glad you can wait, i cant. i want this bill passed, idc about the tax cuts, idc about Bernie Sanders, idc about the republican congress. you sit there and talk about balancing a budget, and not doing this and not doing that. do you have a job right now? your answer is probably going to be yes. was i laid off due to nothing of my own fault? YES! have i been out looking for new employment? YES! have i at least been productive while unemployed?? YES!!! i have been going to school and earning a degree of higher learning. republicans have this uncanny idea that just because i dont have wealth, i didnt work hard enough, or i didnt do this or didnt do that. i have worked since i was 16, i have not drawn unemployment until recently, and i deserve any extension. im not saying give it to everyone, just give it to ppl like me who are trying to turn everything into a positive.

...we can wait until the republican congress takes over next month and produces the spending cuts necessary to balance the budget....no really, they will.

@Rick, WS, NC -

You are such an optimist!. YOu noticed how the Repbulicans yelled about deficit spending all summer/fall and them jumped on extending the tax cuts for the rich ( and everyone else ?) the minute they got a deal?

I doubt ANYONE wants to balance the budget. I expect that the entire budget discussions was a red herring used for the past election cycle. It got you all worked up, didn't it? And then you went out and voted Republican to put a stop on that spender Obama right?

Perhaps you think the Tea Party folks will change Washington right? Just like Obama was going to change Washington as well?

The States HAVE to have a balanced budget every year...Be happy with that and have a Merry Christmas

I just hope that you capitalize those "I's" and ditch the text lingo ("idc" means what in English? "ppl"?) in the resumes and cover letters you send out.

Plus if you have not drawn unemployment until recently you should be in fine shape for another 99 plus months without an extension. Cause see, my business' rates on all forms of insurance continue to go up.

99 months? check that...

what majical spending cuts are you going to make rick even pauls 500billion pipe dream of cuts fall short without more revnue. the only aswer is let the tax cut that should have never been made expire and then take a look at the budjet for realistic cuts. do you have any idea where the govt would be without the misguided leadership of bushx2 and reagan. the answer is thriving

Nobody will actually attempt to balance the budget. You promise to cut spending to get votes. You spend us into debt to keep them.

Spanky.. you wrote...

Plus if you have not drawn unemployment until recently you should be in fine shape for another 99 plus months without an extension.

WHAT FRICKEN PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON PAL?

Eight and One Quarter Years of UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION? WHERE DO I SIGN UP FOR THAT???

Wake up Spanky! You need to get your stuff together BEFORE you start criticizing anyone about capitalizing their i's. And even I could figure out idc means I Don't Care, as in: idc about ignorant commenters like Spanky!

Mr. Dave, GOOD LUCK and I hope something works out for you soon in spite of the Senate, the Republicans and people like Spanky! I'm in much the same boat you are. GOOD LUCK Mr. Dave!!!

I'm really disappointed with all of your comments.

1. We DO receive services for our taxes! Y

You might not like the services or utilize the services or think they're efficiently provided but you DO receive benefits. Cheap food policy, transportation flexibility, an international image of "don't f@#k with us" national defense, a supplemental retirement (albeit needs restructuring to sustain itself), a cheap labor force mandated by the wealthy executives (unless of course you're the cheap labor) and fostered by congress, national park management, waterway security and maintenance,

Of course, maybe you WANT our lakes, streams, and earth so polluted by a greedy mf@#kr so your own children only live to 55, like our life expectancy was, 50 years ago.

I've worked with the wealthy this past quarter of a century. Get a grip they don't give a flying f@#k about this country, the land, their community, their brother or sister only about whether they have another million to steal from the people that actually make them the money in the first place.

You're a shrewd weathy person aren't you. So my tax dollars can subsidize your labor force because you don't pay them enough. How much is enough?

JayCFO, after rereading your post I'm not completely sure whether you are being direct or sarcastic. But, I will take your comments as direct, and say...

RIGHT ON BROTHER! The RICH don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and their own wealth! That's why BERNIE MADOFF should be the new Icon of the Republican Party to replace the Elephant.

After all the elephant is only known as one who never forgets

Whereas the Madoff is well known as one who NEVER GETS ENOUGH FOR HIMSELF! And that is more representative of the Republicans and their Rich Masters!

P.S. JayCFO, a word of advice. Don't just copy and paste your same comment over and over again in this vine. The monitors will suspend you for Spamming if you keep doing that. Seriously!

thanks for the heads up

I don't know what alternate universe you have been living in. Everytime the Republicans get asked what they will cut they fudge with generalities. The only cuts that would make a significant dent would be in the area of military spending which is a 3rd rail they won't touch. Check the budget numbers, Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Benefits, Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt is almost the entire budget. The remainder is noise level and that's what they want us to believe will fix everything.

its real funny now eveybodys worried about the deficet dont forget its the GOP that got us into this whole mess in the first place

Actually, to address Spanky's comment... The extension of unemployment is not extended to everyone for 99 weeks. When they neglected to extend the benefits this month, most people who stopped receiving the benefits were ones who were only covered the normal 26 weeks through the state. Last I looked, that was no where near 96 weeks. 800,000 Floridians lost their benefits two weeks ago who were only on unemployment for 26 weeks.

Gotta love when posters don't know what they're typing about...

A banana republic is also characterised by a ruling class that curtails people's personal freedoms and is moving towards a heavyhanded military dictatorship under the excuse of fighting guerrilla (or terrorist) opposition groups or enemies. Moreover, the fact that the ruling class or the elite comes from different political parties isn't a relevant factor in classifying a country as a banana republic; what is relevant is the determination of the elite, irrespective of which party its members belong to, to shift wealth from the majority of the people (the masses) to themselves, usually through simply printing money and incurring chronic budget deficits, and frequently also through senseless warfare.

peel

The upper rate is only a 4% cut not ten. The rate would rise to 39% from the current 35%. The middle class rate is the big winner with the higher percentage cut. Perhaps you should do some research.

archangel: Research would entail learning facts that don't support preconceived notions. You are correct of course. Many people enjoyed cuts that allowed them to fall off the federal income tax rolls all together and yet they still continue to enjoy all the protections provided by the federal government without paying one thin dime for them.

So Archangel are you telling me that on $1,000,000 of income you won't get $104,000 back in taxes???
You need to check your facts because mine are correct!!!

Peel-Layer, how do you figure saving 10%? First of all, the rate is what they are paying now, so their tax liability will be the same as it is today, which is only 4% lower than what it would be if they expire. So I would think they are saving around $40K. They will also save around $2k in the social security break since only the first $106k is taxed on Social Security anyway, that would total around $42k.

I guess I'm not as smart as you but I don't understand your math. Please explain..

Peel-Layer,

If the tax cuts do expire, then the lowest percentage base right now, will go from 10% to 15%, which means those people will pay an extra 5% more on their salaries.

But lets look at the rates for 2011 without the extensions.

Single-0 to $35,020 & Married up to $70,040 will pay 15%

Single-$25,021 to $84,872 & married from $70,041 to $141,419 will pay 28%

Single--up to $177,006 & married up to $215,528 will pay 31%

Single--up to $384,860 & married up to $384,860 will pay 36%

While both groups over that will pay 39%

But even more, capital gains taxes will go from 15% to 20% for the upper part, while the lowest tax brackets will get hit from 0 to 10% increases.

They are doing away with the 25% bracket if the extensions are not passed.

So the poor will see an increase of 5% on income taxes and 10% on capital gains taxes. So in simple math, they would save about 15% in total taxes.

And you lefty's complain about GOP spins. Your numbers are false, we did this yesterday. So we'll do it again.



OK Peel-Layer - let's use your fictisious 3 person economy as an example to show you just how warped you are. Each of the three people will be single, claiming no deductions or exemptions - just to have a level comparison.

• Mr. A makes 50k in 2010 and will owe $5,944 in federal tax, which is 11.9% of his economy.
• Ms. B makes 100k in 2010 and will owe $19,091 - which is 19.1% of her economy.
• Mr. C makes 1MM in 2010 and will owe $324,371 - which is 32.4% of his economy.

However, when you look at their economy as a whole, adding things together and looking at the percentage of the total pie that each represents - it sheds a different and more accurate light.

• While Mr. A makes only 4.3% of all the money - he also only pays 1.7% of all the taxes
• Ms. B makes 8.7% of all the money - but she pays 5.5% of all the taxes
• And Mr. C makes 87% of the money - but pays 92.8% of all the taxes.

Now, lets go out on a limb and take your "facts" at face value. Mr. A gives up another $1,000 to Uncle Sam, Ms. B another $2,000 and money bags Mr. C has to cough up another measly $104,000.

• Mr. A still only makes only 4.3% of all the money - but now he only pays 1.5% of all the taxes, or 13.9% of his economy
• Ms. B still only makes 8.7% of all the money - but she pays 4.6% of all the taxes, or 21.1% of her economy
• Mr. C still only makes 87% of the money - but now pays 93.9% of all the taxes - or 42.8% of his economy.

In this simple example, Mr. A sees an increase in taxes paid of 16.8% ($6944 vs. $5944), Ms. B 10.5% ($21091 vs $19091), and Mr. C of 32.1% ($428371 vs $324371).

I hate to confuse you with the facts, but, they are indeed stubborn things... Perhaps it is the failing of our school system - where the "concept of fairness" (biased by perspective) has become more important than basic math and, God forbid, logic...

The taxes owed in this example were taken from http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxMargin.html - go see for yourself.

This is absolutely an Us versus Them battle - but many have been confused into believing it is Left vs. Right, when in my opinion it is people vs. politicians (the ruling elite, who think that they know what is best for us). Don't be a useful idiot for them.

And, most of all, get your hand out of my pocket!

You should get your math straight about an economy and realize you are receiving a service at a price.

I'm really disappointed with all of your comments.

1. We DO receive services for our taxes! Y

You might not like the services or utilize the services or think they're efficiently provided but you DO receive benefits. Cheap food policy, transportation flexibility, an international image of "don't f@#k with us" national defense, a supplemental retirement (albeit needs restructuring to sustain itself), a cheap labor force mandated by the wealthy executives (unless of course you're the cheap labor) and fostered by congress, national park management, waterway security and maintenance,

Of course, maybe you WANT our lakes, streams, and earth so polluted by a greedy mf@#kr so your own children only live to 55, like our life expectancy was, 50 years ago.

I've worked with the wealthy this past quarter of a century. Get a grip, they don't give a flying f@#k about this country, the land, their community, their brother or sister only about whether they have another million to steal from the people that actually make them the money in the first place.

You're a shrewd weathy person aren't you. So my tax dollars can subsidize your labor force because you don't pay them enough tobe able to live, let alone be able to purchase the very products they produce. How much is enough for you be happy you greedy little motherf#$ker?

great job livefree post 3.7

Oh, the republicans have called it quits, who are the adults going to be.

Louisiana: Which adults would that be? Surly you are not talking about the Republicans??

One half of the House of Reps and virtually all the Senate are millionaires. Who is looking out for the middle class? Adults?

I think Don is talking about the "adults" whose party committee is currently 15 million dollars in debt.

Wait... adults? John Boner was crying like a little girl the other day, It certainly didn't look like an adult to me.

And what Adult might that be cause it sure is not an adult that would decide for a family not to be taken care of, not put them in worse shape than they already are, oh yeah we are talking about the Republicans right,don't make me fall out of my chair I am laughing SO HARD!!

You mean cry baby Boehner? HA! And "Let me check my pulse to see if I'm alive" McConnell?

Yes- let the adults 'fix' it.

Like they did 10 years ago. Oh, wait- you mean you are NOT talking about the deficit??

Never mind.

You mean those adults that whine and cry that they are not listened to and threaten not to do any thing until they get theirs while everyone else gets ******....the ones that no only one word "NO"....those ones that champion their patriotism but wont help the true patriots who worked on the WTC pile? Those adults should be dressed in diapers! The CRYBABIES that follow their crybaby leader!

Yeah I can see cry baby Boner and Gwen Beck getting together on Saturday nights to have cry off's with each other while they stare at themselves in the mirror. Maybe they brush each others hair afterwards.

• HAS ANYONE HERE EVER CONSIDERED THAT a better icon for the Republican Party, than the Elephant, might be the smiling face of Bernie Madoff?
• Just asking!

I'm really disappointed with all of your comments.

1. We DO receive services for our taxes! Y

You might not like the services or utilize the services or think they're efficiently provided but you DO receive benefits. Cheap food policy, transportation flexibility, an international image of "don't f@#k with us" national defense, a supplemental retirement (albeit needs restructuring to sustain itself), a cheap labor force mandated by the wealthy executives (unless of course you're the cheap labor) and fostered by congress, national park management, waterway security and maintenance,

Of course, maybe you WANT our lakes, streams, and earth so polluted by a greedy mf@#kr so your own children only live to 55, like our life expectancy was, 50 years ago.

I've worked with the wealthy this past quarter of a century. Get a grip they don't give a flying f@#k about this country, the land, their community, their brother or sister only about whether they have another million to steal from the people that actually make them the money in the first place.

You're a shrewd weathy person aren't you. So my tax dollars can subsidize your labor force because you don't pay them enough to be able to even buy the products or service you provide. How much is enough?

The same adults who chose to take their bat and balls and go home, and then sell millions of American sheeple on the story that they were "shut out" of the process by the other guys?

The same adults who use 9/11 first responders in countless political commercials and speeches as symbols of what is best in our country, then refuse to give those same heroic first responders health care and survival aid for their 9/11 illnesses?

The same adults who gripe about extending a helping hand of millions of dollars to people on the edge of survival, but who vote to let millionaires keep billions of dollars against a pinprick of loss?

Yes, the same adults who snarl dismissively at RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) who want to help real, live people while they reveal themselves to be CINOs (Christians in Name Only).

Jesus said, "that which ye do for the least of these, ye do fo me." Well, those of who who sit here and mock and judge and condescend to those of generous hearts and sharing instincts, who are snarling dogs over their tiny little bones (meant figuratively in two ways), should ponder WWJT - What Would Jesus Think of you?

For those of you who are not yet above $250+ incomes and who sit here and whimper on behalf of the poor, put-upon wealthy - you sound like the desperate-to-be-popular kids in school who actually believed the more scheming of the popular kids. But while you sell out the middle class 'schlubs' just remember, the wealthy won't let you come to their parties and pal around with them even though you let them f*@k you.

The only class warfare being waged in this country is by the ones screaming the loudest accusations about it, in classic misdirection strategy = the Republicans against the middle class and poor.

Hey, McConnell and Boehner, why don't you give up your government-provided healthcare FIRST, before you take it from others?

You should have caught CA Republican senate candidate Carly Fiorina when she was asked on camera what programs she would cut to balance the budget . She could not come up with a single one. Lest you think that was the leftist media doing that to her, it was on Fox News.

BlackHillsLaura

Brilliantly stated! ***APPLAUDS***

You shut up!!!

I'd rather have nothing and pay off the deficit!!!

You stop stealing along with your RepubliThugs.

I say don't pass it and allow for all of the cuts to expire!!!

That is the only grown up thing to do.

You greedy bastards destroyed this country with your Bush Era Tactics!!!

You tell em Peel, our country is at stake, it's time for us to stop being so polite and diplomatic with them.

Don't Give ......You'd better get back to work - you could get fired for stealing your employer's time by surfing the Internet.

too bad I am a registered DEM in the sunshine state, I am the employer/boss, I need some maids you want a job? I would prefer to stimulate the economy and get people like you off the govt payroll.

I guess you were trying to insult someone by asking them if they wanted to be a maid but there is no shame in making an honest living. I respect house maids a lot more than I do trust fund babies.

penguin...I'm really not maid material...but do you need a gardener? I've been out of work nearly 2 years and am willing to work! Seems like 54 y/o white men expect a living wage y'all think so I don't even get interviews. Guess it's a BAD thing to have 20+ years experience at something.

yes we do. We have garden plots, fruit trees and flower beds that need attention. Out in NM our fence line always needs repair. I was not trying to insult anyone, I promised my wife a maid on a regular basis. She is using a chain service. I want to hire my own personnel.

Obammy and his minions did this to the country but you still want to blame Bush. Everything is Bush's fault right. In Nov the people spoke and in 2012 we will again. Vote out more libs and RINO's.

Louisiana Don: So none of this recession and housing mess started during the Bush Admin. Right? What a fool you seem to be.

No so much a fool verno, I think he's just another disillusioned Republican. Just like the Nazis, they just don't seem to get the bad things their party is doing.

I think we should call it 'trickle down politics', it just doesn't work.

i agree very disillusioned!!

blondiesez

The Republican deficits ran from 0 to about 260, billion between 2000 and 2006. It wasn't until 2007 when polarity in congress shifted that the deficits nearly doubled. 2007 and 2008 were around 460 billion each, 2009 was projected around 350 billion but sky rocketed to over 1.5 trillion once Obama took office. So your analysis is a bit off. The lion share of debt was incurred on the Democrats watch and even though it may look like irresponsible spending, it in fact wasn't and the programs that were funded, like no child left behind and Medicare part D were successful. If they were so bad and irresponsible then why did these programs receive overwhelming bipartisan support? Why were they not attacked when Democrats took the majority, or later when they had a super majority? The tax cuts weren't a problem until the Democrats recognized that they would have to borrow enormous sums to support their new social programs. Give it a rest already, I am tired of the pot calling the kettle black.

All of you are out in left field. It was and still is the bank's fault.

What would Saint Regan do?

Oh, yeah- run up a deficit. A BIG one.

verno

The bubble actually started under Clinton. During Bush's administration, the President warned congress something like 17 separate times that Fannie and Freddie were overstepping their bounds and would become trouble. His first warnings were included in the 2001 budget well before the market came apart. The economy was in recession when Bush took office, that is why he asked for tax cuts in 2001 and received them with overwhelming support from both parties, the vote in 2003 added little to the cuts, but did put them in force immediately rather than phase them in over time. The net effect was that unemployment that was rising peaked at 6.3% in 2003 then fell to 4.7%until mid 2007 when things started coming apart. Bush's spending was less than Clinton's, his father's, and Reagan's as a percentage of GDP and the national debt was lower in percentage to GDP than Clinton's by almost 9%. His deficit spending was higher than Clinton's by 1.2% but less than half of his father's and Reagan's deficits. So actually you see that Bush had very little to do with the melt down, most of the blame falls on two distinct events. First the partial repeal of Glass/Steagle which allowed investment and savings banks to merge with each other and insurance companies and second was the encouragement given by the Federal Government to make loans to borrows who would not have been able to secure a mortgage previously. Both of these incidents took place before he was elected and sworn into office.

Banks with democrat regulations wanting to get more people into home loans.

With too many buyers the price went up. People saw the rich buy a home & sell it after a few years for more, so they tried the same. We saw $150,000 homes selling for $400,000. We saw buyers offering more than the asking price. All because the dems set up Fanny & Freddy to cover all loans made.

Jon

You are correct. In 1968 when Johnson and congress move Social Security into the regular budget pool, that was the beginning of the crisis. Up until then the trust was showing huge surpluses for every year because there were 8 or 10 people paying in for every one recipient. Congress made the assumption that things would continue on this track indefinitely but made a grave miscalculation by doing so. The average survival age grew to over 75 years old and the birth rate began dropping so that there weren't the numbers of workers to pay into the system that were there previously. We are now at a rate of like 3 to 1 a significant drop. We still would have been fine but for the maneuvering that has happened and the raids for cash made on Social Security. Congress is going to stall until the last minute so they can package all their unfinished business into on enormous bill and try to get as many agenda items passed at one time as they can. This includes the measure proposed by Harry Reid to legalize online Poker gambling which would hand billions of dollars to the two or three largest gaming interests in the country (all of which donated huge amounts of money to his campaign) and would create a score or more new enforcement problems and hundreds of new scam opportunities.

Archangel

Love your comments. You da man!!!

I have posted similar writings many times over the past months that's how they paid for the Viet Nam War.

I would put the Social Security and the Medicare money into the Federal Reserve Bank and allow the big banks to do their over night transactions and pay a little interest towards both programs. I would also think that a 1 or 2% increase in the taxes for both of these programs for a period of two years would help build up the funding.

But most of all congress has to stop spending this money on any other programs.

Your funny, it was Bush, senior that comingled the Social Security/Medicare funds with the budget and now here we are, debating the merits of a bill that puts more dollars into the hands of those that least need it. I understand what you're saying, those people will hire more workers at a very good wage, won't they? I understand you want me, the worker, to subsidize you wealthy f#$ks even more because you deserve it right? because you create jobs, not the consumer's demand. What a great bait and switch artist you are.

I'm really disappointed with all of your comments.

1. We DO receive services for our taxes! Y

You might not like the services or utilize the services or think they're efficiently provided but you DO receive benefits. Cheap food policy, transportation flexibility, an international image of "don't f@#k with us" national defense, a supplemental retirement (albeit needs restructuring to sustain itself), a cheap labor force mandated by the wealthy executives (unless of course you're the cheap labor) and fostered by congress, national park management, waterway security and maintenance,

Of course, maybe you WANT our lakes, streams, and earth so polluted by a greedy mf@#kr so your own children only live to 55, like our life expectancy was, 50 years ago.

I've worked with the wealthy this past quarter of a century. Get a grip, they don't give a flying f@#k about this country, the land, their community, their brother or sister only about whether they have another million to steal from the people that actually make them the money in the first place.

You're a shrewd weathy person aren't you. So my tax dollars can subsidize your labor force because you don't pay them enough to even live, let alone be able to buy the products they make. How much is enough for you greedy m#$kers?

Yes. It's like my wife spending $500 over our fixed monthly budget at the store but telling me "it was on sale...I saved money"

Grinspoon97

Can you afford more money each week to be taken from your pay check? You do realize that not only the Bush cuts were going to expire, but the ones that were in the Stimulus package that reduced payroll withholding as well? That the actual raise in your taxes would have been between five and ten percent depending on your tax bracket? You do realize that congress was considering raising the tax on Gasoline again and contemplating a Value Added Tax all so they could redistribute the wealth from those that are earning their way to those that are not! Let's wait until we see what cuts will be made before we agree to let them take more of our money shall we? To this congress the 983 billion you cite over two years is that much more that they could spend, I guarantee that none of it would go to deficit reduction. When Obama put out his proposed budget and deficit estimates earlier this year he had considered this in his estimates (not renewing the cuts) and his deficit forecast for next year was still over a trillion dollars. So what does that say for his regard of reducing the national debt. His idea was to let the GDP grow to reduce it, but the GDP isn't going to grow fast enough to keep up!

So Louisiana Don: Please show me the jobs that the Bush tax breaks created. According the the GOA, less than .5 of 1% of the tax cuts created any jobs.

Yes please show us the jobs!

Verno, you don't understand "conservative" economics: they believe in cutting taxes and increasing spending (especially the military). Just look at the last 30 years, and you tell me when the deficit increased, and when it actually decreased. You just have to subscribe to the idea that the most important function of government (ours in this case) is being able to obliterate the world 24 times instead of 23. Why else would the US military budget be more than ALL OF THE OTHER NATIONS ON EARTH COMBINED?? All this chatter about cutting spending, taxes, and reducing the deficit, here's two good places to start: foreign aid (welfare) to other countries, and the military. Chop at that spending a little, and we'll see the deficit be reduced in a hurry.

Unemployment rates for both 2006 and 2007 were 4.6%. Not bad, not bad at all. The tax cuts helped us get there from the 2002-2003 recession triggered by the breaking of the tech/equity bubble in 2000.

Economys are cyclical, always have been and always will be. We've had 20 recessions in the past 100 years. Our Presidential election cycle does not line up with the economic cycle, so all stats comparing the two are suspect. During the 8 Clinton years we had an average unemployment rate of 5.2%. During the 8 Bush years we had an average unemployment rate of 5.3%.

All economists seem to agree that extending all the bipartisan Bush-Era tax cuts for the next couple years will add about 1% to GDP growth at least for 2011, and that will mean many jobs created. But tax cuts used to help spur economic growth in a weak economy must be removed when the economy is stronger unless there are corresponding spending cuts. That is the piece our legislators avoid, controlling our spending. So as the economy does well and tax receipts flow in, people ask for more and more benefits, and politicians oblige in order to get votes at the next election.

verno....The Dot-Com bust and 9/11 had the country losing jobs in 2001 when Bush took office. Here are the numbers you wanted that show the job growth due to the tax cuts.

http://www.bls.gov/

----year ---US Employment

• 2001 136,933,000
• 2002 136,485,000
• 2003 137,736,000
• 2004 139,252,000
• 2005 141,730,000
• 2006 144,427,000
• 2007 146,047,000

That's 9.1 million new jobs added during tax cuts.

How many jobs have Nancy, Harry, and Barack made in 4 years and $1.5 Trillion and counting of new deficits addded to the debt? Take a wild guess?

Will raising taxes create more jobs? No Is raising taxes on the rich really worth the loss of thousands of more jobs? No We not only need to create jobs, but also retain the jobs we do have. It has been proven over and over again. High taxes will result in less revenue, and job losses.

Some of us are smart enough to know that if you punish the rich, the punishment will trickle down to us.

AS the end of the tax cuts neared, & we had a soon to be president telling us he will raise taxes & always wanted to cut out the tax cut, things went way down. People who could went into a survival mode & cashed out.

Why cant they see what they have done? Is it wealth envy that makes them jealous of anyone making more?

@Louisiana Dave

Um - do you have a list of how many jobs went overseas in the past 10 years?

Companies took the tax breaks from the last 10 years and went and bought CHEAP LABOR overseas.

The linked article shows how some of the largest U.S. companies paid NO TAXES at all - yet they were profitable. ( http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-exxon-paid-us-income-taxes-09/story?id=10300167 )

If you really think that the Republican strategy of lower taxes does anything at all for you, you're mistaken. It *does* something for businesses. There is no trickle-down unless you live in China or India. The "trickle-down" you feel there in Louisiana has to do with Hurricanes, not taxes.

I'm certainly not saying that the Democrats have it right either, because they don't. I'm just saying that tax custs don't help the majority of the people in the U.S at all and are a good way to drive up the national debt.

I'm SURE that someone in China/Inida/Prague/Vietnam is very happy with the U.S. direction with taxes.

Grinspoon97,

Nice stats... That adds up to billions, not millions... And if you're going to make a point you have to makes both sides of it, not just throw out a piece of garbage and hope it sticks.

Uncle Shags....Please don't show your ignorance so vividly.

• US Employment in 2001 was 136,933,000
• US Employment in 2007 was 146,047,000

The difference (added new jobs) was ~9.1 MILLION --- The other side is: the Obama stimulus has NOT reduced the rate of unemployment - actually increased most recently to 9.8% admitted and about 16% real unemployment.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea1.pdf

Verno

During his 8 years in office Bush created 6 million new jobs. The number of employed rose by over 6 million people from 2000 to 2008. It actually grew more but the declines experienced in late 2007 and 2008 took the number down a bit. The population during that period of time also grew so that even though unemployment was at 7% when he left office more people were still employed than when he took office in 2000. The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.3% lower than it was in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

@Grinspoon

the thing is, 9.1 million jobs over those 7 years isn't enough to keep up with population growth, you need 1.5 million new jobs a year just to maintain the current employment rate and those tax cuts, using your numbers, amounted to 1.3 million jobs a year. That is pretty comparable with what Obama's stimulus did.

Grinspoon97

The US population added 14.2 million people during that time. So your new jobs don't even keep up with a normal growth rate. Bogus premise, bogus stats.

Grinspoon97,

Takes one to know one. It was more like 3 million net jobs. http://mediamatters.org/research/200812090014

Which was abysmal. Even Fox admitted that:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html

Jimmy Carter did better than Bush.

And the economy was TANKED at the end of BUSHES term. That is Obama's fault?

Guys - the population added 14.2 million people but only 9.1 million new jobs. You forget, only 46% are in the workforce, so we only needed 7 million and got 9 million.

The population has grown since then and we do need 150,000 jobs a month to break even. And how many has Obama and $1.5 Trillion in "stimulus" created. Unemployment rate is STILL going up.

I know you hate Bush and nothing during those eight years was any good - but the economy was in the dumps when he came in. Not sure what you think turned the economy around in the early 2000s - (the Dot Com crash or 9/11)? But the eight years were were pretty good for all. Of course, we overplayed our hand and many stayed too long at the party - financing their spending on refi's and flipping. The hangover is not much fun and it is always good form to blame somebody else for your headache.

Papa Bush and Daddy Obama do not cause our problems. Work smart and prosper, and oppose anyone who tries to take with a gun what you rightfully earned. If you want to take for yourself what is the other guys - be very careful what you wish for.. the class warfare of the Russians after WW1 did not bring any prosperity or equality. They fell when their TV started showing the full shelves and, yes ads, trying to sell things their government could not produce - think of it - actually asking people to buy stuff! Gone are the communists and central social planners. Good riddance and may they not come here. Merry Christmas.

Show me the jobs! The last thing GDubya did before he left office was to bail out banks to the tune of 700billion dollars. That was supposed to stimulate the economy by giving money to loan to business. All the bamks did with that money was reinvest in a crashed stock market once again driving their profits through the roof. Selling off slowly as joe blow sunk his dollars back in and paid back loans that were at .05% wish I could get those kind of returns on MY money! Oh wait! I'd of had to have a JOB to do that!But for me to get a job the banks would of had to lend some of the money WE gave them to make their profits and bonuses.

Grinspoon97, I was with you until you said communist...you're an irrational extremist. Sorry, I started to listen to you...

Well said!

The ones blocking it will claim they did it for the little guy to make the rich guy pay. It is the rich guy who will build a business & put us to work, but only if the government leaves him any profit after taxes.

There is a House bill sitting on the Senate's metaphorical desk that the Senate can vote on today if they wanted to. The bill that passed would give every American a tax break, including the rich, up to $250,000. But the Republicans are constructed of greed and a bill that gives tax breaks to every single person in America up to $250,000 isn't enough for them to fill the holes currently found in their souls. The Republicans should quit blocking legislation that the majority of Americans want and get to work on passing that.

Republicans are so upset over business taxes, because they create jobs, that they adamantly refuse to accept tax incentives to companies who keep jobs here. I'll believe Republicans care about jobs when they quit trying to make offshoring the most attractive option.

You said it all GREED

Unemployed,

Unemployment insurance is already 99 weeks, instead of 26 weeks. This bill will extend it another year. If you can survive on unemployment for a year, how is it that you cannot find any job, any where that will at least pay the unemployment rate?

Justice4All,

It is the Senate Democrats who are refusing to vote on the bill, not the republicans. The bill passed by the House includes tax cuts for everyone (as it should!). If the Democrats in the Senate want to change it to raise taxes on those making over $250K, it will have to go back to the house, be voted on and then back to the Senate.

Actually duggir the House Republicans voted AGAINST extending tax breaks for all Americans earlier this month. We wouldn't be having this conversation right now if the Republicans hadn't voted against the American people that day.

Yes there's plenty of Republicans that can be voted out of office in 2012 too! And, ALOT more people vote in presidential elections! The BS that was spread about how the Dems were overspending and how they were going to turn it around was just a ploy to get their rich buddies their tax breaks renewed. Well now that your buds are taken care of, you best do something for the 20+ million unemployed or you WILL see a shift change again in the next elections. If ya think you WON alot of seats this last election? Wait till you see how many you LOSE in the next!

Jeffersonwasright- The House Democrats passed a bill that most closely resembles what the working class and the majority of Americans want which does include an extension for tax cuts for the wealthy, up to $250k, the House Democrats passed another version which would extend tax cuts for up to 1 million dollarshowever the Senate Republicans said no way, we want it all and voted AGAINST it. The Republicans can afford to play chicken on this issue because even if the tax cuts extensions are not approved they will still be living very comfortably next year however the Democrats are thinking of the working class and they know a lot of families cannot afford this extra burden so they are willing to compromise with the Republicans. The Republicans on the other hand don't believe in compromise they believe in common ground, they say, this is the ground we are working on and you have to come over here to my side or else we're not playing.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/senate-republicans-block-tax-cut-extensions/19746552/

You really think the difference between rich and poor is caused because the poor don't work hard enough?

Here's a better example of your analogy in present-day America.

1 man owns the orchard and sits on his ass all day.

20 people work hard to pick 1000 apples a day

The 20 workers have to give 950 apples to the orchard owner each day, keeping only 50 apples for themselves

The orchard owner is rich

The workers are poor

Oh! You've found the answer! The rich earned it and poor people are lazy. Brilliant! You've got it all figured out, as easy as picking apples! How could we have missed it, it's so simple!

Duuuurrrrrr....

palancarreefsnorkel

Where did you come up with this analogy? How do you know you worked harder and that is why you are richer? If a man goes out and the only job he finds is digging a ditch. Digging a ditch is hard work, very hard work. Will it make him rich because he worked harder at digging a ditch than you did picking apples?

NO!

2 of us pick apples and are paid millions of dollars, then given a million dollar bonus because we figured out how to transfer apple picking to low wage locations overseas.

15 of us do a decent job but have to pay more for our everyday neccesities and are working harder with no increase in wages, even though we are working longer hours.

8 of us have been laid off because our jobs were outsourced or cut. Some of us were lucky enough to find another job. Most of the rest are still looking.

Now explain to me why wealthy bankers, executives, and overpaid investors can't go back to the tax rate agreed upon when Bush gave them the very generous temporary tax cut in 2001 and 2003. Oh, yeah, it's because they've suffered so much over the past decade and really NEED that money so they can stash it away in their tax haven bank accounts.

MNPat

That makes a whole lot more sense! Thank you!

Did you 2 hard working apple-snatchers kick the ladders out from under the other pickers? So you could get more??

Just askin'.

Palancarreefsnorkel,

Obviously, those that are not really trying would do a better job if they had not been abused as children. As such, you need to give some of your apples to them, to make them feel better about themselves. Furthermore, it is unfair that you get so many apples, so from now on, you will be required to work on the taller trees and use the shorter ladders. And, two out of every four apples you pick will be put into the "community" basket and will be divided among those that are lazy and some other folks that don't even bother to show up to pick apples at all. The fact that they didn't show up should not stop them from getting their "fair share". Since there are a lot of folks that didn't bother to show up, those who do a decent job will also need to put one out of every four apples into the basket to make sure that there are enough for those that didn't show up and those that are lazy.

It is possible that you may need to increase to 3 out of every 5 in the future, since the bureaucrats who collect the baskets and distribute them to the lazy and no shows have to count them and apportion them and handle all the paperwork, which results in delays that allow many of the apples to become rotten. Since it would be unfair to expect the bureaucrats to work faster, you will need to increase the number of apples you put into the basket. And, by the way, don't forget the bureaucrats need their apples too, for helping YOU to succeed.

Yeah I want to know how many people you pushed off the ladder?

This "apple math" feels like it was inspired on cry baby Gwen's black board.

oh and we also need to mention the part where the orchard farmer killed the native people who originally lived on the land and the part where the orchard farmer imported enslaved people and tore apart their families so that he could exploit them and make a profit for himself while his lazy orchard farmer as sits at home getting fatter.

Right On! Justice4All!!!

If I worked as hard as the wealthy at being a theif I guess I could be rich too. Unfortunately I have morals.

duggjr..I'd take a seed from the apple but some agricorp holds the patent on it so he sues me for everything I made after I've made it! Leaving me in debt to the lawyers I hired trying to keep a portion of what I made from MY hard work.

George,

You tell em! That Bill Gates is a good example - the way he developed that operating system that everyone wanted to buy and paid his people so much that many became multi-millionaires, what an immoral thief he must be..... how else could he be so rich.....

George,

I guess it would be best if you bought the seed rather than stealing it..... if you do things right, then you can open your own orchard and grow all the apples you want..... of course you will have to pay people to pick them..... and give your share to the bureaucrats.... and the lazy people ..... and those that don't even bother to show up ......

But I hear that pears are becoming popular now....................

lilred1964 (post 12.3),

palancarreefsnorkel

Where did you come up with this analogy? How do you know you worked harder and that is why you are richer? If a man goes out and the only job he finds is digging a ditch. Digging a ditch is hard work, very hard work. Will it make him rich because he worked harder at digging a ditch than you did picking apples?

NO!

I can't believe this has to be explained to you, but as a public service, I will:

Typically, digging a ditch is an entry level job (much like apple picking). Let's say Eric is hired to dig a ditch. He has showed up to work on time, everyday and worked diligently digging as fast and as hard as he can, because he appreciates having a job. After several months, Eric's boss has noticed the effort and hard work and decided that because of Eric diligence and hard work, Eric should become the foreman on the ditch digging crew. This will allow the boss to go out and find more jobs for his crew. Eric gets a raise and the boss hires someone to take Eric place digging ditches. Eric starts to manage the crew, he looks on the plans and marks on the ground where the ditches are to be dug, he makes sure his crew is getting paid properly and makes sure the job gets done right. The boss finds more work, has Eric manage the work and the boss makes money, Eric now has skills to manage workers, read plans, mark on the ground where ditches are to be dug, make sure his crew get paid.

Eric now has the ability to either: take on more responsibility in the boss' company; or, if the boss does not continue to reward Eric with more pay and more responsibility, Eric has the experience to go out and hire a few guys, train them to dig ditches and start his own company. Eventually, Eric will make enough money to grow his business bigger and do more than just dig ditches and maybe branch out into growing apples (pun intended).

Of course he will need to hire people like himself who understand that opportunity and hard work will get you somewhere in life. Based the many of the comments on this article, I don't think he would many of those types of people here.

Jeffersonwasright - you don't seem to understand.... the only possible reason that Eric would open his own company is because he is greedy.... he will obviously take advantage of his workers and underpay them (since that is obviously the only way to make money)..... then he will probably buy some heavy equipment so that he can replace the ditch diggers...... only because his greed knows no bounds (not because it makes sense or that he can make more money by doing other things other than just digging ditches).... then when he has built the company up so large that he has contracts all across the country and employs thousands of people, he will semi-retire and allow his son to run the company while he greedily plays golf and collects money....... what a selfish, uncaring piece of scum..... how can he live with himself???

JC,

I'm sorry, you are right. How could I have been so naive!

Let me try this again: Eric gets a job digging ditches, he is angry and bitter that his boss has a nice truck and drives around checking on his jobs in air conditioned comfort, drinking diet cokes and eating almonds, while Eric and his co-workers are slaving away in the hot sun. Eric gets all of his coworkers together, forms a union and demands $50/hr, 6-hr days, tents over the ditches to protect them from the sun, new air conditioned trucks, cases of diet coke, unlimited almonds, full pensions and medical insurance.

Eric's boss (who is already working 12-15 hours a day, bidding jobs, doing payroll, working his rear-end off to keep his business afloat, when times are tough, he doesn't pay himself so his employees can be paid), gets a call from Eric (who has elected himself as head of his newly formed ditch digging union), Eric gives his boss the demands from the union. The boss says he can't do any of that, Eric is unwavering, the workers go on strike. The boss loses all of his jobs because no work is getting done. Because there is no work, the boss has to fire Eric and all the ditch diggers and closes up his business and goes to work for another ditch digging company as a foreman.

The boss is surviving but not doing what he really wanted to do, which was to own his own business. Eric and the other ditch diggers go on unemployment, sit a home and complain about how evil the boss was and it's all the boss's fault that they don't have jobs. Eric and his unemployed ditch digging buddies decide it's easier to stay on unemployment for 99 weeks than it is to find a job, in their free time they post on Newsvine about how the CEOs and the rich are evil and should be punished.

There, is that more realistic?

Only problem with your theory Chuck is that 85% of the jobs lost during this last recession were from small and mid-sized companies, and were not outsourced. Many of the jobs lost were in local and state governments, again not outsourced. Many jobs will not return, not because of outsourcing, but because of lower consumer spending. Nobody expects the consumer to return to high credit card debt levels any time soon. In addition, many jobs are simply being eliminated by automation and the information technology revolution. High tech devices are eliminating thousands and thousands of jobs. Want an example?? Book-readers are gaining in popularity. Think of all the jobs simply going away because you can now download the books your read instead of having to buy a hard-copy.

Peter,

Obviously the answer is to force people to buy books instead of Kindles. We need legislation NOW!!!

Who needs technology anyhow? Jobs don't just go away, just ask the IBM Typewriter repairman....

Only problem with your theory PETER17 is no jobs being outsourced! When was the last time you called a help desk of any major U.S. company? Their are about 10 million people in India, probably earning a dollar a day, patiently waiting to take your call. You will talk to at least 3 of them before you can understand 1 of them and that 1 will put you on hold and promptly disconnect your call, thereby allowing you to start all over again and spend at least 4 hours on the phone! How about bringing those jobs back here buddy? At least we could then speak decent english. SHEESH!

Peter? A better example would be the textile industry losing 95% of their jobs here in the states because it's so much cheaper to send those jobs overseas to make our clothing. Or opening automobile factories in Mexico because it drives the cost of building a car down 25%. (funny though how the prices of the cars keep going up though? So management can get ever increased payhecks and bonuses) or how companies like coleman a once repected name in outdoors good have movved all of thei manufacturing out of the country in favor of higher profits? The list goes on and on...This may not have all happened in this recession but it IS one of the greatest causes of it. That and the greed of bankers packaging loans to sell to investors? Whatever happened to just collecting the loan and making THAT profit. Greed sank us pure and simple.

George - from your vast knowledge of business, can you explain to everyone how U.S. companies that use U.S. labor should configure their operations so that they are profitable. I know that most of them feel they can't compete when they are paying $15.00 an hour plus benefits to workers here, while their Chinese, Indian and Korean competitors are paying $0.30 an hour and no benefits (some provided by the government); but, I'm certain that you can set them straight - so that they won't have to be "greedy" (i.e., do what they have to do to stay competitive and keep their business from going bankrupt).

JC, well said, thanks for a sane post!

For the rest of you, the majority of companies are sending jobs overseas in order to stay competitive. If they can save money having cars made in Mexico, they are then able to sell cars for less and typically, if a good is cheaper than an equivalent good, it will sell more. If a company sells more, they can hire more people to make more goods. If people in Mexico have decent jobs, maybe they will be less likely to risk their lives coming to the US and maybe they will have some money to be able to buy American products.

If a company makes money, their stock price goes up and the millions of people who invest in that company make money on their investments, retirement accounts and pensions. Those people investing in the company will be able to use the profits from the rising stock prices to buy things and pay taxes on the earnings! You know, all those old people in retirement eating cat food, or the retirees whose state government pensions are invested in those very companies that are trying to make a profit so people will buy and sell their stock so they can continue to stay in business.

If the CEO's feels like the economy is doing well and they won't have to pay half of their salaries in taxes, they might spend money on a swimming pool, they will hire someone to install the pool and someone else to maintain it. Those people will then have jobs and an income and will buy food and cars and tools and houses instead of being unemployed taking handouts from the government.

If the CEO's take all the money and does not re-invest into the company and it's employees, the company will lose market share and it's good employees and eventually the business will fail. So wise businessmen continue to invest in their companies and employees, if the government doesn't take too much money in taxes from them.

Profits are good, not bad. It sounds like many of you posting on here are very bitter and angry that there are people in this world who have overcome a lot to be successful. Instead, many people posting on here would rather have the government penalize the achievers and take from the achievers to give to those too lazy, angry and bitter to work hard for anything. You are all your own worst enemies, not the rich and successful. The liberals in government want to keep right where you are, bitter and angry and waiting for the government to right your perceived wrongs and punish the innocent. The more you rely on the government, the more you empower them to keep you right where you are.

yea JC it would be horrible if the CEOs only made a decent living. How much is enough? before free trade we were just fine chargeing import taxes to keep our buisnesse competitive. But no we have to be able to sell to everybody in the world to be competitive so the ceos and your millions of stock holders make a ton. How did that work for y'all in 2008? I knew plenty of people with great portfolios who saw them become worthless because of the stockmarket crash. So much for being able to buy goods made in foriegn countries at a reduced rate. or retire comfortbly with money that we have all paid into the system, and is now lost.

George,

Many CEO's only make a decent living. Surely you don't think that all CEO's make hundreds of millions of dollars? The people that make that kind of money are generally running multi-national, multi-billion dollar organizations, and overseeing operations for tens of thousands of employees. Or, they are in the financial industry.

Now, realistically, how much do you think it would be worth to run an enterprise of that size. How about 1/10th of 1% of the yearly revenues? Does that sound particularly greedy to you? How about 1/100th of 1%? So, if you are running a company like Exxon that makes $300 billion a year, one percent would be $3 billion, and and 1/100th of that would be 30 million. Seems like a lot doesn't it - until you realize that if you have the wrong person, it could cost the business 1-2%. And, if you are one of the stock holders, depending on that dividend to pay for your retirement, you probably want the best person possible in that position as well.

As for how much is enough, I guess it depends on your life style. I know people that make six figure salaries that have less expendable income than people making 1/4 of what they make. Why? Because they have large mortgages and car loans, etc.

The stock market crash certainly caused short-term issue, but in the long run, the market will recover. It has already gained back a significant portion of what was lost. Unless you are a day trader, most people will not loose much in the long run - unless, of course, they had all their money tied up in Circuit City....

That's right legalman, lets keep on enabling that poverty. After all, "those people" vote Democrat and need to be given their "entitlements". Don't worry about getting them REAL jobs, REAL education, or anything REAL. Just keep on giving them lousy educations, "entitlements" and of course FALSE hopes. (and lets do that for decades while you demonize the "rich' for "keeping them down")

hmmmm 70% you say----which 70% did you talk to or just listening to glenn and rush again?

That came from a news article seen here on this very news outlet MSNBC. Get yourself up to date on the news before making comments. Most of all get over the past election. It will only make you a miserable person. A 60 year old conservative before Rush and Glenn where even known.

Working two jobs? No wonder people can't find a job. You greedy bastard!!!!! Maybe you could find a third job and support some more unemployed. LOL

You work two jobs so about 60-80 hours a week. Why aren't you rich and successful? Aren't you implying that if you work hard you will be rich? That's why people are poor isn't it? They're lazy? There are poor people working 60-80 hours a week to take care of their family as well. We don't tax them because the money collected in taxes would be negligible in aggregate while significantly harming that person's ability to take care of their family. Taxing poor people does not magically create better paying jobs for those no longer able to care for their family.

Do you not find it telling that nobody supports your proposition to tax the poor? Even Republicans don't want a flat tax with no deductions. Senator Ryan's Roadmap plan is a simple two tier flat tax but allows deductions. Apparently, only you and a few others think a hatred for the poor is a good basis for fiscal responsibility. The rest of us live in a world where economics matter.

10% pay 70% of he taxes? yes that's true while thos 10% earn 85% of the money! I think your taxes should be wage appropriate myself! if I made a paltry million dollar a year salary and had to pay 50% of it in taxes? OMG how could I POSSIBLY LIVE on just 500K a year! hahaha rich mentality is sooo stupid.

George,

The problem is that the 500K you paid to the govenment will now be spent on $500 hammers that will be purchased from the company of the guy making $2 million a year. So exactly how did you paying all your hard earned money to the government help? When everyone knows that if you look up the word incompetent in the dictionary it will say "see Government", why does it make sense to put them in charge of spending half of your money?

Hey "back", were you reading anything? The Bush administration warned Barney Frank and his minions in the house to rein in freddy and fanny before it was too late. Did they listen ? NO, hence our poor economy because fanny and freddy crapped out. Also the Bush tax breaks were for ALL taxpayers, not just the "rich".

Yes the tax cuts were for everybody. But the man making 25,00 a year realized a whopping 800$ a year in savings while a man makeing a million recied 40K who made out in that deal? Really? We all did? I didn't see the guy saving 40k a year even spend 25k on it on a guy who needed a job. He just, well, saved it. The job losses that happened in the Bush era were catastrophic for this country. Until w do away with tax breaks for corps for sending jobs oversea it will remain catastrophic. The wealthy had best decide how much is enough. I for one could live out the remaining years of my life on just a million dollars and be quite comfortable. Without the benefit of Social Security even.

Actually, the GOP position is they want the current tax code extended for EVERYONE, not just a single group. It seems that most Americans agree.

Pete, most Americans do not agree.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/02/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-american-people-spoke-pretty-lou/

If you think Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary, I have a bridge to sell you. Buffett is a billionaire. Almost all of his income is from investments which have a different tax rate than regular salary. I believe Buffet takes only a $100,000 annual salary, probably less than his secretary.

karen - you got snookered by the guy. He is a Dem and an Obama supporter. Don't feel bad, Warren has been getting the better of people for decades. That is why he is a billionaire.

Buffett pays a lower PERCENTAGE of taxes on the dollar than his secretary - he made that statement on his own. He also mentioned that he and other billionaires should have to pay more.

If he wants to pay more, who is stopping him and all these other billionaires?

Peter17 - thank you for your explanation. It amazes me how so many people don't understand how the tax system really works. They just believe whatever they hear on TV or read as gospel. Facts aren't that important.

Did anyone ask the basis upon which he pays? That lower rate still generated a lot of tax revenue. THe sources are also different. One is a wage and the other is investment income, capital gains. Currently policy treats different sources of income in other ways.

Another crazy element of the discussion is that Buffet is clearly an exception. So why try to write a rule that attemps to manage the lowest common denominator. Policy fixes like this are too blunt of an instrument and never give you the desired outcomes. And of course people are at least as smart as one celled organisms who usually avoid pain when possible.

I watched South park and then changed the channel when he came on. I would not brag about getting my news from him, unless you choose to be misinformed.

Misinformed? The only difference between Jon Stewart and Fox News (and MSNBC for that matter) is Stewart claims to be fake news.

KevinT:

Actually you're wrong about your opinion on the Daily Show. At least to some extent. Back around the time that the 2008 Presidential Elections were held, a various "reputable" surverying group (who's named escapes me) tried to poll people about their knowledge on the various issues in that election. Both public new channels and cable news channels were included as the researchers tried to find a correlation between the viewers of specific new shows and their general understanding of the issues.

To almost everyone's surprise, the research showed that the viewers of the Daily Show were actually the most informed people about the issues in that election. What!? A cable news show that is known more for political satire actually had the most informed viewers of any news channel? As if this wasn't enough to push people's emotional buttons, the survey also found that Fox news viewers were the least informed about the 2008 issues.

Perhaps things have changed since then. I really don't know. But I always considered that survey to be a bit eye opening. Americans have a thing for sarcasm and mocking their political figures in our current era. In hindsight, I guess the results of that poll really shouldn't have been that surprising. But it was still a slap in the face of all of the "real" new channels.