you are so right... take away their healthcare and their pensions.... the lying gop deserve nothing....

James; Now tell them, email the senate, congress and the white house. Speak up and be heard or stay quiet and be herded.

They know that their SHEEP will still vote for them over ...GASP....A BLACK MAN!!!!

And just to be sure they always follow up with what I like to call the GAG REFLEX

G...GUNS

A...ABORTION

G...GAYS

Get's em EVERYTIME...poor 'ol dumb fools, voting against their OWN BEST INTRESTS!!!

i guess this person didnt know what all of us people wanted otherwise this person would know what repulicans are doing im a demo but i think and will be part this time with republican ind had enough of my party of 30 yrs ok done

I don't know, a representative national sample? The answers are clear, and they are, for the most part, overwhelmingly liberal responses. So, naturally, the President and the Democratic establishment wouldn't dare go near them.

Substitute politicians for obama and I could agree with most of what you said. Keep it partisan and I don't agree. Neither party is working for our best interests. If they were cuts to their entitlements would be on the table right along with ours.

Because it's your patriotic duty to just shut up and cough it up.....according to the liberals.

Well if the Conservatives would make their rich buddies and corporations pay their fair share, nobody would be asking you to pay more taxes.

Fair share are you joking? US corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world.

If liberals would stop trying to tax corporations at higher rate than just about EVERY country in Europe corporations wouldn't move their operations to other countries....like GE who paid not taxes for this very reason.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22917.html

As opposed to the fountain of truth spewing from the mouths across the table from him??? The ones that are trying to crash the economy in the hope that he'll get blamed. If the greedy Rich of this country along with their corporations paid their taxes and stopped insisting on a free ride, there would be no need for cuts.

"As opposed to the fountain of truth spewing from the mouths across the table from him???"

They are the ones calling for real cuts NOW.

"If the greedy Rich of this country along with their corporations paid their taxes and stopped insisting on a free ride, there would be no need for cuts."

If the stupid jackass liberals in Congress made the corporate tax rate competitive with the rest of the world corporations would keep operations here instead of shipping jobs overseas.

How about the option to opt out of paying into Social Security? I know for a fact that I could get a far better return than the government holding for me like some parent holding on to their kid's piggy bank....which is exactly what they do for the people who are not responsible enough to take care of their own retirement savings.

You are right though as a matter of fact that no one will EVER live long enough to collect all of the money they have paid in over the years. The con artists politicians who came up with the SS idea knew that it was a way to collect more than they would have to pay out.

Just think of all the extra money you won't collect as DONATION to the bloated American federal government.

T-REX - You make some good points if you are talking about federal employees. But most teachers, firemen, policemen are paid out of state, city, county, and district funds, not federal funds.

Tracy

This is not a good solution. People forget why we have social security. It was adopted after the Great Depression where many people lost everything threw no fault of their own. SS is suppose to be a safety net from that type of disaster. SS was created with good intent but it was not thought threw completely. SS functions under the assumption that the working population keeps growing to fund it. It also didn't take into account people living longer. I think that we need a safety net to guard against economic forces that we have little to no control over so I support SS but feel that we do need to tweak and modify it to work better.

Options being considered that have Merritt:

1. Means testing - those that have more money may be exempt for collecting or delayed when they can collect it.

2. Increase the amount you pay inter the system based on how much you make.

3. Pushing up the retirement age - This a good one if it wasn't for the fact that older people are more likely to get laid off and not rehired.

These are just a few I've heard of.

Not all programs out of Washington are bad but most are poorly conceived/implemented.

"SS is suppose to be a safety net from that type of disaster"

But this isn't how it operates is it? If SS is suppose to be a "rainy day" fund, why has it been operating for the last 80 years as a retirement income source? I will bet if were operating as your describe it as basically a huge insurance policy, and rightly so, the amount the government takes from every worker could be reduced enourmously not to mention not being on the hook for the retirees who expect it as a source of retirement income.

"I support SS but feel that we do need to tweak and modify it to work better."

According to you and how it's SUPPOSE to operate...it needs a complete overhaul.

"1. Means testing - those that have more money may be exempt for collecting or delayed when they can collect it."

That is like stealing from those who paid in just like everyone else. No deal.

"2. Increase the amount you pay inter the system based on how much you make."

Again if SS was operating like a insurance policy, as you decribed, everyone should pay the SAME premium. No one, including the rich, can expect to maintain their previous life style if they need to tap this fund for whatever reason. It's a social safety net that should provide the MINIMUM to keep you above the poverty level.

"3. Pushing up the retirement age - This a good one if it wasn't for the fact that older people are more likely to get laid off and not rehired."

No this is a bad one considering no one even at age 65, will ever be able to collect all of the benefits that would equal to what they have paid in.....otherwise it's a donation to the government.

"Not all programs out of Washington are bad but most are poorly conceived/implemented.'

And these ideas sound like they came out of Washington.

SS was originally intended to keep old folks from being destitute, not to finance retirement. Regards....

@T-REX-847863

We have non Social Security public service folks- teachers, firemen, policemen who retire at 55-60 with full pensions far superior to SS, and we pay the cost of this. If we are to push back our retirement, so should these public service folks. If we raise their retirement age, we lower our costs and our taxes for this.

This is typical. The private and public sectors had comparable retirement benefits years ago. The private sector screwed its employees out of their fair compensation (i.e. pensions) in order to increase CEO salaries and dividends and so now, rather than fight to regain them, private sector employees want to breach legally valid contracts to screw public sector employees out of their fair compensation. Sounds like a plan developed by a CEO to me. The wealthy in this Country have really done a great job of getting the majority to fight over scraps rather than asking why 5% of the people have 80% of the pie.

@Tracy1973

How about the option to opt out of paying into Social Security? I know for a fact that I could get a far better return than the government holding for me like some parent holding on to their kid's piggy bank.

Right. That’s what people always say until they lose their savings and then come on bended knee to the public dole expecting to be taken care of after they have contributed nothing. The system works because it doesn’t allow people to not contribute and then apply for public aid when their investments fail.

That is like stealing from those who paid in just like everyone else. No deal.

1) I didn't know that you had veto authority? And 2) The rich have been stealing from the poor/middle class for the last 30 years or better. I’d have zero problem returning the favor.

Again if SS was operating like a insurance policy, as you decribed, everyone should pay the SAME premium.

Really? That would be the first insurance plan in history that charged every covered person the exact same premium. Premiums vary tremendously, for any type of coverage, based on the specifics of the individual making the coverage purchase, and frequently based on criteria that has no relationship to the coverage.

No this is a bad one considering no one even at age 65, will ever be able to collect all of the benefits that would equal to what they have paid in.....otherwise it's a donation to the government.

No, it’s a tax. That’s why it is called a tax and there is no right to get it all back.

@Mike-InNY

Add to that list a law that forbids Congress from “borrowing” from the Social Security Trust Fund since they have demonstrated that they will never pay it back.

@DarnThatDream

SS was originally intended to keep old folks from being destitute, not to finance retirement.

And given the benefits that it pays today relative to the cost of living, that is all that its doing! Regards back atcha!

"The system works because it doesn’t allow people to not contribute and then apply for public aid when their investments fail."

People who use social security as their sole source of retirement income apply for other forms of public aid without contributing anything all the time. They expect others to take care of them eventhough they did nothing their entire life to plan for their retirement and ask for other handouts when their SS check doen't cover all their bills.

"1) I didn't know that you had veto authority?"

The people of this county will veto this BS means testing idea. It's pure government theft for a bureaucrat in Washington to sit like a king on a throne and determine the your money that you pay into for 30+ years with the PROMISE that it will be there at age 65 is actually deemed by them based on the your hard work to earn income that allows you retire comfortably that you don't have a right to collect like everyone else. It's not their money and it sure as hell isn't yours.

"And 2) The rich have been stealing from the poor/middle class for the last 30 years or better. I’d have zero problem returning the favor."

That is what every loser who expect the rich to pay for their shortcommings in life alway say.

"Premiums vary tremendously, for any type of coverage, based on the specifics of the individual making the coverage purchase"

Considering this is suppose to be social safety net and not a shop around for the best benefits product exercise, a single premium for every person is well justified. Again I said operating like an insurance program not paying like one.

"No, it’s a tax. That’s why it is called a tax and there is no right to get it all back"

If the government if forcing you to pay into a system and then allows you get a benefit because they apparently know better that you how to save for your retirement then they need to stop BSing the American people by calling it a tax but rather a savings account that allows you get back your money that you paid in to take care of YOU not they person next to you.

That's right.....drink the Kool-ade.

So, basically raise taxes on someone else to get what you want? Tax everyone, and every company that makes more than you do?

Spoken like a democrat or a perhaps even a socialist. I find it amusing that people think nothing of taking from someone else via the tax code, but frown on someone sticking a gun in someone's ribs and taking the money themselves. Only difference between you and a common thug is the thug knows whet he is doing is wrong, you feel "entitled" to take someone else's cash because you feel you deserve something you did not earn yourself.

Entitlements are huge problem. Politicians have convinced you it is your right to Social Security, your right to health care, and that it is OK to take from someone else to get it. Sorry, you want your SS, pay for it yourself, don't raise taxes on your neighbor to get what you want.

People that gain the most from this country should pay more. Benjamin Franklin supported the graduated income tax. It is only fair if we all make sacrifices in this economy.

I see very few rich people or their children in the military defending this country. Since the bulk of the combat people come from the middle class and poor asking the rich to cough up a little bit more in taxes does not seem like much to ask. Are the rich that cheep and greedy?

I agree with the basic proposition presented, but will address them in a different way and in the order presented:

1. We don't need to "raise corporate taxes" by raising the rates. We can even cut the rates. What needs to be done is to close the "loopholes" and eliminate the corporate welfare, i.e., subsidies for oil, defense contractors, etc. In addition, we need to tax all income to a domestic corporation, including their off-shore income. That would then have them paying their share of the costs of governance. Remember, any taxes paid will result in a slight increase of costs to end users, but it will be nominal and result in greater benefit to the country.

2. I agree with this, but would expand it to be all income pay FICA, but at a reduced rate such as 4%, 2% by the employee and matching 2% from the employer. This would benefit all and would result in more disposable income for all to spend in the general economy. Right now the employee and employer pay about 7.9% each, but is capped at $106,000 annual income.

3. Capital gains taxes are a special animal and result in tax on unearned income derived from passive investments. We can leave the rate in, but we need to tightly define the meaning of "capital gains" to eliminate the use of "bonuses" or "incentive bonuses" as capital gains and tax them at the regular income rates. That would result in a more equitable distribution of taxes that would result in more revenue to the treasury.

The above would satisfy the Republicans in that it would not be a "tax increase" as we would have a reduction in the FICA rate and no tax rates would be increased. They will call the elimination of corporate welfare an "increase" but that is bogus semantics.

It is also my suggestion that the "Bush Tax Cuts" be allowed to expire and return to a more reasonable tax rate for all of us. We all need to contribute more to the coffers, not just the wealthy. We also need to get over the idea that our government is an enemy. Government is a necessity when you have more than 3 people in the room. There needs to be a form of governance that sets boundaries for society and any such mechanism has costs All of the participants (aka, "citizens") get to pay a share, it is the cost of being a member. We need to get back to discussions that consider the entirety of the society. None of us "like" paying taxes and we will continually bitch about having to pay, but we do have to pay. Will we ever be satisfied that we are getting the most effective or efficient government--no. Let's get over it.

There are my thoughts.

Would like to add, BRING BACK THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX. Short term capital gains does absolutely nothing for the economy but rather hurt it in a number of ways. It makes the markets vulnerable manipulation by spreading false rumors and lies. The wild speculation of oil prices would not of happened if this tax was brought back. It worked great since it was enacted under Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Since these laws were weakened we have seen greater fluctuation in the markets and non of is did this country or the people any good except for those on Wall Street who are manipulating the market.

Mike-InNY:

Very good point!

"In addition, we need to tax all income to a domestic corporation, including their off-shore income."

Yes that would get GE and Immelt, hired out by Obama to head his economic advisory panel, to actually pay taxes.

"It is also my suggestion that the "Bush Tax Cuts" be allowed to expire and return to a more reasonable tax rate for all of us. We all need to contribute more to the coffers, not just the wealthy."

We do not need to contribute more to the "coffers". That is like giving more crack to an addict. We need to cut spending to 2008 levels.

"Will we ever be satisfied that we are getting the most effective or efficient government--no."

I don't think it's too much to ask our geniuses in Congress to be able to account for billions unaccounted for in various government departments like the DOD or the DOE.

How about a just a little bit of efficiency? The problem with a larger federal government is that by nature will get more and more inefficient.

OK, when you say "short term" in front of capital gains tax it makes a lot more sense and probably would not impact those that have their 401ks in mutual funds.

Okay TRex. Have your fun.

However, try to think about this. When there is severe inequality in a society, it collapses, as did Spain, The Dutch, and merry old England. Part of the reason is that the investors invest elsewhere (China, India, Indonesia) where the returns are higher and let their home country go to pot. Also, the investor class does not produce anything useful - just paper, like CDSs and CDO's, etc. And, by the way, the wealthy are very good at using the government to get what they want, special breaks. (Kevin Phillips, "Wealth and Democracy)

Finally, what do you think happens when the ecomonic divide gets extreme? Do you expect the underclass to die of hunger or accept corporate slavery (as used to exist in company towns all over the USA)? No, what you'll get is something like the Arab Spring or maybe 1930 Germany, or maybe 1917 Russia, or maybe 1789 France.

"However, try to think about this. When there is severe inequality in a society, it collapses, as did Spain, The Dutch, and merry old England"

Those countries went to "pot" because of their governement overspending.

"Finally, what do you think happens when the ecomonic divide gets extreme?"

You get what is today Cuba....where all of the money is locked up in the governement.

@T-REX-847863

I find it amusing that people think nothing of taking from someone else via the tax code, but frown on someone sticking a gun in someone's ribs and taking the money themselves.

You mean like the wealthy and the corporations that have been systematically stealing from the poor and middle class over the past 30 years. Muggers use guns. Corporations and the wealthy use lobbyists. The results are the same.

you feel "entitled" to take someone else's cash because you feel you deserve something you did not earn yourself.

Nope, but I don’t have any problem reclaiming stolen property either.

Entitlements are huge problem.

Entitlements cause little problem. Congress raiding the Social Security Trust fund has been the problem. Tax cuts and loopholes for the wealthy and corporations that have allowed them for decades to avoid paying anything towards their share of the burden is the problem. They benefit like the rest but pay nothing.

The top income tax rate has DECREASED by over 50% in the past 60 years, and most of them don’t pay it anyway. They hire accountants to use the tax loopholes they got passed to avoid paying any taxes. GE pays nothing but rather gets a 4 billion refund in 2010??? That doesn’t even address their success at bribing Congress to eliminate or reduce all the forms of taxes that most effect them, i.e. Inheritance tax, Capital Gains Tax, etc. It is pretty sad that we have been so conditioned to the abuse, like battered wives, that we think just getting them to pay anything, no matter how trivial, would be a victory.

@Tracy1973

"Finally, what do you think happens when the ecomonic divide gets extreme?"

You get what is today Cuba....where all of the money is locked up in the governement.

Exactly! The Communists came to power in a military coup d’état in 1959 that was a direct result of the Cuban government, under President Batista being in league with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy which saw a widened gap between rich and poor Cubans. We are seeing the same kind of corruption and collusion between the government and business in the US today that lead to a successful communist revolt in Cuba. Maybe we should learn from history!

"...under President Batista being in league with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy which saw a widened gap between rich and poor Cubans"

Batista's political interests lied with socialist leaders in Cuba who had no interest letting the people have control financial interests i.e. private land ownership. Castro was just even more the to left. There is no freedom for ANYONE under socialist/communist regimes and there surely isn't a "middle class" under left wing policies.

The problem with the medical profession just may be that they are trying to recover the costs of EMTLA. I know a lot of our spanish friends go to the emergency room instead of having a regular doctor.

Republicans are not decimating the middle class. Global competition for jobs is. That a manufacturing job can be done cheaper in China, is not the fault of the GOP. The unwillingness of american workers to access the new global wage standard is the problem.

It is sad that factory workers can't make $60k and that jobs are not plentiful, but the truth is that job can be done elsewhere for 25 cents on the dollar. That decimated the middle class...no the tax code.

You want jobs? Place tariff if countries are illegally dumping. Continue to force Chine to let their currency float. Get training for new jobs...crappy old assembly jobs are gone. Lets not whine about $12-20 an hr jobs that are gone, do something about it- but do not raise taxes, it is not the answer.

The why after 7 month have they not introduced 1 single jobs program? Why are they going after the middle class to pay for the crisis when it was the rich corporations the paid off politicians to change the laws which got us in this mess? Why is it that the republicans have blocked attempts to try and level the playing field with countries like China?

TARIFF of CHINA

This is something we are in agreement with. I am in favor of putting a tariff on China since they refuse to float their currencies on the world market. China has a very steep tariff on our goods going over there on top of the fact that their currency is so much lower than ours. I am also quite surprised that nobody in congress from either side has raised this issue in the budget talks.

"It was Benjamin Franklin who said that a graduated income tax is fair and reasonable since those who benefits the most from this country should pay more back."

And he was an idiot for suggesting it. So I should pay more to drive on the same road as someone earning half of what I do? A fair tax is a flat tax with no deductions and/or loop holes. Right there we could severely reduce the size of the IRS although CPAs would have look for a new line of work. Those who earn more produce more for the most part. Your pay is based on the value of the services you provide....otherwise we might as well pay janitors the same as we pay aeronautical engineers. To say that those who use LESS public services should pay more is just plain wrong.

Tracy

How is paying the same percentage or the same be fair. For example, 10% from someone making 30K vs someone making 1M. It is a lot easier to make money when you have it. The more you make the more opportunities become available and the easier it is to make. A graduated curve adjusts for some of the disparity that is created. Also, if you allow the wealth to keep migrating up to a few you will eventually have nothing left at the bottom. There does need to be a way for the money to cycle throughout the economy. What would happen to lakes if it never rains? I am not suggesting that we just take the money from the rich and give it to the poor but for the economy to continue to work there needs to be something that completes the cycle. If you don't allow some mechanism in the economy to do this you will rapidly turn this country in to a third world country with a small rich oligarchy and a large peasant population. There needs to be a balance.

One example why rich should pay more, how many of them join the military to defend this country vs those from the middle class and poor? Shouldn't the rich pay a little extra for that? I live in NYC and don't drive yet I pay for the highways that you drive on. Is that fair? The more you make is because of the benefits this country has to offer. Is it right to just take the money and run or give something back.

I'm not really sure it is the republicans who are decimating the middle class.

There are many things that contribute to the loss of manufacturing jobs, including the fact that such jobs follow the cheap labor. We continue to lead in the invention of the next generation of items because we have been funding the necessary research. Hopefully, we can continue in this vein.

As to tariff's, they have historically been unsuccessful and probably should be limited in their use. We do need to assure that where we are competing in the manufacture of items with another country that there is parity. That can be controlled through the judicious use of tariffs. We should not just have blanket use of tariffs with any particular perceived competitor, just those where there is true competition.

I think the imposition of a tax on corporations that move jobs overseas is a good idea. It does not have to be onerous, but there needs to be a cost for the loss of jobs and revenue in this country.

I am surprised there is not more discussion about government programs that contain jobs. We should be spending money on infrastructure to modernize our power grid, upgrade the gas lines, improve the broadband accessibility, improve roads and bridges, and upgrade airports. All of this spending is inside the U.S. and results in economic boosts that improve our economic health. Why do we have a Congress that is railing about debt limits, wasting time on "the gay" issues, and arguing about marriage or abortion, none of which is important to our Federal government? Let's get this country back to work.

@ Mike-InNY

"How is paying the same percentage or the same be fair"

Is it fair that an aeronautical engineer get paid more than a janitor? Why should the person that produces more and is more valuable in terms of value of services pay even more in ADDITION to the amount they would already be paying if there was a flat tax rate?

"A graduated curve adjusts for some of the disparity that is created"

Then why pay people varying wages based on their service's value to society? Instead of trying to make people more "equal" financially, i.e. redistributing wealth no matter what euphemisms you want to use, which is what a progressive tax system does, why not just let the government i.e. the people, set everone's wage the same?

This is exactly the point. You are so right. I am so tired of hearing the Politicians bark about jobs and taxes in the same sentence. It is utter crap and they know it.

Nobody is stopping you from paying more taxes Christina.

Agreed. It's frustrating to see people getting several thousand dollars back from the government every year. These people who get $10,000+ back every year...it's a bit much.