Do tell Pat - what is "their" part?

Now, what is your part?

Patrick Salt Lake City
Real courage for a republican would be to tell the richest 2% they need to do their part to help the economy.

Patrick they are T-baggers . The Mad Hatter said"The entire world is falling to ruins and poor Cheshire's off his tea. "

Well come on Pat - I want you to tell me exactly what i need to do to help the economy.

You speak of "real courage" so explain it.

See?? what did I say?? the liberals are living in a Disneyland fantasyland world. No connection with reality.

Look at this "Beverly". She's in an "Alice in Wonderland" world. Come on down to Earth Beverly.

I wonder how the journalists are coming along on the Palin emails just released?

I think what Patrick is getting at is the rich are supposed to be more compassionate. And to the Liberal, compassion is defined where 1 in 6 people in the USofA are now on food stamps, a 39% rise in two years, and a huge increase in the amount of needed compassion. The compassion part is where the rich person pays for that, because its his/her fault all these people are on food stamps because somewhere along the line, he/she stole money from them.

I think that captures the essense of it.

JoAnnaSmith1 I don't get "compassion" as what Patrick is calling for, I think it's a return to the tax rate the rich paid under Clinton's administration

behind every great fortune is a crime.

I wonder how the journalists are coming along on the Palin emails just released?

Have they found an interpreter yet?

Amy: This much is clear, the compassionate crowd is going to want more from the "rich" than they got during the Clinton administration. That's just the start. There is no way possibile that this is the end, not if the government keeps growing at its current rate.

We had about 1 in 9 people in this country on food stamps 2 years ago. Now it's 1 in 6. Do liberals view the country paying for this additional expense as making us a more compassionate country?

He's seeking radio to get folks away from 'the google',...can't say as I blame him.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Spanky-

"Well come on Pat - I want you to tell me exactly what i need to do to help the economy.'

Uh....go back to work for a living, instead of making a perpetual pest of yourself ?

"...1 in 6 people in the USofA are now on food stamps, a 39% rise in two years"

You accuratrely describe a condition which is the result of OUR benevolent companies farming out OUR jobs to foreigners, so they can make even MORE.

Thanks for the contri.

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

I wonder how the journalists are coming along on the Palin emails just released?

Noid: Have they found an interpreter yet?

What's the matter, those big city all educated NY Times and Washington Post "journalists" don't speak Alaskan?

Interesting to think these goons have time to read through Palin's emails. Maybe they'll have time to cover the stock market collapse today. Or is that just a little out of their league?

Live blogging the Palin email release:

On Aug. 2, 2008, Palin staffer Tara Jolie reported back to her boss that the Alaska state legislature wasn't happy with her work -- or rather, her lack of work.

After meeting with a state representative's staffer, Jolie wrote Governor Palin: "In a nutshell, I learned that: There is a frustration with the governor's office because they expect more legislation (or ideas) from the Governor because she is our elected leader."

You accuratrely describe a condition which is the result of OUR benevolent companies farming out OUR jobs to foreigners, so they can make even MORE.

So this "spreading the wealth around" that Obama's been doing - not working?

There is a frustration with the governor's office because they expect more legislation (or ideas) from the Governor because she is our elected leader.

Interesting. Congress says the same thing about President "Lead from behind" Obama.

After meeting with a state representative's staffer, Jolie wrote Governor Palin: "In a nutshell, I learned that: There is a frustration with the governor's office because they expect more legislation (or ideas) from the Governor because she is our elected leader."

You'd better hope they never get a hold of Obama's email. Does he ever suggest legislation or ideas or does he just leave it to congress?

"Maybe they'll have time to cover the stock market collapse today"

..the stock market WHAT???

"Interesting to think these goons have time to read through Palin's emails..."

Goons?

But really- this is strange; My pal Hannity was having a fit that people were weeding through the e-mails too. I'm SURE, knowing how intilligent Palin is, and how accomplished she was while in office, all the 'goons' will acomplish is showing the world how good she really was. Why do people NOT want all this genius exposed. At the expense of the hard work being expended by all these 'goons', no less?

To all the whining conservatives here, are you part of the richest 2% because if you aren't, my guess is you pay a higher tax rate than they do. Just once it would be nice if a conservative would explain why asking those making more than $250,000 a year to accept an additional 3% increase in the high-end tax rate to the 39.6% rate under Clinton (not the actual rate they pay--no where near the rate they actually pay) would be a such a horrific burden and is an affront to America and democracy. Clue: it has nothing to do with freedom because if we wish to remain free and strong, we'd better be willing to chip in some cash. Oh the outrage--imagine, those who can afford to pay more being asked to help pay for the two unfunded wars Bush started and charged to Visa (among all the other unfunded GOP legislation passed and he signed)--terrible, simply terrible. What bugs me most is that a majority of those who earn more have indicated they think they should pay more and are willing to do so but heaven forbid our conservative legislators would ever speak the truth to the public and do something good for the country. Their hero, Ronald Reagan would be apalled.

Interesting that the NY Times and Washington Post "journalists" are so very interested in ex-Governor Palin's emails, and not in the emails of ex-Governor Rendell (PA), ex-Governor Doyle (WI), ex-Governor Strickland (OH), ex-Governor Spitzer (NY), ex-Governor Paterson (NY), ex-Governor Granholm (MI) and ex-Governor Blagojevich (IL).

So, what exactly are they looking for again? A grocery shopping list? Some financial advice from EF Hutton? Someone in Nigeria needs money? What?

Palin's e - mails?

Searching for transparency from someone no longer in the government. Sounds logical.

Oh dear Amy - I have no doubt you believe that quote about fortunes and crimes. I suppose it must apply to Buffett, Jobs, Gates...

So sad and pathetic.

But I digress. Where in the heck did Pat go off to?

Oh and Jody, please do keep spouting off about taxes. It is so very amusing. It is almost like you actually know something about them. Come clean Jody - you have never, ever read even on section of the IRC, correct?

And whatever you do keep ignoring the fact that what ever we tax at, the congress will just spend more. In other words - keep running up that hill.

Maybe you can get someone to file a Freedom of Information request for their e-mails.

Joanna - You know they are going to find something... a misspelled word, a dangling participle, a structural grammerical error... something. And when they do, look out!!! Sarah will be exposed!

Spanky,

Last I checked, Palin was still governor in 2008 when the FOI request for the e-mails was made.

You know they are going to find something... a misspelled word, a dangling participle, a structural grammerical error... something.

Are you kidding me?

This broad is a walking, talking 'word salad'!

English is NOT her first language...

Also - too - you betcha!

Noid: Maybe you can get someone to file a Freedom of Information request for their e-mails

Nobody cares about those other ex-governors Noid. No one cares about ex-Govenor Tim Pawlenty's old emails, or ex-Governor Mitt Romney's emails, or ex-Governor Jon Huntsman's emails. The big bad NY Times and Washington Post only care about, Palin. Why is that?

Joanna - I love the rethorical question. The liberals have no clue. They actually think it's fair that they go after Sarah. They also feel it's fair that no one ever go after Obama. Let's not look into his past, his e-mails, his school grades or history. Let's never discuss Obama's connection with Bill Ayers, a known terrorist, his 20 year connection with the radical black liberation theology preacher Jeramiah (God Damn the USofA) Wright. Let's never touch that! Only go after Sarah Palin because she's a complete threat to the liberal cause... she's a 10, and she does have a love for this country.

Well all right then - color me shocked and disappointed that Pat could not walk his talk. As per usual he makes a totally conclusionary statement and when asked for its basis, all we get is crickets. In other words no there, there.

But hey, I a Weriner Eyed optimist so I'm game to give you libbies another try. Groucho, earlier you called me mean, selfish, and not compassionate cause I'm inclind to keep as much of my income as possible.

So tell me w I happen to believe I already pay more than enough in taxes, and do every thing I can to minimize the amount due.

So please tell me what you do any differently from me that makes you not mean, un-selfish, and compassionate.

This sure seems to be a softball I throwing out there so if any of you other nice, compassionate folk can lay some wisdom on my mean old conservative self, by all means give it a go.

The crack(head) team at the NY Times has gotten Palin really good. She wrote "Sheesh" in one email, and was trying to get a tanning bed for the governors mansion (jokes on her, those got taxed big time with ObamaCare)! And in some emails, she discussed [hushed tone] politics.

Source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/alaska-releases-palin-e-mails/?hp

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/10/sarah-palin-emails-sarahpalin348#

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/palin-calls-media-biased-in-e-mails-released-by-alaska-from-her-tenure.html

And the biggest scandal - she called the media, get this, a real shocker, "biased".

My gosh, the humanity. Sheesh.

MSNBC already has enough material out of "Palin Diaries" to fill up a couple of years of their prime time lineup shows. The tanning bed thing alone is good for 6 months.

In other news, the Nasdaq went negative for the year. Yeah, I know, who cares.

Talk (AKA Hate) Radio -- well of course that's where creeps like Sanctimonious Santorum will go. And not just because "The Google" isn't kind to him, but because modern advancement is not their gig -- No, they like to go back in time. He probably tried to record on an 8-track tape.

JS1 - We're familiar with the tired old "Gateway" argumentation of if you give an inch they'll take a mile extrapolation. Only folks in the anti-intellectualism movement would use such lack of reasoning. Brianb - you're comparing Sarah Palin to President Obama? Seriously? Dude, you need to read some bios. Read "Blind Allegiance" and you'll learn that the E-mails to read are from Palin's staff, possibly Todd -- Sarah never did any work.

Spanky, et al, let's just cut to through the chicken crap. How about you tell us who you currently favor for President and why (the candidate's platform, proposals, substance).

Please Insult Me Again!
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

???????????????????

Oops,Sarah did it again. Palin mangles Cold War history

I betcha Feisty wouldn't never mangle her words or history.

TP - Brianb - you're comparing Sarah Palin to President Obama? Seriously? Dude, you need to read some bios. Read "Blind Allegiance" and you'll learn that the E-mails to read are from Palin's staff, possibly Todd -- Sarah never did any work.

There is no comparison between Obama and Sarah Palin. Obama hates this country and Sarah loves it. Sorry TP but it's the truth. Obama only loves himself, cares about his political gains and certainly doesn't care about you. If Sarah Palin were this political hound like libbies claim she was, she'd have already made her bid for president. So far she hasn't. Personally I think she's loving all the attention she's getting just because... she's Sarah.

Tell me TP... why did Obama run for president? What has he done to promote the values of this country? How many other countries has he apologized to? How many dictators has he looked up to? What was one of his first dictums? He said there was NO war on terrorism. Did he, or did he not associate with Bill Ayers, Jeramiah Wright, and does he advocate "Rules for Radicals?" Did he not say, if it weren't for the Constitution, he would do more? What exactly does that mean?

You're correct, there is no comparison between Obama and Sarah. I trust Sarah... never have trusted Obama and never will.

And whatever you do keep ignoring the fact that what ever we tax at, the congress will just spend more. In other words - keep running up that hill.

Another Gateway fallacious argument. How would there ever be a surplus if this was true? More importantly how do Teabaggers propose to pay for legitimate expenses (assuming they think anything is legitimate) if we "starve the beast"? The right-wing is notorius for "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" type of twisted reasoning.

Just as the term "Teabagger" was started by the Tea Party, the oxymoron "compassionate conservatism" was started by Bush. Once again, let's cut trough the chicken crap, and all you GOP/TPers please tell us why you support subsidies for big oil, why you won't end tax evasion loopholes, why you want speculators on Wall Street to be protected, and how these things equate to Obama hate for business and progressive hate for the rich?

Lowering the highest tax rate 10 points from 35% to 25% is the most idiotic proposal because corporations like Exxon Mobile, GE, and the richest 2% who self-report their income (lie) and are responsible for 57% of tax evasion will still not pay their fair share no matter how low the rate is. Reagan, you deified hero, increased the tax base by ending loopholes. Why are you against Reagan?

Also - too - you betcha!

Thank you for taking the time to put together your phonics lesson, unfortunately I was quoting Sarah Palin.

Maybe you should e-mail her - from the sounds of her she could definitely use the lesson! ;o)

Brianb, why does anyone run for POTUS? Especially these days?

Sarah Palin is not running. Not only was she blocked by the RNC, she is still on the FOX staff, and she hasn't formed a campaign staff, or filed, etc. Palin is promoting herself, and her so-called documentary film, and her wealth--at your expense (especially if you've donated to her PAC, which paid for her history lesson tour in which the money was obviously wasted). Why do conservatives support Palin, Trump, and I suspect also Gingrich who are out for profit, period. Stand up for yourselves, and demand some integrity in your Party.

President Obama accomplished more in two years than most presidents do during their entire administration (most notably Dubya). Just because you drink the Kool-Aid (obviously you do based on parroted talking points) and have been convinced that President Obama hasn't accomplished anything doesn't make it so. I keep telling you guys to get out of the Echo Chamber, out of your cone of silence, then the rest of us wouldn't have to do the work for you. But here's a starter:

A SAMPLE OF CAMPAIGN PROMISES KEPT BY PRESIDENT OBAMA:

No. 4: Extend child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes
No. 16: Increase minority access to capital
No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
No. 37: Extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes
No. 38: Extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)
No. 48: Close the “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription drug plan
No. 51: Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions
No. 53: Give tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums
No. 55: Require large employers to contribute to a national health plan
No. 56: Require children to have health insurance coverage
No. 57: Expand eligibility for Medicaid
No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
No. 63: Require health plans to disclose how much of the premium goes to patient care
No. 65: Establish an independent health institute to provide accurate and objective information
No. 69: In non-competitive markets, force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care
No. 70: Eliminate the higher subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans
No. 93: Reinstate executive order to hire an additional 100,000 federal employees with disabilities within five years.
No. 105: Increase the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health
No. 109: Fully fund the Veterans Administration
No. 113: Expand the Veterans Administration’s number of “centers of excellence” in specialty care
No. 121: Fully fund the Violence Against Women Act
No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
No. 126: Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq
No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq
No. 161: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war
No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
No. 172: Open “America Houses” in Islamic cities around the globe
No. 182: Allocate Homeland Security funding according to risk
No. 195: Seek verifiable reductions in nuclear stockpiles
No. 196: Extend monitoring and verification provisions of the START I Treaty
No. 197: Stand down nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty
No. 215: Create a rapid response fund for emerging democracies
No. 222: Grant Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba
No. 225: Establish an Energy Partnership for the Americas
No. 229: Expand the Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers
No. 239: Release presidential records
No. 241: Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
No. 244: Provide affordable, high-quality child care
No. 247: Recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession
No. 259: Reduce subsidies to private student lenders and protect student borrowers
No. 269: Increase funding for national parks and forests
No. 275: Expand Pell grants for low-income students
No. 290: Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
No. 293: Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
No. 315: Establish ‘Promise Neighborhoods’ for areas of concentrated poverty
No. 359: Rebuild schools in New Orleans
No. 371: Fund a major expansion of AmeriCorps
No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
No. 422: Create new financial regulations
No. 427: Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees
No. 433: Sign a “universal” health care bill
No. 435: Create new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud
No. 449: Raise fuel economy standards
No. 458: Invest in all types of alternative energy
No. 483: Invest in public transportation
No. 495: Double federal spending for research on clean fuels
No. 500: Increase funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
No. 513: Reverse restrictions on stem cell research

There's a seven page list at: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/ :

Well at least he got # 38 right. As for the rest, feh. In fact most seem to be fluff and crap.

Oh and don't forget about the failed stimulus - $787 flushed down the toilet.

FAILURE - remember TP he said unless it passed unemployment over 7%. See by his own measure it was a failure.

But hey there is #371, oh and #458. Any actual results from that one?

Spanky -- Provide a credible source with details on how the stimulus failed. If you continue to swoop and poop, I'll start reporting it as adding no value. In regard to unemployment, at least the president proposed a goal or measure. GOP/TP, you control the House now -- where are the damn JOBS!?

Easy peezy fresh and easy my man - Obama [who I believe you sill stipulate is a credible source, no?] screwed up and set an objective standard. The Stimulus was to prevent unemployment from going above 7%.

You are aware of what the percentage is now, right. See, easy. It failed to do the very thing he said it was designed to do. Stop fighting the obvious. It also failed to boost up the economy, or have you not see the durable goods orders, real estate markets, or for that matter the stock market. Christ - you got anything that says it worked? Objective evidence not shiny happy words.

Now to you next position - the repubs control the House. Yes, and the Dems control the Senate and the White House. And of course as we all know - the government cannot create jobs. All it can do is re-distribute money. Kinda like the stimulus. It took a butt load of money and gave it to government workers. It created a temporary benefit, but that money is gone, nothing was created at all.

So what else you got?

So TP - you ready for some more tax cuts? Obama appears to be on board/that desperate. I assume that since these will indisputably be his cuts you are all good, right?

Fantastic.

He should cut taxes for union employers, or any business that pays prevailing wage provides a decent level of health benefits and provides their workers with a pension benefit. You know cut taxes to promote jobs it is a republican mantra. Put a little disposal income in some pockets will stimulate demand, cutting wages and benefits contributes to the problem. If republicans are really worried about the future generation and family values they will stop promoting wage and benefit cuts for working people. If you work for a living you would be wise if you did not support the people that have cut your throat.

Now you have it Spanky,

Bush tax cuts are bad....very bad. Evil even. Wheras Obama tax cuts are good. Very good.

LoL Greasy, much?

Beverly in Chicago Comment collapsed by the community
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Was he touting D'Day and HCR?

I think frothy mouth was touting the non-existent loop hole in the HCR about abortion.

Santorum said that 'health' is nothing but a loophole for women who would abort a pregnancy to fit into a prom dress."

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/06/08/239111/santorum-calls-abortion-exceptions-to-protect-health-of-the-mother-phony/

T-baggers are really stupid.

The DD-day Obamacare thing almost tops Palin's Paul Revere NRA thing.

Getting rid of loopholes yes. Getting rid of a progressive tax no.

A flat tax won't work based on proportion of income hardship -- That's why we have had a progressive tax for most of the last century, just different rates. If loopholes are removed, the progressive rates can be lower for all brackets, but it will still need to be progressive.

The proportion of income logic has been explained many times. Perhaps you should spend less time swooping and pooping in this forum and more time doing some homework.

So Groucho are you now holding the republican nominees to a higher standard than Obama? Obama has cut squat out of the defense budget, correct? Now why is that?

Oh, and Obama "cut" taxes for the wealthiest 2%. But you know that. He's also about to enact a bunch more tax cuts, all of which will disproportionally favor the rich. But you know that also.

And of course we know that Obama will agree to big cuts to programs for the poor and elderly in the coming months, right?

So Groucho - it would appear that all of the politicians are acting in a highly consistent manner. I realize that the Feistys and Amy will never understand that, but you?

Spanky,

The democrats have not put forth a budget plan so I don't know what they intend to cut. Seems you've figured it out or you have inside sources the rest of the world doesn't have.

With respect to defense, Gates and the Joint Chiefs have all signaled that they want defense cut and, in fact, today Gates called for drastic reductions in the US portion of the NATO budget.

He allowed an extension of the Bush cuts last year for 2 reasons. One, he did not want to take money out of the economy and 2, the concessions he received last year did benefit the unemployed and middle class. Saved them thousands on their tax returns with the education and child care credits.

Medicare will never become a voucher system so stop being delusional. The voters won't allow it and neither will the Senate.

Not a higher standard, I already know what the Ryan budget proposal is and he supports it. Guessing it will never come to fruition in it's current form. Plan B.

oh...I answered both your posts on the previous thread. Guess you didn't read it. I manned up!

Spanky..

Grasp the concept of substance over form. You know exactly what the effect was of the legislation and how dropping the margin rate to 28% affected wealth transfer. Cloak it in whatever legal BS you want. It's legal, yes, but don't deny the effect.

Let's try it this way Groucho.

A rich guy gets taxed at 78%. That to you is good and fair and just. Then a few years later that same guy is taxed at 35% and you say that is bad, and I in fact a wealth transfer. What wealth was transfer?

How about the guy who is taxed now at 19%. Is this a wealth trasnfer also?

See I pay a lot of taxes. You I presume pay you legal rate of taxes. I could care less how much you pay - it's your money. So why do you seem to care so much how much I pay? It's my money. Learned it, not you.

And by the way, marginal economics being what they are, do you really expect me to keep working at the same pace if I know that 70% is going to be taken away?

I deny the effect. Please explain the transfer part. That is my favorite part.

See I'm with you Flat tax at 15% close down deductions. It'll never, ever happen.

What good does it do our economy to offset cuts by raising taxes?? If that's the plan, then why bother?? Does anyone seriously believe that any new money sent to Washington will immediately and dutifully be used to pay down our National debt??

Pay down the debt?? why, they can't even live within their means for one year. .40 cents of every dollar pays interest on our debt. Where do we draw the line?? And if you keep moving the stop sign further and further down the road, then why have a stop sign at all?? Why have a debt ceiling if we just keep raising it??

See I'm with you Flat tax at 15% close down deductions. It'll never, ever happen.

Spanky: How is a flat tax not also a wealth transfer? The issue you raise is not "kind" but only "degree."

It's like that old joke applied to prostitutes -- now we know what you are, the only question is how much. And the answer to the "how much" question varies from person to person, doesn't it, and depends on things like local economic conditions, services contemplated, attractiveness of the goods being bought and sold, etc, etc, etc.

Similarly, any tax, no matter what the rate is, is a wealth transfer to the extent it goes from one pocket to the government and back out again into someone else's pocket. Every dollar I pay in taxes that goes back out to Halliburton is a wealth transfer to Halliburton. See where this is going?

So then, stop using that term because it's disingenuous and totally meaningless in this discussion. The only question isn't whether -- it's merely how much. And there's no reason that I can think of why, once you've answered the "whether" question, it all has be totally "proportionate." A fifteen percent tax on a person making $25,000 a year has a darn sight more negative impact on than a 15 percent tax on a person making $25 million a year, and you know it. A flat tax hurts only the poor and the "equity" of it is a complete and utter fraud being perpetrated by the wealthy. And we all know why.

GM: The democrats have not put forth a budget plan so I don't know what they intend to cut. Seems you've figured it out or you have inside sources the rest of the world doesn't have.

The Democrats had two years from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011 to modify the tax policy for the country. They could have rammed it through as they rammed through most every other piece of legislation they truly wanted. But yet, they did nothing. Wait, check that, they agreed with the GOP that George Bush's policies where the correct policy, and they chose to extend those tax rates.

The Democrats do not want to put a budget on the table that matches their "lets increase taxes" rhetoric. Doing so would identify who they want to tax. It's clear there are not enough "rich" people to supply the amount of tax revenue needed to match in any way the cuts the GOP has put on the table. That means they Democrats would have to tax, the middle class! No way the Democrats want to show that hand, they won't win one election next year. So we get this goofy Kabuki dance from the Democrats, somewhat populist rhetoric, mostly nonsense, but is really no real solution.

Spanky,

Only in 1988 and 1989 (Ronald Reagan's final 13 months in office) was the TOP MARGINAL rate down to 28%. It was 69.13% when he went into office, and went from 69.13%-50% from 1981-1986, then 38.5%, then 28%.

Obama has proposed a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%, which was the rate under Bill Clinton. So with the exception of 13 months of Reagan's time in office, Obama's rate is lower than Reagan's.

Low taxes for the TOP RATES are the exception even under Republican presidents, not the norm.

Under all Republican presidents since federal income tax began, the top marginal tax rate average was 52.38%, a full 12%+ HIGHER than Obama's proposal. I took the 49 years during which the Republican was in power for the majority of the time, added the tax rates, and divided by 49 to get the figure of 52.38%.

Obama wants to raise the top marginal tax rate to Bill Clinton's former rate, which is 12%+ LOWER than the average for all Republican presidents combined.

People get confused about tax brackets as well. 39.6% tax rates aren't going to apply to ALL income--just to the top tax bracket income.

You deny the effect, really??? Let's see drop the top marginal rate from 70 to 28% and who benefits most? Where does the money flow? What was the purpose of the reduction?

..and frankly, I don't care how hard you work or what incentive's keep you working. Has nothing to do with the tax rate. Average is 52.38% for GOPers.

What Obama is asking for is a bargain.

Edward - What good does it do our economy to offset cuts by raising taxes?? If that's the plan, then why bother?? Does anyone seriously believe that any new money sent to Washington will immediately and dutifully be used to pay down our National debt??

There isn't a snowballs chance in Hadas that would happen. There is always a "good cause" to spend it on. "Schools", "Unemployment benefits", "The children", "VA upgrades". I'm not saying these aren't good things, but when you're on a budget, some things have got to get cut. If Congress has this "extra pile of money" at their finger tips, we can be assured they'll find something to spend it on.

AM: Similarly, any tax, no matter what the rate is, is a wealth transfer to the extent it goes from one pocket to the government and back out again into someone else's pocket.

If services are provided, and products delivered, for an agreed upon price, is that a "Wealth transfer"? Doesn't seem to be. Sounds more like commerce.

To most, a wealth transfer refers to the progressive redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the poor, for no services or products provided.

So you're really taking strong liberties with the language in your weak attempt to prove a point.

"Seems you've figured it out or you have inside sources the rest of the world doesn't have."

No, Grouch- it's called 'suppostion', but if you point that out to him, Spankie will call you 'silly'.

Joanne, what you do not understand is that when there is no equity in income and people become desperate, they will not wait for you to dribble crumbs for their taken. They will by force take any and all wealth you have and destroy the means that wealth was obtained. Anarchy like that in the French and Russian Revolution has destroyed wealthy elites in the past and is always knocking on the door. Words will not protect the wealthy and the condemnation of redistribution of wealth will not keep it from happening. Are you really ready to cut off support for the poor and uneducated and to let them breed and multiply and go forth and take the world?

SG: They will by force take any and all wealth you have and destroy the means that wealth was obtained. Anarchy like that in the French and Russian Revolution

What you're saying is, is that we're on the verge of anarchy. Okay, lets run with that premise, I don't think we are, but thats fine. What you're saying is that if we don't take what is rightfully the people's, the wealth of the wealthy, and give it back, that a revolution will occur. Okay, history supports that concept. But at the same time, the wealthy have a stake in the ground too, they want to maintain their wealth, misbegotten or not. So what do they do? They move away. They move their wealth/work to other more hospitable countries. Self-preservation. So now that the wealth is leaving the country, how do you spread the wealth, if there is no wealth to spread?

Looks like things are slightly out of balance, but not quite in the way you thought they were.

Groucho my man - the purpose of income taxes is not wealth re-distribution. Go read the legislative histories when Income Tax was first enacted. It is to fund the government. Yo know stuff like defense, entitlements, immigrations...

But I love that you all are just soooo out in the open about it now. Great. I can only hope that you leaders, such that they are will also adopt your position - higher rates to re-distribute income.

That my friend is a giant loser of an argument. But sadly I am intimately acquainted with progressive rates. I love the idea of a flat tax. In fact I say abolish all income taxes and just go Nat'l sales tax. Tax what you spend.

Neither will ever happen - government would lose control.

Spanky,

Never said that the purpose of income taxes is wealth re-distribution. I said that the EFFECT of the drop in the top marginal rate resulted in wealth distribution.

Simple fact for right now is we are spending more than we take in. So we need to make cuts accompanied by revenue increases. Just my opinion, obviously we have different takes on the subject.

Flat tax will never happen. Agreed

Good weekend.

Groucho said,

I said that the EFFECT of the drop in the top marginal rate resulted in wealth distribution.

Maybe I'm wrong but that sounds like "voodoo economics" you know trickledown economics... that thing that powered the 90's dot.com boom created millions of jobs, etc.

Like the national sales tax would make things fair for everyone except those 47 percent who pay nothing!!

Standards? Please read my previous posts above -- Republicans don't have any standards, that's the point. And when they try to throw stones, we can see them in their glass houses. We can see you!

Go cuddle a dead baby. But make sure to share, and pass it along to others when you're done.

I like Representative Jan Schakowsky's Fairness in Taxation Act of 2011 (HR 1124). Too bad THIS will never see the light of day. I'll let you right-wingers look it up yourself, and try reading about it in perspective of past rates but also the ratio of uber-wealthy versus poor in present time, as well as rates in other first-world countries. You know, be objective and informed.

TP: I like Representative Jan Schakowsky's Fairness in Taxation Act of 2011 (HR 1124). Too bad THIS will never see the light of day.

Yeah, Jan's a little out of step and seems to have had a little bit of bad timing. She should have submitted her wonderful Act last year, you know, when she mattered.

She doesn't matter now.

Maybe she can walk the bill over to Harry's office, ask that it be made an amendment whenever the Senate starts voting on the FY2012 budget. Not that that's happening any time soon either.

Either way, it's always nice to get the socialists like Ms. Schakowsky's take on the issues of the day.

Smith1=There will be a lot of Republican/Tea Party Congress people that will not matter November 2012. I see a lot of voter remorse across the country. Have you noticed how things have gotten worst since the 2010 election?

Rick Santorum would not know courage if it stopped and introduced itself to him--which it has in the person of John McCain. Anyone who uses our WWII heros storming the beaches of Normandy for political points is as low as a politician can go--Rick Santorum is a night crawler.

Nice try, Edward numbers but President Obama is "American born" and a fine president, too.

Now Jody,

Did I say that Obama wasn't born in the U.S.A.?? Besides, even if he wasn't, the time to verify that is long past, which makes that a non-issue. As for being a fine President??

Well......I think Obama is a fine person. Probably a good husband and father. Just got himself into the wrong job. He would excel at some kind of formal service job. Butler, waiter, PR man, maybe even TV news. As President,?? He hasn't a clue.

Edward, not only was your post #7 ignorant, it was offensive.

Nice try Patriot, but what part of post #7 was offensive??

Edward has cut right to the heart of why John McCain wasn't elected,...he wasn't America Born. Thank you Edward for your inciteful rhetoric.

Clara,

You do understand that being a natural born citizen of the United States is a BASIC requirement to be the President, don't you??

And no, I'm not a "birther". If Obama isn't really an American, that issue should have been dealt with during his campaign. Since he is the seated President, it becomes a non-issue. We have far more pressing issues to worry about. Need to prioritize our concerns. Or, as my employees like to say, need to pick your battles.

Edward numbers wears his ignorance LOUD and PROUD.

Perhaps he should re-read my post and really focus on the NUANCE and tone? I am pretty sure I've forgotten more Civics then he will ever know.

But that is just my opinion.

Rick Santorum speaking the truth? LoL You must be kidding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE2y3js2OQ4

As you can see from this video, truth has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Rick Santorum. Opportunism, maybe. Truth, no.

If Santorum says it, it increases the odds greatly that it is NOT the truth.

Maybe 'EARN' also means 'eliminate YOUR job, so the business owner can make even MORE for himself?

Legal, Rob? Sure it is. Does it help the economy? Maybe not so much.

Who do YOU want to pay for feeding the guy that just lost his job? Do you care- as long as it's not YOU? Is this were you want your country going?

you're the progressive drive by so to answer your question I want you to pay for feeding the guy>

and please tell me how you help the economy more than the business owner...

OK, Rob- suppose I'M the guy who's job gets sent elsewhere. Now- who's gonna feed the guy, whether I'm a progressive, Liberal or Me Firster?

And I'm NOT going to help the economy if I don't have a job, now, am I? Actually, I'm gonna be a further drain on it.

You didn't say, either- is this where you want the country going? IF so, it's ok- just admit it out in the open.

If you are not needed in his company, he has not only a right, but a duty, to get rid of you immediately. To keep an unneeded employee is wasteful and silly. Businesses arn't welfare organizations.

Government keeps lots of unneeded employees. That's another area where cuts must be made, and soon.

Wow, another one decides people should not eat. Not one conservative who has posted this comment about 39% has ever asked the questions: 1) why are 39% of the people on food stamps? 2) Why is American jobs not longer pay enough for people to live on? 3) Why are Americans going hungry? 4) Could the Great Recession have increased that number?

Last fall it was the repeated post about 48% of Americans not paying federal income tax without ever posing the question: Why is that 48% of Americans do not earn enough money to pay federal income taxes?

My point is that instead of railing about 39% of Americans on food stamps and 48% of Americans not earning a living wage, everyone should be demanding something be done because this is a new phenomenon, not an ongoing one and the increase in these numbers began with the modern conservative movement and the resulting decline of the middle class.

Being poor is nothing new.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I
think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in
poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and
I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for
the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.
And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for
themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the
Poor, November 1766

Talk is cheap Jody. What have you actually done?

So funny, cause here in San Diego we need more firemen and cops. Too bad we can't hire more, cause the money is gone. Funnier still is the budgets are much bigger than they were 10 years ago..

So why so many fewer cops and firemen? Cause the ones there make so much more than they used to. And will they take pay cuts so more can be hired. Would they even consider going back to the numbers even five years ago? You know the answer.

So let's not blame the "conservative movement." In fact as my pal Drive By would say, these fine union folk are totally "ME FIRSTERS."

Why do people on welfare or food stamps think they are entitled to cable tv, cell phones, fast food, computers....etc, and when I couldnt afford it for my family while working my entry level job, I went to ask for assistance they told me to quit my job and sell my car, then come back and see them. WOW

Why do people on welfare or food stamps think they are entitled to cable tv, cell phones, fast food, computers....etc

And you know this HOW?

You forget to mention they drive a nicer car than you... lol

Stereotype MUCH?

I happen to know this because this is where I came from before I decided to work my way thru college (no scholarships or pell grants, didnt qualify, had a job that barely fed me and my family) and advance my career to support my family. You see I had drive and determination.

Oh, so in otherwords - where you 'came' from speaks for everyone huh?

Got it! Thanks!

If you actually did attend college, you might want to look up the definition of sterotype & refrain from doing so in the future...

That's why the economic meltdown is called the Great Recession. Not as many people are out of work or in soup lines as the Great Depression, but in case you haven't noticed, we are in hard times. Though, did you know many service members in our military qualify for food stamps?

Correlation does not imply causation, and certainly one should avoid Glenn Beck's Chalkboard guilt by association. Had McCain/Palin won in 2008 (haunting), the food stamps would be on the rise just the same, but conservatives wouldn't call them the "Food Stamp" administration.

Jody,

My point is that instead of railing about 39% of Americans on food stamps and 48% of Americans not earning a living wage, everyone should be demanding something be done because this is a new phenomeno

What I am RAILING about, why are our legislators passing bills that encourage fraud by eliminating fingerprinting? Why is it ok to pay 11, million to discontinue the fingerprinting process. What I am complaining about is our legislator are so worried about missing out on federal matching dollars they are willing to eliminate fingerprinting, they have set up online services / applications and going mobile to find possible applicants.

LHO,

Don't pay any attention to the ignorant libs here. This is their life. This is their claim to fame. this and Obama is all they have.

You, on the other hand, have a work ethic.

You can see the fallacy of the liberal mentality. You have been there and done that. My compliments.

Trying to make abortion illegal, even in the case of the mother's health (Sanctimonious Santorum), the fundamentalists are now so embolden there are even groups trying to make birth control illegal. Some states are referring to "persons" in legislation as starting at conception. You can easily see how this could be interpreted and used in horrible ways. Santorum and his ilk want a Christian Republic of America with Christian Sharia Law.

Vermont girl,

The number of federal employees has remained flat since 1950?? I just heard on MSNBC that the number of Federal employees has grown 39% since Obama was elected. You must be delusional.

Edward,

Civilian government employees grew to 1.43 million people in 2010 thanks in part to temporary census workers. From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million. 80,000 census were cut during the end of 2010 bring the level back to 1.35 million.

What Vermont Girl may have been referring to is the percent or per capita of Civilian Federal Employees
which has actually declined. The high was 14.4 per 1000 in 1970 (Nixon), the low is 8.4 in 2010 (Obama) and other notable numbers are 1962 @ 13.3 (Kennedy), 1975 @ 13.2, 1982 @ 11.9 (Reagan), 1990 @ 12.3 (Bush 41), 1994 @ 9.1 (Clinton) and 2002 @ 9.1 (Bush 43).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/

Edward - the Office of Personnel Mgmt. provided the information I referred to.

MSNB?? That's your SOURCE? Come on...use the google man! It's dangerous not to seek information from non-news/opinion sources.

Looks like good research Dennis.