to bring in 150% more in each revenue category for us to START reducing the deficit.

I am not sure what the Government's 'break even' point is, and if we do manage to cut spending BELOW that breakeven level, then the deficit will continue to grow.

I am NOT convinced that ANY of the plans being floated will actually do anything to reduce the deficit. If we are goingto spend money, we need tospend the money to create as many jobs as possible. Seeing as how many of the jobs we HAD are being shipped overseas or outsourced, the task of reducing the deficit is a lot harder that before.

We need to raise the REVENUES fast. Tax cuts are not going to 'cut' it.

We need to GROW the REVENUES as quickly as we can, and to do that we will need to raise taxes in SOME form or fashion. We cannot continue to delude ourselves that cuts will be the 'only' thing that we can do.

No one has the political courage - or will - to propose another tax hike. it is political suicide. However, it is necessary to raise taxes or FIGURE OUT another REVENUE stream or else the deficit will CONTINUE to grow.

Flat taxes have been floated as a means of raising revenues; I have mentioned the Value Added Tax. We can start by rescinding tax break for those corporations that outsource jobs. We can start by getting corporations to pay their fair share (and we can see from the budget that they don't).

The bottom line is that WE - AMERICANS in AMERICA - have got to bite the bullet and get this reduced; and we have to WANT TO DO IT. Empty sloganeering is not going to work with the numbers that you and I have been crunching, Big Bear.

nice try navy, this is what you posted

When the GW Bush Administration took office the National Debt was at $5.73 Trillion Dollars. When he left, the National Debt had increased to $10.63 Trillion Dollars, an increase of 85%.

When Clinton’s Administration left office they left a $86.4 Billion Dollar budget surplus

trying to compare apples to oranges doesn't work. What you try to imply with misdirection is that republicans are bad and democrats are good.

Since you think you have the balls to post your opinions as fact then use verifiable links to prove them. National publications would work, Internet newsletters do not. No links, it is just an opinion!

pietro - Why didn't you read my post to the end?? Did you just stop when I said you were wrong? Your post #6.14 would have been totally dfferent if you had.

American,

you are the one trying to spin it. No where does it say i said that President Clinton eliminated the National Debt. He did leave a Budget Surplus as I stated. You are the one that is trying to mislead.

The facts stated are correct.

American - I read your post. My post is looking at Government Revenues and I stand by my post. If you want to reduce the deficit, we will need at least 1.5X of what we are producing now with proportional spending cuts.

I already know that neither party - R or D - will do anything to SOLVE this problem. They will try and sell the same, repackaged crap that they have been. They know that raising taxes is political suicide, so they CONTINUALLY kick the can down the road. This is why the deficit has risen so much over the years.

We need to have am ALTERNATIVE method of raising Revenues (as a Government) and yes, it will entail the expiration of the Bush tax cuts along with some other method of raising REVENUE. We will also need to get America back to work to get us as close as we can to 100% employment in this country.

We will need to raise the revenues of Corporations that pay taxes in this country, as I believe the amount collected is too low, based on the numbers in the 1020 budget.

navy - your presentation is still one of comparing apples to oranges. I quoted you directly and still you refuse to believe that your quote was misleading. And note that I did leave out your hooey on republican actions to simplify your responce.

I did like BB's assertion that your budget surplus was really "projected" and not actual. Care to enlighten us on actual government numbers with verifiable links directly to the federal government of accounting.

pietro we need to do both, no disagreement there. Spending cuts FIRST sends the message to businesses that the government is seriously concerned about creating a known and forseeable business friendly government environment.

Business thinks down the road and wants to quantify their projected costs vs income so that they can plan growth. Regardless of what obamas or the democrats may say in the future the impression that they and many 'first read' posters have promoted over time is that businesses are bad, corrupt and greedy. No doubt some may be, but to say that the government will set things right is but a fantasy as well.

Increase business taxes all you like, the bottom line is that for a business to maintain a given % of net profit, they will just pass on the costs to maintain that % onto the end consumer.

Don't like what the wealthy pay in taxes, change the tax codes. I don't have a problem with that either. regardless of scenarios there will be pain for all.

Independent - I am not so sure that making cuts FIRST is the best idea. I would submit that making sure we have ADDITIONAL revenue streams - a place where businesses can make money - would PROBABLY be a better option.

Remember, we need to SIMULTANEOUSLY create new Governmental REVENUE streams (more than just the ones we have now) and cut the 'waste' proportionally. Not invading another country right now is probably the 'expense cut' that is needed.

By generating new Revenue streams, we generate the appropriate revenues needed to apply them the the deficit.

I thnik that the focus of the Obama Administration being 'business friendly' is too narrow a focus because it really doesn't matter. Businesses will make money no matter what kind of 'environment' they find themselves in.

I think that the 'Green Jobs' initiative was a Revenue stream that would have cost us next to nothing to produce and would have provided a great boost in Governmental Revenues. Cap n' Trade was another initiative that would have provided a Governmental Revenue stream and it would have cost almost nothing to adminster it. 'Clean Coal' - if that is even possible - would have generated new Governmental Revenues as well.

All of these initiatives would have provided innovative business with the means to be able to generate jobs, wealth and Governmental Revenue that is sorely needed. This would have, over time, REDUCED the BURDEN of the Governmental Revenue from coming from JUST the Taxpayer (as it is now). It would have boosted the Corporate tax Revenue as well.

All of these initiatives were either stalled by Republicans or killed by the Blue Dog Dems. It is too bad, really, because now we haev no real way of covering the deficit when we have ALL of the deficit reduction falling on the backs of the taxpayer.

Pietro,

Have been out looking at houses today. Hoping to find a good deal. Need a place for the family.

The gas taxes, can be found here:

http://www.commonsensejunction.com/notes/gas-tax-rate.html

Even though the 18.4 cents per gallon is US tax, each state has a different tax

Such as New York with a 44.5 cent per gallon tax, making total taxes per gallon of gas 62.9 cent per gallon.

Alaska has the lowest rate at 8 cents per gallon, making gas in Alaska only 26.4 cents a gallon of tax money, anything above that would be money for profit & bills.

Like I have said, I wouldn't mind 20 cents a gallon national gas tax, if I knew the money was going to certain areas. Once the debt was paid off, then that money could be reverted to the roads, or partially to Social Security, since no one wants to reform it and change it from a welfare program to a retirement program.

Big bear - house hunting, eh? I am sure you will find what you are looking for, and you have PLENTY OF TIME to choose the right one for you and your family.

Thanks for the gas tax link. Even with the highest taxes (The Tri-State Area), gas wholesale is around $1.30/gal; it is selling for $2.85 here in Ohio.

I have no problem with your premise and argument about the gas taxes, and I think it is a great idea. Using the Gas Tax as a new REVENUE stream would definitely help with the Deficit. Notice I didn't include Social Security because it has its own Revenue stream that is OUTSIDE of the streams that cause deficits.

Pietro,

I think we have found a house, but it looks like a lot of work. I am getting older each day, having to work longer hours, I am not sure how much work I want to do on a house, yet it is a great price. We'll just have to see after the inspection.

I worked for Exxon some years back, and I know they will keep making their profit. Some of the stories I could tell. Yes, gas companies will make their profit, and the little guy, the working man will keep supporting them, because that is how we get to work. Gas taxes and Lotteries should be set up to certain accounts. I remember when Texas was trying to start their lottery. Keep saying how much it was going to help education. But in the end, all the money went into the general fund. What a waste.

If we are going to keep having a gas tax, then it should be split up. Gas taxes should be used to rebuild our infrastructure. I have driven on some roads in Ohio, I know they need fixed, especially around Toledo.

I only talk about Social Security when I am talking about reforming the Social Security system. Making our accounts private to the people, not privatizing it to markets. But we would need to keep the old system until about 2050/2060. Then the new system that I have presented would be in effect for the younger populations. But after paying off the debt, a small portion of the gas tax could be used to fund Social Security.

pietro and bigbear, correct me if I am wrong but isn't the federal gas tax and state gas tax (not state sales tax) supposed to already go for maintaining the roads and bridges?

Want another revenue stream? why not state sponsered gambling. Polk county, iowa took over a casino that was failing (mismanaged) with the stated goal of letting it go private once the county got its tax dollars back. Never did get privatised and a lot of taxpayers in polk (as well as surrounding counties) are not complaining about it being county owned.

It's too late, but for whatever it's worth, there is only one revenue stream. It is business activity. Every dollar received by the government originates with business activity. The only real source for increased revenue is economic recovery and increased business, followed by increased employment. The revenues will come naturally. Just about every administration through the George Bush administration actually produced more revenues than the previous one.

We need to control spending now, let the economy recover and begin generating larger revenues and we then need to cut the spending base significantly at the same time.

Pietro is right that a combination of increased revenues with spending cuts is the only way to make headway. We also need to adjust the Social Security payout base by cutting it 10% for all new recipients beginning in 2017, except the bottom 20%. Also begin cutting at a rate of 2% annually, starting in 2010, federal pay and benefits and the military. Continue these cuts for five years until the structural base has been decreased 10%.

And in anticipation of the coming economic recovery, lower the capital gains tax rate to 10%. It will be more attractive to take capital gains sooner, which will begin restoring revenues to the federal government as the markets improve.

Finally, make it illegal, under penalty of death, for state and federal legislators to budget as if revenues will increase forever. Limit all annual budget increases to 3%.

Increased revenues have never been dependent on tax rates, but rather tax receipts. Increased tax receipts are invariably produced by an expanding and vibrant economy. In some ways, the revenue side is out of our control. Over time it inexorably increases but is subject to ebbs and flows. The history of our spending, dating back as far as World War II is basically one of no ebbs, only flows and always upward.

Let's leave tax rates right where they are. They do not need to be increased. Economic activity needs to increase in order to provide more taxable income. It's worked before. Increased economic activity is the ONLY source of increased revenue. How it gets to the government is only a matter of logistics.

The problem is that we and our presidential and congressional leaders always spend more than we take in.

Except for amounts, it's been that way since Eisenhower.

Who is this "Oblaba" to whom you keep referring?

Isn't it obvious that Obaba is Obama? What is wrong with you people?

It's Juvenile Bachan... nuff said.

But

Please

Stop

The

Double

Spacing

Juvenile.

Thank

You

Juven,

I strongly recommend you take a course in English as a second language. You do not appear to be a native speaker and with the big push to make English the official language in this country you are obviously going to have some problems in the bright new Tea Party future.

Oh, and STFU! Please. You're embarassing yourself and filling this board with drivel.

Have a nice day.

Skip,

You are on a roll.

Juven provides the proof--conservatives do not respect anyone, including the President of the U.S., who disagrees with them; their idea of debate and discussion is to belittle a person with name calling.

Just because your party controls 1/2 of one of the 3 branches of Government doesn't mean your party should dictate policy.....duh.

Thanks Navy, that is high praise indeed. Have a good week.

Don't be such a jerk Juven. Whether your a Democrat or Republican, show some respect for our President of the United States of America.

skip - calling the kettle black says the pot?

Oh, and STFU! Please. You're embarassing yourself and filling this board with drivel.

much like your compatriots as well I see.

Greg442 - reread the constitution on the functions of the senate and the house. and then repeat your post telling us all what you have learned.

Wow, Juven has not one, but TWO defenders. He must be so proud.

I think this could be proof positive of the alarming rise in the American Neo-Nazi movement.

They feel so confident in their growing numbers (and Tea Party buddies) they are coming out of the woodwork to defend they buddy Juven.

Seig Heil, ya'll

skip - you fit rather well into that same type of extremist category yourself. Ever think about reading your post before you hit "post comment"?

I do realize that the first read moderators are far more liberal in what they allow to be posted than other newsvine thread moderators. Must be why many of you only post on "first read" blogs. Nothing like keeping "inbreeding" alive.

Skip;

Birds of a feather flock together. Good accurate posts today to start the week. Thank you.

navy - rotflmao!!! Thanks for your thumbs up!!

American,

What a misnomer, you really need to change your blog moniker Dude, there is nothing American about you and yours. Didn't we kick you guys in the Panzers back in '44?

But I digress, I post on several different threads and not all of them political.

I just like to come here to see what my friends have to say and to see what peanut gallery is offering in way of response. Sometimes it amuses me so much I have to chime in.

You, Juven and JW have given me a great deal of entertainment today. NONE of you have the slightest clue what you are talking about. You have no idea what would happen if anyone took you seriously.

What you suggest would return us to the 19th Century. That isn't going to happen. If we are "progressives" then YOU, my friend are a "regressive" and that ain't good.

But thanks for stopping by and giving us a few laughs. It's a great way to start the week.

Good morning no joe, no bo, nj

Buried in the Financial reform bill is a little goodie for a group of Obama contributors- to the tune of ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

My My, you certainly have a penchant for irrelevant facts. Who is beating the drum to not roll back taxes for the middle class? Or whoo-oo wants to repeal healthcare and practically the entire Constitution? Everyone knows there’s no sanity clause in the Constitution; so why not; right?

Who, Who Who-o-o-? Wouldn't you know it is the neo robber barons in the corporations monopolies, Koch brothers and friends of Karl Rove.

Things go better with Koch pronounced “coke”.

Here's a little goody for you--Ohio election attorney Cliff Arnebeck has filed a two count charge against Karl Rove's Partnership. The Partnership is "...not truly independent, but rather has been coordinated with the Republican candidates, their agents, committees, parties and their de facto coordinated national campaign being directed by Karl Rove."

He also charges that when the Partnership claims in its advertising that it's "not authorized by a candidate or a candidate's committee" that they are making an Illegal "False Statement."

The complaint also discloses new information about the December 19, 2008, air crash death of Michael Connell, Rove's computer guru. Connell was deposed one day prior to the November, 2008, presidential election. He has been linked to construction of a computer apparatus that was tied directly to Rove and was capable of election manipulations. These activities have been at the center of the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville lawsuit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-fitrakis-and-harvey-wasserman/how-why-we-have-filed-rac_b_775839.html

Would you, Jo Blow, happen to have unearthed anything stating that Karl Rove showed up hearing on 9am Monday, November 1, in Columbus for his rackerteering, money laundering and conspiracy charges?

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/election-attorneys-file-racketeering-complaint-against-karl-rove-and-tom-donohues-elections-operations-106303993.html

Btw:

Michael Connell, Rove's computer guru died when the single-engine aircraft he was piloting just prior to Christmas 2008 crashed in flames near Akron. The tragedy came just weeks after he was compelled by a federal judge to give a deposition in a long-standing 2004 federal election fraud lawsuit, on the heels of reports that Connell had been threatened by Rove to "take the fall" for whatever happened in '04.

Michael Connell has been linked to construction of a computer apparatus that was tied directly to Rove and was capable of election manipulations.

Beverly,

You read too many conspiracy theories.

Huffington post is crap for citing anything as factual.

bev - apparently you have lost much of your mind to conspiracy theories. You have consistantly shown yourself to be a rabid NASCAR fan - going around in circles and always steering left.

american-2051576

bev - apparently you have lost much of your mind to conspiracy theories. You have consistantly shown yourself to be a rabid NASCAR fan - going around in circles and always steering left.

So I challenge for a ride when Karl Rove goes to court. Sappy Bush had a conspiracy theory you see what that got him.

Start decoding the coded language or else that full circle is gonna bite you in the butt.

No Jo, I see you tuned in for today's talking points. What else is being spewed out by the talking heads.

Thanks for working so hard for this country, even in the face of the tremendous amount of foolishness thrown your way

Speaking of foolishness Nash -- check out what's above you! lmao

Yeah Feisty . . . I've already read that story before . . . no joe's Obama fantasy tales . . . I'll pass.

Good to see you though! :o)

Same here...

She sure has some whoppers doesn't she? ;0)))

Who would of thunk she had friends? lol

Feisty Redhead...sounds to me like you need to get yourself an education and then come back and start posting comments. Whatever you do, don't keep posting whatever first comes into that feisty red head of yours, otherwise people are going to think that you are some lunatic who escaped from some mental hospital and figured out how to use a computer.

Now, now, even Hitler had friends.

But they weren't really his friends were they? They were just posing as his friends.

Paranoia? Yeah probably.

I agree, President is doing a great job in an impossible situation. Just look at the posts above to realize the ignorance and hatred he is having to deal with.

When 7 of Newsweeks Top Ten Pols and Pundits are conservative hate mongers and #1 is Rush Limbaugh you've got to know we are in deep trouble.

But you all knew that didn't you? So, why kick it dead horse? (Well, yes, it does feel good sometimes but I digress)

I still want MSNBC to ban Juven permanently, which reminds me, I forgot to ask, HE JUVEN, did you march with your Neo-Nazi brothers in Arizona over the weekend?

Ok, back on topic.

Let's just let ALL the Bush tax breaks end and bank that money to help deal with the deficit.

Let 'em all DIE Mr. President.

Skip;

I hear you. Let the tax rates go back to President Clinton's era, cut out the fat and redundant policies and fraud in defense, DO NOT do anything that will put one soldier in harms way, go after Medicare and Medicaid fraud and waste. Get us out of both wars. Put the savings (at least some of it) back into the economy by creating infrastructure Jobs, Green Jobs, etc. Stop the tax loopholes that award companies to farm jobs out overseas, increase the cap on Social Security from 106,800 upward.

Just a place to start.

Once again, Nash, you said what I was thinking----our President works hard on our behalf, both domestically and internationally. I do wish he would be more visible---doing more presentations and speaking to keep more in the public eye.

Amen Navy, I'm with you brother, 100%.

JW, are you gagging? Does somebody need to give you a good hard swat to the back? The volunteers are lining up as we speak.

Hey, Fiesty, no pushing now, everybody is going to get a turn to slap the sh*t out of JW so he won't gag anymore.

JW.

OOoooo, is that what passes for wit in your part of fantasy land?

Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that.

(C'mon, admit it, you were really looking forward to all that spanking)

See, now that's clever!

JW,

Nice try but no cigar. I've been working since I was fourteen. That's 46 years. No one ever gave me a handout of any kind.

I have a difficult and challenginger job, but it is much like a fireman's job. It runs hot and cold, giving me time to have these wonderful conversations with you and your little friends.

No, I'm not asking for anything for myself. I'm doing well thank you.

I'm asking for understanding and help for the working poor and others less fortunate whose sad lot in life is made all the more miserable by greedy, heartless, "compassionate conservatives" like yourself.

You comfort yourself with that picture of the WELFARE QUEEN that you carry around in your head. You know the pregnant, unmarried black woman, living in subsidized housing with her six kids and buying beer and cigs with her food stamps. You know that one?

Of course it coudln't be further from the truth. The average recipient of public assistance is the working poor. Due to factors beyond their control they missed the train to the American dream and now have to struggle to support themselves and their families. Food stamps and other forms of public assistance help them to make life a little more bearable.

In fact, if you had bothered to read my earlier posts today you would know I'm not asking for anything. I've been saying all day to let ALL the Bush Tax cuts expire. ALL. Not just some. ALL.

Of course that wouldn't fit with your preconceived, Rush Limbaugh inspired notion would it?

But thanks for participating and better luck next time.

Sounds like you are still benefitting from the Tulsa riot. If you don't know what I am talking about then ask your grandpa and he will explain.............. A culture shock for me: was when I entered a Welfare office with a client of mine to sign her up for benefits and there were all white peolpe signing up for benefits and black people signing them up and working (I might add freely) I am confused about the stereotype you described in your comment. "welfare queen"

Jody,

They do not have any plans on how to move this country forward, just a re-write of the failed policies of the previous administration, so they need to talk about something.

America and the World is watching. I saw several articles over the weekend and Europe is trying to figure out why would a country want to go back to the same failed agenda they had before. They are laughing at us, big time. What we are doing or not doing, makes no sense to them at all.

US Navy. I hear you. Frustrating to see the party of no ideas continue to push the failed policies of Reagan and Bush 43 as new ideas when the collapse in 2008 should have put Reagan's voodoo economics in the ash can of failure.

I expect those legislators to earn their taxpayer-funded paychecks and I expect them to put aside politics, party and work for the people.

They haven't so far... I think that is a good indication of things to happen in the lame duck session...

It will be interesting to see what kind of bribes they give out to the Blue Dogs to try to force their plans on us before inauguration day rolls around...

witt22,

If you paid taxes last year you did get money from our President in the form of lower taxes.

How soon they forget.

jody iowa - ain't gonna happen!

businesses think 5 -20 years down the road

China and india think 5 - 20 years down the road

Politicians think only to the next election. Break the cycle promote 4 yr terms for the house and maximum 12 years of service for house members and senators.

US Navy - If you paid taxes last year you did get money from our President in the form of lower taxes.

What are you saying, Obama gave us money? Who's money? You mean he didn't take as much money from us.

that's right thetotas, he didn't take as much money from the middle class as previous years. Isn't that what all the fighting is about? can't run a business if you make over a million dollars without lower taxes?

What I found frustrating about the way the media reported the Colbert appearance on Capital Hill was the fact they did not bother to report the final portion of it in which he testified about immigrants and the need to do something. My guess is few people knew anything beyond the mockery the media made of it.

Care to back that up with some evidence of voter fraud?

There is a lot of money to made off of immigration, just ask the Arizona police force and the privatized prison system.

You just cut spending by about 5%. You also decreased revenue by about 65%.

Yeah, problem sure is solved. You just drove us into economic extinction, nice work.

This scheme sounds like it penalizes the people that are productive while it gives a bigger and bigger safety net to those that aren't. When did we start rewarding poor performance and penalizing success? So sad.....

If your success is created in an economic environment created by deficit spending and international borrowing, then your "success" is only partially yours, until the debt bills have been paid back in full. It's called personal responsibility.

Mutabe;

We starting rewarding those that did not perform when we paid huge bonus to CEO's on Wall Street for putting this country in the dumpster.

I'm so sick of Republicans talking about tax cuts all the time. When the economy is booming, we need tax cuts so that we don't slow economic growth and when we're in a recession, we need tax cuts to get out of the recession. WHEN DO WE EVER NEED TO RAISE TAXES!? The answer is not never, it's the primary way the government acquires money to pay for things that we all like, Republicans included. If are against raising taxes for the wealthy under any circumstances, then you are not someone who believes in fiscal responsibility. You can not balance the budget simply by cutting, especially when we're in the middle of two wars. Having tax rates linked to unemployment sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Conservatives constantly say that the wealthy create jobs in this country and that's true. So, when we're at around 10% unemployment nationally, jobs are being lost or sent overseas, that isn't productivity to me. Besides, raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't equal a "safety net to those who aren't productive". Taxes pay for everything, not just social programs. Don't we all like things like bridges, roads, Medicare, Social Security, the military? That's right, let's not forget that the military is funded by tax dollars.

It's called personal responsibility

If only it were applied to all persons. You're scheme is so one-sided it's laughable.

We clearly started rewarding failure when we bailed out Wallstreet and AIG, under Paulson, Bush, Cheney. And stranger yet, the RATINGS agencies who gave junk paper AAA ratings never got prosecuted for the FRAUD they perpetrated on us the American taxpayers, and investors around the globe.

Paul, perhaps you are wearing your tin foil hat backwards today:

You forgot the highest bracket of all, you know the one that taxes anyone named Cheney a thousand-billion-trillion percent.

LMAO@U!!!!!

Chef Dumbass

What has been one-sided has been the waging of economic warfare upon the middle class of this country, by the elite. Outsourcing jobs and deficit spending while reducing the tax burden for the richest amongst us will leave the service industry slaves holding the bag of debt when the elite renounce their own citizenship to join the Global Plutocracy. The false prosperity of the last four decades has allowed the already rich to raid the credit rating of this nation to line their own pockets. Now as the bill comes do, they want to be able to avoid being 'responsible' for paying back that debt.

Fine. We'll allow you to stipulate that the revenue generated from taxation rates above 50% must be used to pay down the national debt. None can go to the "handouters".

Problem solved.

Paul,

Is plutocracy your new favorite word?

You libs seem to want to address only half the issue, raising the taxes. We sit at 10% unemployment and UE benefits get extended to 99 weeks. So 10% of the people can NOT produce for damn near 2 years. Here's a thought, look at the f#$*ing want ads. Plenty of jobs to be had. Plenty of production to be done. Oh, but wait, you libs don't care about that, you want to take from those that do produce.

Nice name calling there as well. You're a child.

Hey Paul,

You think corporation and businesses are currupt and that the wealthy need to be peanlized because of the economic situation?

Why don't you invest all of your life saving to start a business, stick to your moral code of ethics and hire more people than you need at a pay rate higher than they deserve. (Because this america and the wealthy should bend over backwards to help those "lesss fortunate" right)

Now once you've done this try and figure out why you have run your new company into the ground? Why you aren't successful at it? Why you can't feed you family and have lost all of your savings?

Here I'll save you some time, you'll have failed because you can only produce a product so long as there is demand for it. It makes no sense to hire more people than you need to fill that demand and anything more than that takes away for your profit; i.e. what you and your family have to live on.

Further you will only sell your product at a competitive price, so you have to limit the amout of overhead put into producing that product; you know wages, raw materials, etc.

If you can't remain competitive with other companies in other countries producing the same product for less money, then your business will fail....

Are you starting to get the picture. If you want to stop out sourcing jobs, we need to start taxing imports from other countries, making it less affordable for american countries to ship jobs over seas. then we need to reform our current tax laws to make them more firendly towards business development.

I've said this beofre and I'll say it again, take your foil hat off.

Brutus, would it be OK with you if the wealthy paid taxes in proportion to their share of income? That would be OK with me.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/04/19/social-class-and-the-tax-burden/

Brutus: It took you a long time to focus on one of the causes of outsourcing. You're a little slow but at least you keep trying.

John B.- I dont have any problem with EVERYONE paying a fair proportion of their income. That is why I am in favor of a flat tax rate with no deductions. I think if everyone in the country actually paid taxes we'd be far better off than we are.

An example: Last year a woman I know who was going to school and working only part time paid no income taxes because she didn't earn enough. Right, I have no problem with that per se, what I have a problem with is that She got a $6500 income tax refund check from the govt for the interest that had accumulated on student loans she hadn't even started paying for yet.

Does that both anyone else? I know that's not an isolated incident, I imagine that happens a lot.

And Paul, you missed the point entirely. I never said we needed to tax the rich. I said the opposite in fact. What I said is that we need to drop the progressive free trade agreements and start instituting tariffs again for all imports. This will promote American companies to keep their manufacturing here in the country and also make those employers more competitive with the Asian markets. You know, where cheap labor abounds because there is no regulation.....

Nice that you call me slow though, get back on your meds man.

Brutus: Thanks for proving my point, that you're a little slow. The tarriffs issue was addressed late in you earlier post, as I had intimated. You don't think that the unfair trade policies, insufficient tarriffs for imports to America and exports to the world across the seas we protect, were an accident do you? I would expect a slow response.

Your comment is proof in a belief that only conservatives know when the country is moving in the right/wrong direction and that is completely untrue. It is all relevant to the prism in which you reside because guess what there are many who believe that conservatives move the country in the wrong direction. Compromise is not suicide, failure to compromise for the good of all, failure to find concensus in the middle is suicide.

So, let's just create more debt? That's the answer?

I agree. Keep the tax cuts in place AND make the politicians make the necessary cuts to balance our budget. The politicians got us into this mess.....now they can make the tough decisions to get us out!!

Ok, so what would you have the politicians cut from our budget to bring about deficit reductions? I hear this crap from conservatives all the time about keeping the tax cuts and requiring cuts to the budget, but none can specifically identify what big ticket items to cut. No republican will endorse cutting entitlements aside from welfare because they know they will lose a majority of americans if they even hint at gutting S.S. and medicare. The seniors would drop them like a pair of full depends and the rest of the country will look at them the same way I do now, like a bunch of hypocrites.

The truth is that all of the tax cuts should expire, we should push for spending cuts in all entitlement programs and we should extricate ourselves from the black hole of wars that we find ourselves in across the globe. Since South Korea doesn't want to sign a balanced free trade agreement, we should remove all of our troops from the DMZ and see how they feel about that. No point in helping out a country that doesn't want to reciprocate for the right reasons.

There are many places that we can cut to help the budget, but the tax rate reduction should expire or we should look at a more progressive and fair tax plan to correct the massive loopholes and crooked tax plan that currently exists. In addition, I am in the military and feel that our budget is ridiculous. We have so much waste, fraud, and abuse that I sometimes feel that we are the fourth branch of government. Just like all other facets of our economy and spending programs, we could use a little trimming to improve efficiency as well. If we intend on continuing to ask the general population to tighten their reins, we should set an example and do the same in the DOD.

Da Noid..

The democrats are the ones that Created the Debt with their spending...

Steve, but what do you consider 2 unfunded wars and 10 years of tax breaks? I am pretty certain that the republicans had the most impact on those 2 fronts. But I guess you actually think that the oil revenues paid for the wars and that the big businesses and wealthy reinvested to those tax breaks into the country to pay for the cuts too? You must be a Palin supporter if that is your mentality. Try holding your own accountable as I hold my side responsible just as much as yours. It is just like so many other conservatives that think that their side has done nothing to impact the situation we find ourselves in right now.

And there it is, selective memory....Steve tells us it was the democrats who caused all the debt. Reagan doubled the debt, Bush doubled it yet again but Steve has the audacity to claim it was the democrats. There are those who simply cannot accept the facts because they are contrary to their core belief that republicans are fiscally responsible when the opposite has been true since Reagan took them to their shining city on a hill.

Steve,

Look a little closer at the Bush administration. In eight years, he took us from a surplus to a budget deficit. No matter how much Republicans want to blame democrats for the deficit, it is undeniable that under George W. Bush's spending increased dramtically on things like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as tax cuts for the wealthy which will hopefully not be extended.

J. Wesley,

You might want to include your sources if you are going to post things that are incorrect. Where the hell did you get the $47 billion surplus figure from? I even found a conservative source that disagrees with what you've posted. Seriously, do you ever do any research or do you just spout random stuff you found on the internet? On a website called "The Myth of the Clinton Surplus": http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16. This chart clearly shows that even if you want to argue it was only a "projected surplus", it was still a move in the right direction. We were on the way to balance the budget. Look at the deficit for the Clinton years on this chart. The deficit increased by 1.2 trillion dollars while he was in office. By contrast, the Bush administration took our debt from less than $6 trillion to over $10 trillion dollars. How did Clinton manage this? Read this from WIkipedia:

"A major problem with the economy at the time was the issue of the massive deficit and the problem of government spending. In order to address these issues, in August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses.^[30] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years and the deficit be reduced.^[31] This was to be achieved through the implementation of spending restraints."

He raised taxes early on his presidency and look at the results he had. I'm not here to defend Clinton. I'm just saying we need to be able to learn from recent history.

The tax cuts will be extended. and it is Congress that spend money not the president. and pelosi and the rest of the Democrats that have controlled congress have Added 5 TRILLION dollars of debt since 2007 when they got control of congress..

What about the two unfunded wars, two unfunded tax cuts and one unfunded prescription drug plan that created the huge deficit (1.3 Trillion) that President Obama inherited from the republicans??

And we are still paying off this bill that the republicans ran up, Not President Obama as the republican/tea party is now trying to blame. Not buying it and neither is America any more. They are starting to ask questions.

Navy..

5 Trillion dollars since Nancy and the democrats took control of congress in 2007 thats 3 years.. .. 5 Trillion dollars. and most of it went to bail out UNIONS.................

OMG, the stupidity on display here is numbing.

If you don't put your Medicare Prescription Drugs in the budget AND you don't put any funding for two wars in the budget,...you MAY actually have been able to show a BUDGET surplus. BUT THAT IS A LIE,...as those expenses were being paid through supplementals.

Obama put all of it in his first budget and OF COURSE there was a friggin' deficit. Get a flippin' clue, dumas'.

If you don't understand these big concepts,...revert to type, like njnb and js1 and just bash the President; but quit acting like Bush didn't leave the entire country on the verge of bankruptcy.

The Republican strategy of mutually assured destruction has proven out, time and again. They claim government is the problem, and then when they gain power - the prove their own theory by starving the beast.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

bush, my 401k is doing fine. What happened to yours?

Mine too.

What do you consider the "fair share"?

Morals, honor, integrity, all hard to come by these days. I am neither wealthy or elite, I really think eilite people are very insecure and I choose to be me. It is soooo funny how the "elite" put their nose in the air at the average American citizen.

What happen to America - where each person had personal responsibility?

Glad to see all you cat's are doing well, you failed to grasp the point I was trying to make, and alas people of your mind set never will, at least you got yours that's the main thing, to you anyway.

So you talk in circles and we miss your point? And then it's our fault?

Typical libbie.

Dem constituents would be even happier to have gridlock, rather than give anymore cuts to the rich. Let the repugs cry foul. Who cares? I dont think it would pass the senate muster.

Yes that top 20% click is a tight knit bunch, and they make all the rules, and those rules are designed to protect and enrich the top 20%, that's why rules and laws will never correct the injustice seen in the U.S., some other means will have to be employed to stop the tranny.

Well said. It is beyond me how voters could choose to return to power those who caused the worse financial collapse since the Great Depression. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, how true that proved to be Nov 2. People and conservatives failed to learn from the mess Reagan left and decided to allow Bush 43 to make an even greater mess; at least Regan realized his tax cuts were destroying the country even if it was too little, too late.

Mark. We have had the cuts for over eight years and despite that we lost jobs at the highest rate since the great depression, and why would extending them make any difference now?

I like what I'm hearing from both sides, it seams to me that they are finally going to start working together for the country, although a little reluctantly, but a win is a win!!!

Mark, if a 3 percentage point increase in that portion of your income above $250,000 is sufficient to cause you to reduce youre income by 20% then your math skills are suspect at best.

The idea that 98% of us owe some fealty to the top 2% is among the most ridiculous of Conservative narratives. Fine, take your ball and go home in the haze of self-importance brought on by your "Atlas Shrugged" fantasy. This is America, you think for a minute someone else won't step in to fill the gap?

I LOVE this argument from "the wealthy"... "If you don't extend the Bush tax cuts, I am going to work less and then the economy will suffer." Wow, Mark D, you think pretty highly of yourself and your singular effect on the economy. I have no idea you had so much power. From you're complaining, It sounds like you could use a good vacation. Why don't you take more like two days off a week. I can guarantee you there is someone out there who is willing to work while you're away. Why don't you hire some of the people who are unemployed and REALLY suffering right now. Wealthy people really do think the world revolves around them. It's staggering sometimes. Get over yourself man.

John B, You put it very succinctly. I've always marveled at the proposition that people will stop trying to earn more money, because there are costs required.

Refusing to accept an additional dollar because it costs 30, 50 or 60 cents to earn it shows a remarkable lack of sefl-interest and a low tolerance for risk-taking - two by-words of the conservatives' mantra of entrepenurial enterprise.

Show me the business model whose gross equals net, and I'll show you a fairy tale.

"But you libbie don't do history, do you?"

Sure we do. The top marginal tax rate was 90% when JFK cut taxes. Now it's not much more than 1/3 that. Completely different situation, so much different that the top 20% pay approximately HALF as much as the rest of us as a proportion of their total share of income. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/04/19/social-class-and-the-tax-burden/

We should feel sorry for them? They're the most UNDERTAXED folks in the nation.

good riddance, if you don't love this country enough to pay your share of taxes, go live somewhere else. I don't know why these regan communists took so long to get out, must have been hard to see thought their big crocodile tears that their bonus was only 9 million this year.

See, that's the problem weasly, the Conservatives have come to think of nearly everyone as a parasite and the wealthy owners as the only people of worth. Is there some reason a job that has to be done should pay below poverty level? Is there some reason the very wealthy "deserved" a pay increase of 256% in 30 years when the middle fifth received 21%? Go if you must, the rest of us just want an equal chance to rise to the top. The class warfare the very wealthy have waged against the rest of us is destroying the economy. They're killing the Capitalist goose that laid all those golden eggs when we WERE the envy of the world.

Karl Marx is looking for me? I'm a Capitalist myself, dude, and the entrepreneurial spirit is a lot more successful when the financial industry isn't spinning paper into gold for themselves at the expense of everyone else. It's a lot more successful when people are educated at a level that makes them capable of competent thought and action in the workplace. It's a lot more successful when our infrastructure is maintained at a level that allows efficient commerce. It's a lot more successful when the oligarchs aren't free to crush smaller, competing businesses.

When were we the envy of the world? When the average worker made enough money to be a CONSUMER instead of a SURVIVOR.

Compromise? The only compromise the Dixiecrat-Republicans know is "my way or the highway". They have repeatedly demonstrated that. When GWB was appointed president with fewer populer votes they said he had a "mandate". We can be sure that the war on the middle class will continue with cuts in lower and middle class safety nets and no cuts for the rich. Did you notice McConnel's heartfelt plea for "fairness" in granting tax cuts to all Americans. You know who he had in mind. Funny to hear the wailings of the tea party against "redistribution of wealth" when we've had it since Reagan. But redistribution from the bottom and the middle to the top is "good"; it's only bad when the rich are called upon to pay their fair share.