DADT

“….. even when repeal seemed within reach, success was anything but assured. It only came after a nearly pitch-perfect effort by Obama and the military leadership to create the political conditions necessary to bring about repeal, as well as well as some very shrewd public and private gamesmanship by Senate leaders that left GOP moderates with little choice but to do the right thing….” Greg Sargent, per Obama Diary

__________________________________________

Got it – in his first term. Something I never ever thought would happen. President Clinton should never ever have instituted this. And activists should have gone after both Clinton and President Bush and Congress and the Pentagon from day one.

In the meantime, President Obama will continue to do all he can to set this country on course after years of citizens – and the media - just looking the other way.

October 2009 – HP:

President Barack Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but offered no timetable or specifics for acting on that promise.

He acknowledged to a cheering crowd that some policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.

"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.

The law was passed by Congress in 1993 and signed by President Bill Clinton, who also promised to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military but was blunted by opposition in the military and Congress. Obama said he's working with Pentagon and congressional leaders on ending the policy.

"We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country," Obama said. "We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage ... especially when we are fighting two wars."

Obama said it was no secret "our progress may be taking longer than we like." He followed this by asking supporters to trust his administration's course.

"I appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough," Obama said. "Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach."

Some advocates said they already have heard Obama's promises – they just want to hear a timeline. Cleve Jones, a pioneer activist and creator of the AIDS Memorial Quilt, said Obama delivered a brilliant speech, but added "it lacked the answer to our most pressing question, which is when."

"He repeated his promises that he's made to us before, but he did not indicate when he would accomplish these goals and we've been waiting for a while now," said Jones, national co-chair of a major gay-rights rally expected to draw thousands of gay and lesbian activists to the National Mall on Sunday.

Obama also called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He also called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners.

He expressed strong support for the Human Rights Campaign agenda – ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people – but stopped short of laying out a detailed plan for how to get there.

"My expectation is that when you look back on these years you will look back and see a time when we put a stop against discrimination ... whether in the office or the battlefield," Obama said.

Obama's political energies are focused on managing two wars, the economic crisis and his attempt to reform the health care system.

I reject the idea that 0.3 % of taxpayers should not pay taxes

For 3 years President Obama has attempted to negotiate and placate Republicans to no avail. For 10 years Republicans have caused/are causing class warfare. Now suddenly "cash hoarders" are upset and want to play with our heads because how President Obama going to fix them.

At least half of the people believe that corporations really do care about them.

Give 'em hell Barry!

The road is clear.

http://ametia.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/obama-biden-2012.jpg?w=150

Backhouse, very nice post.

We need to jam the phones up on the Hill. Starting now. It's time they started answering to us, instead of the rich.

Obama’s Buffett Buffonery

So Obama model’s his tax plan, provides the moral argument against the rich by using a guy so rich – has so much money - he doesn’t even care about money, he’s made more money than he can ever need or spend – the richest man in the world from time to time?

And guess what …… it is all protected FROM FEDERAL TAXES by foundations…. His daughter’s foundation, his two son’s foundations, his buddy Bill’s foundation …… if the federal government knows what is best to do with our money why does it not know what is best to do with the money in Buffett’s foundations?

So Buffett whines about not paying as much as his secretary?

Why doesn’t he just take a salary then? Why does he choose to take all his earnings in capital gains and dividends at the lower rate?

Surely the liberal tax martyr isn’t dodging a higher rate, right? Maybe Buffett should let his secretary be compensated in stock – who wouldn’t take that, huh?

Doesn’t Berkshire Hathaway that Buffett owns so such of pay federal income taxes at 35% rate before dividend and gains ….. doesn’t the capital gains tax of 15% on top of that corporate tax amount to much more than his secretary’s rate?

How come he doesn’t mention that?

Oh wait a minute … it seems there may also be a problem there ….. something, about some stuff on page 56 of the company report ….

”At December 31, 2010 …. Net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million…. Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities.”

Too funny – Obama is using a guy whose company owes the federal government OVER A BILLION IN BACK TAXES as his moral example.

Jon Stewart nailed it when he showed clips of Barry’s “PASS THIS BILL” speeches. After that, he was beaming when he said “Campaign Obama is so much cooler than Governing Obama!!!”

How right he is. And we’re going to see “Campaign Obama” 24/7/365 for the next 14 and a half months.

The only problem is that, if he is successful as “Campaign Obama”, the country will be stuck with four more years of “Governing Obama” which has been a dismal failure. He’s even scaring some Dems:

From Politico:

Moderate Dems duck, cover on hikes
By: Scott Wong and Jake Sherman
September 19, 2011 11:41 PM EDT

Liberals on Monday cheered President Barack Obama’s plan to hike taxes on the wealthy to cut the deficit. But the response from Democrats on the front lines of 2012 election battles? Silence. Or, at best, tepid enthusiasm.

Centrist Democrats, a dwindling breed on Capitol Hill, were quickly faced with another rough choice once Obama went public with his plans: Reject their president or back what Republicans are already calling the largest tax increase in the nation’s history.

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, who is up for reelection in 2012, has supported raising taxes on millionaires but was still weighing whether he’d support higher taxes on those who make more than $200,000 a year, said spokesman Dan McLaughlin.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a key moderate who’s up for reelection next year, didn’t mince words: “There’s too much discussion about raising taxes right now, not enough focus on cutting spending.”

But Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who likely will face GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg in next year’s reelection bid, hedged a bit, saying he backs provisions in Obama’s plan that call for closing tax loopholes that benefit millionaires and corporations

“This plan isn’t the one I would have written, nor is it the one that will end up passing Congress,” Tester said. “But I welcome all ideas to the table so Congress can work together to create jobs, cut debt and cut spending.”

BTW, I got a scare last night. I was channel surfing during commercials and I checked Maddow’s show and I could have sworn she was interviewing Jabba the Hutt. Then I recognized the voice and the dufus ball cap and the dorky haircut: it was Michael Moron. He looks like he might have lost some weight, going from five chins down to four, .

Warren Buffet is an apostate in the church of Conservatism...a rich man who speaks up on behalf of fairness to the middle class. As such his reputation must be destroyed. He must be forced into silence. As such every sort of tactic will be used in an attempt to steal his credibility. Every means will be tried to get people to ignore the truth.

The truth is, millionaires and billionaires pay an average effective tax rate of 17%. Middle class tax payers are in the mid 20's. It's a massive redistribution of wealth to the top as Conservatives seek to balance the budget on the backs of the average American.

The jig is up. The truth is out. It's time to write the Buffett Rule into law.

Ft: Who gets blamed for the gridlock -- Obama or a Do-Nothing Congress?

It's already been answered. The tea-bagger/Republican Congress has a 12% approval.

I was able to catch just a bit of Ron Suskind, the author of "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President", as he was interviewed on Morning Joe this A.M.

While in many ways, Suskind's book is revealing in terms of the intimate glimpse into President Obama and the workings of his inner circle, the bottom line is that the book appears to be a pretty routine, gossipy, inside the Beltway narrative of the kind that's written about every presidency.

In fact, Suskind wrote exactly this kind of book about the Bush Administration in 2004.

Still, Suskind's coverage of the Obama White House is a vast improvement over what the press and pundits offered up during the 2008 presidential campaign and the first half of President Obama's current term.

Gradually, the media is beginning to cover the Obama Administration the way it covers any administration...the way it covered the last one, and the one before that.

The change in tone couldn't be more opportune...only a bit more than a year out from next year's general election. No more "tingle up the leg" coverage from now on, OK gang?

Just do your job this time around.

Bob: Too funny – Obama is using a guy whose company owes the federal government OVER A BILLION IN BACK TAXES as his moral example.

Obama is using a billionaire to justify taxing people making $250,000. That smoke screen of his just doesn't work. Buffett is also a big liberal and huge supporter of Obama. It's clear Obama's economic policies have been poor for the country, but very good for people like Buffett. Buffett doesn't mind paying more taxes, he knows Obama will make it up to him with more preferential treatment for his country just like he did for Solyndra and GE.

So how many more speeches will Obama be making on his American Jobs Act? No one understands it, it seems to being a motley mix of cutting a little here, taxing a lot there, more spending for everyone and all wrapped up in a populist campaign theme. And the new spending? Well at the least it's funneled yet again to the Unions and the Greens. Same-old. Same-old.

And one of these days Obama is going to have to explain Solyndra. That's was a pretty cozy deal with his campaign money bundlers, and yet another failed deal by Obama that the taxpayers had to pay for.

Beverly, I'm convinced this is a country who prefers Democratic policies to Tparty policies. The Supreme Court handed GWB the presidency after 8 years of a Democratic president (Clinton).

We're going to have a huge GOTV effort next year. Boehner and Cantor cater to the rich in order to get their campaign donations. They stand for nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

They need to go.

Mixed Bag==Do you believe Joe McGinness book about Sarah also?

Only you and First Read believe that Sarah Palin is as important as President Obama, Sue.

Suskind's book is far more interesting...for obvious (to most of us, anyway) reasons.

His 2004 book about President Bush was as well.

California is Democratic. And if you have not notice their policys work SO well the lowest unemployment is 12% (Most areas are closer to 16%) broke. Spend more time on Bills like 32 that wants motels to use fitted sheets then the budget, and actually puts into their fiscal budget federal bail outs. When you run out of money in the private sector to support everything else you have another California. Yep works REAL well. lol.

Warren Buffet is an apostate in the church of Conservatism...a rich man who speaks up on behalf of fairness to the middle class. As such his reputation must be destroyed. He must be forced into silence. As such every sort of tactic will be used in an attempt to steal his credibility. Every means will be tried to get people to ignore the truth.

Am I distorting the truth if I point out that Buffet has used the tax code to set up trust funds that avoid the Inheritance Tax and his quoted reason was that a private trust would direct the funds more efficiently than the government? I don't believe this is an attempt to destroy his reputation. It does however show the inconsistencies between his words and his actions. If Buffet truly believed that he should be taxed more then he would have not used this mechanism and simply allowed the government to collect the tax on his estate. I believe it is fair to ask him to clarify his position.

Bev, Who is Barry?

On 10/8/10, IBM offered the President, at no charge, their services to uncover $900 billion in waste and fraud in Medicare. President Obama turned them down.

MB, have you actually listened to the questions asked by reporters to this President? They always try to trap him while giving a free ride to the ones in congress most to blame for the stalemate we're in. If you think the press was hard on Bush, you have lost credibility with me.

Buffett owns Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway owns a significant portion of Moody's rating service so our debt is still AAA by Moody's. S&P downgraded the US debt to AA because of obama's spending and the left went after S&P...typical. Now obama wants to spend more. Tax and spend--that's all he knows. Maybe he is really trying to collapse our economy.

I cannot believe liberals are ranting about the Obama tax rates. Liberals - Obama has been governing this nation for going on 3 years and he's not listening to you. I wonder why? He hasn't raised taxes... Oh, some of you will blame the republicans... no, actually all of you will blame the republicans...

I say... let the democrats come out and just say it to the nation... "We want to raise taxes on the American Public!!" What's wrong with that? Why do they continually blame the republicans without actually presenting it to the people?

Sounds like a chickensh!t way to proudly proclaim the democrat desires to the people!

Just friggen say it... LOUDLY, BOLDLY and without hesitation!! Why won't the democrat politicians just come out and say it?

I know why!

Because they'd be run out of Washington on a rail! Liberals want to raise taxes on the people but they are held back by popular desire to keep taxes low... and they continually blame the republicans. Liberals - be BOLD - if you want taxes raised... then contribute YOUR dollars as an example to the rest of the country. When you do send extra money to Washington... PROCLAIM IT... let us know when you do it and I will stand up and cheer for you!

”At December 31, 2010 …. Net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million…. Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities.”

That's not the same thing as back taxes. The reality is stated right in your quote..."potential future obligation". It's a normal accounting procedure which sets aside money which may or may not be owed to taxing authorities at a future date.

As I said, attacks on Warren Buffett are MANDATORY now in the Conservative world.

That doesn't change the FACT that the wealthy elites are getting a sweetheart deal on their taxes we can no longer afford.

kingofmyhill-

I think the press was brutal to President Bush...that is, compared to their handling of President Obama.

As for the credibility thing?

Sorry...I wasn't aware that you were a fan.

Oh well...

I'll live with it.

JoAnna1 -- What special treatment did GE get under Obama? I know that they paid $0 taxes due to the financial meltdown under Bush but not sure what you are referring to today.

Warren Buffett, besides sheltering his wealth from taxes, owing four billion in back taxes, all while calling for higher taxes he will never pay, is using Obama and the democratic party as hucksters for his own insurance business- which offers policies that promise tax free income to wealthy investors.

Once upon a time, the Fourth Estate would have been all over this. Now? Well, he's throwing a fundraiser for Obama, so he must be one of the good guys.

I wonder if Buffett got the news that the insurance program set up by congress in the 1950s that protected the nuclear power agencies is woefully inadequate? Seems it has about twelve billion in coverage- not nearly enough. Perhaps he should set his sights on providing reinsurance for the insurers who will write new policies for that industry- it's the golden goose. Then he can leave the rest of us alone- cause, those making $200,000 are not going to be able to take advantage of his tax exempt annuity policies.

On another note- my exchange yesterday with John B was highly enlightening. For those who missed it, it involved many backs and froths about chained dollars- John did not know of the existence of such; went so far as calling it a "lie".

It got me thinking about how little the average person knows about highly technical subjects, and how resistant most people are to things that are in opposition to their beliefs about them.

There is an adage- a little knowledge is a dangerous thing- and its truth was displayed yesterday, as there is no shortage of individuals who seek to exploit such ignorance to their own ends.

Thus, someone who has read a book and looked at some websites helpfully sponsored by those who share the philosophy of the book's author feels completely at ease calling someone trying to explain a concept he or she does not understand a "liar".

Perhaps that is wrong with this country- people whose opinions are shaped by those with whom they agree- but never informed by reading and understanding those with whom they disagree- feeling empowered to dictate to everyone, all based on their perception of the superiority of their opinions.

Forget the facts. Forget the consequences of poor decisions.

Far worse than the average person acting this way is the fact that we have a president who conducts the country's business this way. If his frost economic plan led to higher unemployment and debt- it must be time to do the same thing again. If his charm offensive did not work in the Middle East, must be time to do that again. Why? Because the only people to whom he listens tell him exactly the same thing that he is thinking. So, if it fails, it must be the fault of the naysayers who warned him it would not work- not the faulty program.

The wider electorate may not understand economics or foreign policy any better, but they do know what failure looks like. They punished that last November, and will punish it again next November.

In the meantime, I suggest some of you devote your energies to studying those whom oppose the philosophies of those with whom you do agree. You might not change your minds, but you will, certainly, make better arguments. And not look like fools as you do it.

Backhouse,

Why the COMPLETE DECEIT?

Why do you intentionally misrepresent known facts in an attempt to deceive, manipulate, cherry pick data - DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE YOU ARE FORCED TO IN EFFECT LIE TO MAKE THE LIBERAL POINT?

One example..........

From 1982-86, Reagan's tax rate was 50%.

Yea .... And then he moved it to 38.59% in 1987 and 28% in 1988-1989.

Under Obama, the wealthiest Americans have effectively paid between 15% (corporate tax rate) and 0% due to loopholes and special deals.

Do you really not understand the difference between corporate income tax, personal marginal rates, capital gain taxes ......?

Why are you comparing a stated top marginal tax rate with "effective" or adjusted income - You not aware that deductions existed before Obama? That people used them?

Got a source for "effectively paid"?

With a top bracket tax rate of 39.6%, President Clinton successfully created 23 million jobs and a $236.2 Billion surplus.

Want to compare Clinton to today?

Clinton tried for national health care and the repubs defeated it. Clinton tried for a big government stimulus spending plan and the repubs defeated it. Clinton tried for massive deficit spending and the repubs made him BALANCE THE BUDGET.

Surplus?

There was no surplus.

I gave you all the deficits and total debt year by year from the Treasury Dept for the Clinton years, explained that there was no surplus, explained public debt vs. intragovernmental holdings and you STILL REPEAT THE LIE?

Want it all again?

After a decade of their receiving Bush tax cuts ($3Trillion), we want this fortunate group to do their part to lift up our economy.

They are fortunate ..... yea ..... most also risked an awful lot, made amazing sacrifices, worked their azz off ....

Want them to lift up the economy ..... then tell the idiot to take his foot off their throat.

BTW - One simple question?

HOW DOES RAISING TAXES CREATE THE JOBS WE NEED?

If Buffet truly believed that he should be taxed more then he would have not used this mechanism and simply allowed the government to collect the tax on his estate.

And there's the hypocritical statement that Conservatives always use in such situations. Why should Buffett be OBLIGATED to subject himself to differential, unfavorable treatment in order to tell the truth -- “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

Once again, we're back to attempting to punish Warren Buffett for telling the truth...that the Conservative upward redistribution of wealth cannot continue because it costs society too much.

Place the Buffett Rule into the tax code.

Pass the American Jobs Act.

I'm all for an even tax policy based on income without loopholes. I'm also in favor of instituting the Volker rule (or bringing back Glass/Steigel-sp?). I agree with Sheila Bair (rep appointee) who says that the banks MUST be ring-fenced. I think Obama picked the wrong economic advisors when he took office and never should have followed Larry Summers or Tim Geitner. I think it's time to address the home mortgage problem with the banks being made to modify all the current mortgages instead of stonewalling the owners. Decimating whole neighborhoods isn't working out for the banks either. Time to start using our brains to fix the whole economy and not just to seek short-term gains.

Alan, NJ -- Buffet uses legal loopholes all designed by Congress. Not the current President.

I cannot believe liberals are ranting about the Obama tax rates. Liberals - Obama has been governing this nation for going on 3 years and he's not listening to you. I wonder why? He hasn't raised taxes... Oh, some of you will blame the republicans... no, actually all of you will blame the republicans..

With the republicans setting a record number of filibusters in the senate, it is obvious why almost nothing has gotten done over the last 3 years. It is time to vote them out, and admit their failed policies ( Reaganomics and free trade policies) have nearly destroyed this country.

NJ, I'm glad you brought up yesterday's exchange. You're leaving out part of the story. Here it is;

NJ, if you wanted to have a legitimate discussion you could have simply shown that chained dollars are an alternate means of calculating inflation to the CPI, one that uses a gradually changing market basket to more accurately reflect what consumers are actually using. You didn't. Instead you immediately went to condescension and insult which was my clue that you were up to something. You put up a vaguely labeled chart with numbers all roughly around 100, indicating the probability that they're percentages.

Here http://www.bea.gov/National/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=264&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2011&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid is a chart from the same US Government source that tells the tale clearly. In your precious chained dollars the data says:

GDP has yet to recover to its pre-recession peak.

GNP has yet to recover to its pre-recession peak.

Per capita disposable income has yet to recover to its pre-recession peak.

Per capita personal consumption expenditures have yet to recover to pre-recession peak.

Per capita consumption of goods have yet to recover to pre-recession peak.

Per capita usage of services has yet to recover to pre-recession peak.

So your claim that the "demand" argument doesn't hold water is bogus. The information is there, in your chosen dollars, from your chosen source.

Conservatives still have no solution for creating demand when there is a lack of that in the economy.

The very wealthy still pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class.

You've not chased me away, nor will you. I'll just continue to prove you're deceptive and dishonest.

Great input at 1.27 Jean Van. All good points.

A new dawn in our military, DADT abandoned. All can now serve their nation, this country, USA. Freedom for all.

Cuddling of the wealthy is over. Americans, now is the time to pay your fair share. A patriot wouldn't need to be appeased nor cuddled before helping in lifting the nation that made them rich. We don't want a nation of destitutes. A nation where very few eat and the rest wait on crumbs falling from their tables. GOP, stop telling unfounded lies about giving to the rich so they can create job. It's pure fallacy as we've seen they do not drive the market rather DEMAND drive the market.

Saint Ronald Regan raising taxes 11 times didn't make him a job killer, un-american or was he a tax and spend libbie. What is fair in America is YOU paying your fair share.

John B. THANK YOU! DOUSCHEBAG PARTY MEMBERS LIE about being conservative and want to tear apart a man who is actually conservative, Warren Buffet. DOUSCHEBAG PARTY MEMBERS want to kill your chance of work for pay. They LIE about being rewared for hard work. THEY WORKED THE SAME OR LESS THAN ANYONE ELSE THEMSELVES.

AND the Douschebaggers are against the military and against the American Soldier. They are against honor in serving, they are pro-torture, and fundamentally craven.

GET OUT of the Republican Party, DOUSCHEBAGGERS!

Obama now has essentially sabotaged the so called "Super Committee" with his threats of a veto of any legislation that has entitlement reform without new taxes. Obama seems to have this "magic touch" of creating impossible scenarios that others have to abide by, and results in a detriment to the country. Being populist is good politics: "Tax the rich - Save the poor", but it makes for terrible economic policies that in the end hurts the poor even more.

Let's face it. Governing in absolutes is what fails and drives survivors like me insane. We have a deficit. Do taxes need to go up today to bring down the deficit. Yes. Do entitlement programs need to be cut to drive down the deficit. Yes. Do taxes need to stay high forever. No. Do entitlement programs need to go away forever. No.

My Wife and I decided to pay down our mortgage faster so that we could hit retirement earlier. She took on extra work and I cut a lot of my expenses like vacation and eating out. We're almost there and it is Amazing! I admit it was a tough compromise but that's the key word: COMPROMISE. She's going to quit when the house gets paid off and I'm going down to the Keys with the clothes on my back. That will be the end of the high tax (extra job) and the entitlement cuts (my vacations).

I know that congress could work with the President to form temporary compromise but you know what the real issue is here, I like and respect who I am married to...I don't call her names and I regard her opinion..and we move forward. Unfortunately in politics today it is really nasty and disrespectful and unyielding. Folks find it fun to bash the other teams belief rather than make an argument for how we play the game with the cards we're dealt.

No president. No congress, no business will bring back jobs as it stands today. Low taxes don't drive job creation, government spending doesn't either. Innovation and cooperation and opportunity create jobs. Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, John Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, the innovated and capitalized on opportunities but they need cooperation from the rich and the poor. It makes me sad because we are so close...

Dont_carry_it_all: JoAnna1 -- What special treatment did GE get under Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

Also, President Obama has appointed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the President Council of Jobs and Competitiveness, all the while Mr. Immelt has shipped over 20,000 GE jobs overseas. Dose that seem like a sane decision of the President? Appointing a CEO that lobbied for better tax treamentfor his company and shipped jobs overseas as his Jobs Czar?

NJNB -- And what changed over the past few years in tax and insurance laws that allow Buffett to shelter his money as you claim? Is there new laws that this administration enacted that allowed this?

Your argument might hold water if you railed against the entire Congress on the TAX mess. Why don't you call for entire TAX REFORM so no one gets special treatment?

John did not know of the existence of such; went so far as calling it a "lie".

Oh, and just to add, I didn't call chained dollars a lie. I called your assertion that one measure of inflation could simultaneously factor in differences in population and the effects of both upon demand a lie.

Then I proved it by demonstrating that, contrary to your argument, demand is still soft in the economy.

Write the Buffett Rule into the tax code.

Pass the American Jobs Act.

Pat, thanks you too, it is way overdue. We need to get extremely loud about fairness.

The standard response from the right is to point the finger back. In this case, the accusation of 'class warfare' would be funny if it wasn't just flatout the opposite of what is going on, and has been openly going on for a very long time with our taxes.

The 98% will be rolling in the gutter soon if our tax codes are not fixed and pronto.

CALL YOUR REPS AND SENS AND TELL THEM WE WANT TAX EQUALITY IN THE USA!!

JoAnnaSmith1

Your simply full of it. Go pay your fair share.....ok. Enough of GOP/TP instituted and nourished class warfare.

It's pay up time.

After such a nice list of percentages that are meaningless you failed to mention that half of Americans with jobs pay ZERO tax. How is zero tax a fair share?

Obama actually never got out of campaign mode after the 2008 election, so I disagree that the governing phase is over.

Proposing the millionaires tax and blowing it out of proportion is all class warfare strategy. Most millionaires pay way more percentage wise than middle class anyway and his proposals only give us peanuts anyway since there are not enough. He would not exaggerate and yak about this so much every speech if it was not a ploy to create class wafare,

I think Obama will go down in history as our worst president , not because of the economy ( I don't blame either him or Bush) , but because of these sleazy tactics.

Bloomberg Editorial - {printed over @ Obama Diary}

How exactly, according to Republicans, is President Barack Obama supposed to have caused the current economic malaise and high unemployment?

…. With remarkable unanimity, Republican leaders in Congress and the party’s presidential candidates have parroted a one-word explanation: “uncertainty”. While many political tropes are abused on a bipartisan basis the “uncertainty” lament is a largely Republican creation.

… there is no evidence that uncertainty has increased during the Obama presidency, or that, if it has, the president’s policies are responsible for it….

The charge of “creating uncertainty” is a way to blame Obama for the U.S.’s economic trials without having to explain the connection. In fact, if anyone in the political world is responsible for creating uncertainty, it is the Republicans. Look at last month’s debt-ceiling imbroglio, which left the world wondering whether the United States would even honor its debts – something that was never uncertain before. The decision to turn a routine vote to raise the debt ceiling into a high-stakes game of chicken was made by the Republican House leadership.

… In the campaign to be the party’s presidential nominee, candidates like Perry and Bachmann claim that Social Security is unconstitutional or that vaccines cause mental retardation. Would they really follow through on some of their wilder positions? If any of the top-tier Republican candidates is elected president – even Romney, who promises to repeal health-care reform on day one – we might all look back with longing on the calm, restful environment of the Obama administration.

Buffet is an unusual case and certainly not typical. Most income probably is dividends or capital gains that he already paid corporate taxes on, so this is a second tax. Obama wants to imply that most millionaires pay Buffet;s percentage, and thats not true.

I rest my case

John, chained dollars are not an "alternate" measure- it is THE measure.

The only measure used by government and economists.

So, you went in a web search, found some sites you THINK bolster your argument, and posted them here.

The fact that yup still don't know what you are talking about, still cannot do the math to figure out that you don't know what you are talking about, and will not admit that you don't know what you are talking about, renders this conversation over.

Since you have a lot of time on your hands right now- go back to school, get a degree in economics- then come talk to me. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Bob,

This same whopper again? Didn't we have this go-around just a few days ago?

Once again your data incorrect. Go on Fact-check.org.

Clinton ended era with $236.2Billion surplus. If there's a surplus, you can't have a deficit.

But you CAN have a debt.

And Clinton was on track to pay down the National Debt.

Enter Mr. Bush.......Just the way it is. Let's move on!!!!!!!!!

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/..

Beverly, Obama did not cause the economic problems and neither did Bush. The root cause is that the US cannot compete in the global economy any more and will not improve until we find some new product or service to market where we can compete. No one has any idea what this will be.

JoAnna1 -- Your article clearly shows how GE has taken advantage of the laws through lobbying for at least a decade or more. Immelt is a professed Republican.

Again as with NJNB you might have a point if you railed against lobbying and tax reforms in general.

"The governing phase is over and the campaigning has begun" when did the campaigning ever stop, and he sure as hell hasn't govern. He has been a leader when it's time to golf, time to go on vacation, time to run all over the country pushing Obama care, jobs bill but governing I've have not seen that yet, must be a new job they added for Obama's things to do list hasn't got the hang of it. Now if he was governing maybe the 20,000 job that GE'S CEO shipped out of the country too China.

Clinton has the unsustainable tech bubble that burst at the end of his term as well as Republican Congress writing his budgets that he signed.

John B.: Conservatives still have no solution for creating demand when there is a lack of that in the economy.

Libbies sticking with the Keynesian economic model. Tell us John, where was the demand for personal computers? There was none, someone just decided to make and market them as a way to improve efficency in businesses. iPods, cell phones, same thing. No demands for those, just someone that came up with an idea and made it so. Flat screen hd tv's, GPS, and electronic books like Kindles, again there was no demand for these things, just someone coming up with ideas to improve the lives of others.

Liberals think giving money to people creates demand. Smart people with new ideas create demand, the same people that you Liberals want to tax to death so they cannot do their research or take their products to the market. That hasn't happened now has it John? But keep sticking with it, you might as well go down with the ship.

GE did have serious losses in it financial division from the housing bubble collapse. They also pay taxes in foreign countries for business that they purchase that are based overseas. I think GE going a year that they had loss carryovers to not pay taxes is overblown

I wouldn't call it "Fair Share". I'd just say "you're up to bat". When it's time to revise Medicare, "You're Up to bat". When it's time to revise the tax code, "you're up to bat", when it's time to work together and I don't care if the president "wins" or if the Republican get "99.9999%" of what they want..."you're up to bat".

We're not asking you to bat for everyone, we're asking you play your position when your number is called. You get the deficit down, we get spending under control, we innovate our tax system, we fix social security...We live to play another game.!

At this point, we're not going to even make the playoffs. By God people. When they call your number "You're up to bat!"

Correction to above post to JoAnna1-- Rail against lobbying and for TAX REFORMS.

DCIA: JoAnna1-- Your article clearly shows how GE has taken advantage of the laws through lobbying for at least a decade or more. Immelt is a professed Republican.

You asked what GE did to get special treatment. I told you. Do you now understand that GE got special tax treatment and how they attained such treatment?

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer ;“We were in a position of legislative compromise by necessity. That phase is behind us.”

And the policy or arrogance and elitism advances in the White House. The lame duck has others doing his quacking for him as he hits the campaign trail. Nothing will happen in the next 14 months to improve our economy. Just campaign speeches and photo-ops from the campaigner in chief and finger pointing from him and his staff. More DOA plans and speeches without details from Obama=a longer and deeper depression caused by the confrontational and elitist White House. An elegant speech is worth nothing if the push is in the wrong direction. Expect more class warfare and pandering to the hand-out crowd as Barry hits the road full time.

Beverly in Chicago "I reject the idea that 0.3 % of taxpayers should not pay taxes"

Your math is way off. It's about 47% that don't pay income taxes (the lower middle class). So which 0.3% doesn't pay taxes?

The top 10% pay 70% of ALL income taxes collected by the Federal Government.

John, chained dollars are not an "alternate" measure- it is THE measure.

The only measure used by government and economists.

Doubling down on the lies, are we? See, here's the thing. Had you referred to the chained dollar value as the Consumer Price Index your misuse of the numbers would have been obvious. Instead you insisted that ONE NUMBER consolidates inflation, changes in population, and variations in demand. That's a lie.

JoAnna1 -- What a silly response. I think I understand more than you. You see it's the CONGRESS over the last decade that allows GE to do what they do.

Backhouse #1- Using the link you posted it say very clearly I might add that the people making over $200,000 pay 35% in taxes not the 15% you are saying. This is just another attempt by Lib's to skew the facts to fit there post. The top earners pay 35% at minimum and 15% on all investments. Please get your facts right. Especially when you are the one that posted the information. It is as if you did not even read the link you posted. The 15% was discussed in the Lib media and it is not fact as your OWN link points out you are WRONG.

DON9876543 "Clinton has the unsustainable tech bubble that burst at the end of his term as well as Republican Congress writing his budgets that he signed."

The Republican Congress under Clinton for 6 years controlled the spending Budget, which led to 4 years of Budget Surpluses. I'm sure Clinton would have spent more if he was allowed.

People also tend to forget the economic effect of 9/11 for Bush, where the Unemployment Rate spiked about 1.5% for an extended time, but Bush was able to bring the Unemployment Rate down to 4.5% for 2006 (Then the Democrats took over Congress, and it has steadily gone up since then). That's about the same amount of 'spike' under Obama from the financial meltdown - but unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be able to bring it down,

John,

We gotta ask ourselves, who are the folks on FR who are arguing against ~

TAX EQUALITY FOR ALL AMERICANS.

I timed out on my edit. . .

John, first of all, 2005=100 does NOT indicate a percentage. It indicates the number of cents in a dollar- thereby telling the reader that the deflator has been employed, and we are looking at chained, thereby, constant, dollars.

Second, WHEN did I ever posit that GDP had regained its post recession peak? Cause, I'm here to tell you, I never have.

Third, BEA is the GOVERNMENT'S site. It is where anyone who knows anything about economics goes to get information about the economy. Yes, there are sources of information that come out that give people the ability to make predictions- but that is all theynare. The Commerce Department is the final source for all information.

Your problem is that you DO NOT understand economics.

Moreover, you do not comprehend that you don't understand economics, and will not admit that you are wrong.

I gave you a first year Econ site yesterday- did you do the math? I think not. If you cannot do the simple calculations that college freshman do, how on earth can you believe that you are some kind of expert because you read a book by somebody who told you what you already thought?

The worst part about this? You're not alone. We have a president who thinks exactly the same way you do.

That's why the economy is so bad.

I can choose- and do, right now- to stop arguing with an idiot. Unfortunately, unless this Solyndra thing blows sky high, we're stuck with the idiot in the White house for another year and a half or so

And there's the hypocritical statement that Conservatives always use in such situations. Why should Buffett be OBLIGATED to subject himself to differential, unfavorable treatment in order to tell the truth

Definition of HYPOCRITE

1
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I think Buffet meets the criteria of definition #2. How do his actions not contradict his stated beliefs?

John B.

Warren Buffet is an apostate in the church of Conservatism...a rich man who speaks up on behalf of fairness to the middle class. As such his reputation must be destroyed.

Warren Buffett is nothing but a hypocrite. That simple and you can't defend him.

He must be forced into silence. As such every sort of tactic will be used in an attempt to steal his credibility. Every means will be tried to get people to ignore the truth.

The truth reveals his hypocrisy.

BTW - The truth is the best "tactic".

That's not the same thing as back taxes. The reality is stated right in your quote..."potential future obligation". It's a normal accounting procedure which sets aside money which may or may not be owed to taxing authorities at a future date.

Buffett's / Berkshire Hathaway's tax problems go back to 2002!

2002 taxes that haven't been settled for almost a decade aren't "back taxes"?

You still aren't any good at this stuff, are you John?

BTW John -

IF BUFFETT ISN'T A HYPOCRITE - WHY DOESN'T BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY JUST PAY WHAT THE IRS SAYS THEY OWE AFTER A DECADE?

Obama has tried for months to convince critics on the left that entitlement programs such as Medicare had to be cut in order to save the programs, but he seems to have yielded under pressure from his political base.

In his new $1.5 trillion deficit-cutting plan, unveiled Monday at the White House, Obama backed away from the changes he had been talking about for months.

“With an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program,” he said. “And if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it.”

But after that speech, several Democratic groups and lawmakers sent letters, held news conferences and even staged protests, including one Monday in front of the White House by activists challenging the idea of any cuts in Medicaid benefits.

The president seems to have heard the objections. In his Rose Garden speech Monday, he proposed only half as much in savings as he did in debt talks this summer, offering $320 billion in changes instead of $650 billion, and he took a very different tone:

“We will reform Medicare and Medicaid, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment that this country has kept for generations,” he said.

This is known as sticking one’s head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away. Pretty much his strategy since being in office. The man obviously cannot make the hard choices or stand up to his political base when needed. So much for a transformational government. Same old Chicago politics as I see it.

PEN - Your simply full of it. Go pay your fair share.....ok. Enough of GOP/TP instituted and nourished class warfare.

Oh now PEN, lets not be angry. Lets have you pay more in too PEN. Let's raise your taxes by 25%. And if you don't pay taxes, lets have you start. It's the right thing to do, everyone should be fully involved in how our governments spends money, and especially your money PEN.

Hunter, millionaires do currently play their position and come up to bat. THey pay way more than middle class percentage wise. Increasing their taxes will give peanuts anyway and not solve the Medicare issue as Obama implies. Many folks do expect millionaires to solve all the problems , but there are not enough of them and the issue is blown out of proportion.

Millionaires probably don't mind more tax, but many do mind Obama 's false implications and class warfare thing he promotes. That is my complaint with Obama, not the economy but all the false stuff he implies for politics.

¹ “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. ⁶ This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. ⁷ Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” -Rom 13

The Christian right is failing miserably in every category. They don’t want to pay fair share taxes, revenue, don't demonstrate honor and respect for the Office of the President. Their treatment of this POTUS is inexcusable.

If only they would practice the words that they preach and judge others.

Smart people with new ideas create demand, the same people that you Liberals want to tax to death so they cannot do their research or take their products to the market.

If they're taxed to death why are they sitting on $3T in unneeded capitalization? If they're that smart why aren't they flooding the market with great new ideas that magically create demand?

That's the whole problem with your little rant. Those smart ideas don't actually do anything for the economy if no one has any money to buy them. Start up companies with good ideas even go out of business under such conditions. That's why in conditions such as these government has to function as the buyer of last resort. It puts money in the pockets of PEOPLE who BUY from those smart people, temporarily boosting DEMAND until it becomes self-supporting in the private economy.

The GOPTP and their policies of government contraction are at risk of creating the exact conditions of Japan's "lost decade", a long term stagnation from which they have still not fully recovered.

JH, sorry you missed it but the campaigning stopped when the recession ended, Gitmo closed, unemployment lowered to 8% due to Stimulus, another $1 trillion in Obamacare surpluses were found to lower the debt, the Bush tax rate reductions for everyone were not extended, and we got out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

John, first of all, 2005=100 does NOT indicate a percentage. It indicates the number of cents in a dollar- thereby telling the reader that the deflator has been employed, and we are looking at chained, thereby, constant, dollars.

Cents on the dollar IS a percentage.

Second, WHEN did I ever posit that GDP had regained its post recession peak? Cause, I'm here to tell you, I never have.

You stated that the numbers had recovered to pre-recession values, proving there's no lack of demand in the economy.

Third, BEA is the GOVERNMENT'S site.

I never said that. I said you were using the chart to prove things that weren't actually reflected in reality. So yeah, it's probably a good idea if you stop now.

Dont_carry_it_all JoAnna1 -- What a silly response. I think I understand more than you. You see it's the CONGRESS over the last decade that allows GE to do what they do.

Sure, Congress legislates, and the Executive branch signs it into law. Rangel was lobbied by GE, he put the loopholes in the legislation, and Obama signed it. That much is clear.

Definition of HYPOCRITE

1
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I think Buffet meets the criteria of definition #2. How do his actions not contradict his stated beliefs?

That's the hypocrisy of the Right. Expecting him to follow the law as he WISHES IT TO BE instead of HOW IT IS is a hypocritical position. Buffett is simply following the law as it exists. Nothing hypocritical about that.

Write the Buffett Rule into law.

Pass the American Jobs Act.

ONCE AGAIN flat tax ends all this crap including loop holes , that is equil taxation all pay the same FAIR share

That's why in conditions such as these government has to function as the buyer of last resort. It puts money in the pockets of PEOPLE who BUY from those smart people, temporarily boosting DEMAND until it becomes self-supporting in the private economy.

So to paraphrase the statement that tax-cuts don't create jobs, where are all the job being create by unemployment benefits? We have been paying this for years now. When can we expect to see more jobs?

"Let me say that unemployment insurance… is one of the biggest stimuluses (sic) to our economy. Economists will tell you, this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and it’s job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name." Nancy Pelosi.

Where are the jobs Nancy?

John B: If they're taxed to death why are they sitting on $3T in unneeded capitalization? If they're that smart why aren't they flooding the market with great new ideas that magically create demand?

That's the whole problem with your little rant.

My John, you're in foul mood lately. Why the long face? Things not going well. Not enjoying the Obama Utopia?

The money isn't "sat on" John, it's invested, just not here in the USofA. The research and development is done elsewhere. With better tax policies, other countries governments are more open to businesses succeeding in their countries. The products will still be developed, just not here. The products will still be manufactured, just not here. Until we get a leader that understands that businesses are more than cash-cows for more and more social programs, those companies will look elsewhere to perform their research and develop their products.

Because its THEIR money. John you answer your questions the same way every time, and I know you wont get this. But you come up with the answer you want in the end then work your way there to support that end answer. In that scenario I could validate just about anything. If your so concerned with this as stated above start sending the government a few extra dollars a month I do it every month, because I can and I want to do something besides open my mouth on a blog. Even $20 would help and its easy. You can set up an account on the irs.gov site using your SSN number and debit card and sent money, which will be put into the general fund. And you get a nice email from them! Since my kids are grown and I can I send between $200 and $600 a month. I suggest you and your liberal friends step up to the plate and actually put some action in your words. But Im afraid its like the military 1% of us step up the rest whine and complain!

Bill,

Regardless of the 35% current legal tax rate, a high percentage of folks at the top level pay 15% or zero% due to capital gains, various loopholes and get-arounds.

It is the real and effective rate that is actuallyfactually being paid by the super-rich, that is at issue. And why a Buffett tax will be proposed for all Americans.

Paying our fair share should not come down to how much cash we can afford to hire the most slippery lawyer in the land and avoid paying US taxes. If we seriously want to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, we must have consistent and fair revenues from the super-rich as well as the rest of us. Not just a one-way street.

Who here now is arguing against equal taxes for all Americans?

PASS THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT!!

WRITE THE BUFFET RULE INTO LAW!!

THANKYOU!!

You are all missing the BOAT! First, the Federal Govnerment should not be in the business of hiring any one on the State or Local level. If the State or Local Govnerments need additionial employees than so be it. Let them raise the Taxes. The Federal Govnerment should be limited and we the People should realize the Political process has turned into a system to buying your votes! Second, you want JOBS, than have the Federal Government stop protecting Countries using un-fair trade rules. You want even more JOBS, than fix the Housing situation. This has nothing to do with the need for more TAXES. Because the Federal Government decided to get into the housing busness with new reguations, we now have millions of potential workers with BAD credit, unable to buy a home. Third, if you continue to send more of your hard earned money to Washington than shame on you! They (GOVERNMENT) tell you there is waste and fraud in WASHINGTON and you are still debating to send more! I use to believe it was WE THE PEOPLE, now it is a WE DIVIDE WE GET REELECTED. I am not a TEA PARTY MEMBER, I just believe the Whole Truth.

According to Moody's Analytics the economy receives $1.63 in stimulative effects for every dollar we spend on Unemployment Insurance. We'll certainly miss that if we stop. The chart you'll be looking for is on page 10.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Senate_Budget_Committee_11_19_08.pdf

Paying our fair share should not come down to how much cash we can afford to hire the most slippery lawyer in the land and avoid paying US taxes. If we seriously want to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, we must have consistent and fair revenues from the super-rich as well as the rest of us. Not just a one-way street.

But according to John B this is exactly what we should be doing (e.g. Warren Buffet) while complaining that what we are doing is wrong.

My only question is if in Europe they tax the rich and Corporations at a significantly higher rate than in the U.S. and have just as many or more social programs, why do we expect it to work here when it obviously has not in Greece, Italy and soon to be other countries in the European Union.

Because its THEIR money.

So sayeth the Holy Church of Conservatism. With that blessed incantation all need to finance what we spend, all needs of society, and all criticism of upward redistribution of wealth becometh as nothing in the winds of Conservative hot air.

Obama’s speech yesterday essentially marked the end of the governing season and the beginning of the campaign.

First Read authors are so clueless! His speech yesterday? What about that bus tour last month? What about his non-specific, feel good speeches for the last two years wasn't campaigning?

Secondly, to call the House Do-nothing is also unwarrented. The House has approved bill after bill...the part of CONGRESS that is Do-nothing is the Democratic (Reid) controlled Senate that refuses to vote on the bills.

Pat in Boston:

… there is no evidence that uncertainty has increased during the Obama presidency, or that, if it has, the president’s policies are responsible for it….

And what business owners did you talk to to get this information? Bloomberg isn't exactly reliable or unbiased. Tell you what...stop believing the press, and by no means do I expect you to believe me. Go to a local Chamber of Commerce meeting and ask the local businessowners.

I work with small businesses everyday and there is a lot of uncertainty that is causing businessowners not to take any additional risk in the way of hiring employees or expanding. They are trying to ride out the rest of this one term presidency and saving money. The presidents policies, namely HCR, increased regulation, and the spectre of increased taxes has the small and mid-sized businessman frightened....and those are direct results of this administrations policies.

Obama and his adminstration have proven to be an abject failure. I just hope we can withstand the next 14 months of this.

The other reason firms are sitting on their capital is called deleveraging- everybody but the government is doing it. Given the economic policies of this administration, it's a good idea.

I find it disheartening that people in the administration, let alone their supporters, continue to double down on failure by taking the advice of those who have exacerbated the current economic conditions.

Tell me, of you went to your dentist because of an aching tooth, and, after many painful procedures, you STILL had an aching tooth- would you not change dentists? Surely, you would not subject yourself to more pain, while the root cause was not addressed.

Why, with the evidence of failure so clear, does this administration continue with policies that have proven to fail?

Why are there still people- themselves, victims of this failure- insisting that, this time, it will really work?

This stubborn refusal to admit wrong headed thinking is truly amazing.

Backhouse,

You simply cannot be this utterly obtuse, can you?

Your "Fact-check" source is correct, but it argues the wrong thing.

IT ARGUES "DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC"!

Public Debt - not the National Debt.

Sheez .... look at the stupid heading at the top of the page!

National Debt = Public Debt + Intra-governmental Holdings (such as SS)

Bottom line - The economy took off under Clinton with his drop of the Capital Gains tax. You had the dot-com market that made a lot of people a lot of money which translated to a lot of extra "free" SS$.

Social Security is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Securities, and the Government sells those securities - which automatically and immediately become - Intragovernmental holdings (a debt/obligation).

The numbers I gave you were from THE TREASURY DEPT.

The national debt increased ever single year under Clinton.

And again .... you cannot have a surplus when the national debt increases every single year .... IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

You want to move on - Ouit repeating the lie.

"Hiya kids, Hiya, hiya." Froggy

Great posts this morning Backhouse and Bev. Well done, well-batted, well-played. Kudos and all that.

I am continuing my policy of ignoring the RWNJ's by using that helpful little device at the bottom right of each post. I had to add a few this morning, I guess I'm up to two or three dozen now and you have NO IDEA how refreshing it is to scroll down the comments, ignoring the "nattering "nay"-bobs of negativity" and reading actual facts and supportive comments about the administration. It almost gives me hope for the future.

You should all try it. Maybe, if we don't play their game, they'll take their ball and go home (to FOX). Anyway, I'm loving it.

I'd also like to send a big shout-out to those of you who defended me yesterday against the party of NAY(bobs). I see from reading your half of the exchanges with the usual suspects that you have seen some merit in my new policy. Thank you very much. Of course, I never saw the responses from the natterers, but I got the gist from your response. "WAH WAH WAH, Skip won't play my game by my rules, WAH WAH WAH."

Now to pick today's bone. "Governance ends and campaign begins."????? Where the heck did that come from? When I read the quote from the White House spokesman I got "NO MORE MR. NICE GUY, the gloves are coming off." I understood him to say that the President was forced by the best interests of the people and the country to attempt a compromise with the party of NAY(bobs) but that's all over now and they are going to start "kicking a** and taking names" as we say around here. Good for them. Let me know if you need some help Mr. President. I kick a** and take names for a living and I'm good at it.

Hey, where the heck is that LIBERAL MEDIA the RWNJ's are always talking about????? I'm sure not seeing it here on FIRST READ. In fact it looks quite the opposite to me. But then, what do I know?

Well, that's all I have today kids, gotta get back to work, coffee break is over, lot's of a** to kick today. Play nice and by all means use that "ignore" button. It has changed my life.

"Plunk your magic twanger Froggy."

America held hostage, day 263

Obama/Biden 2012

Obama is intentionally murdering the economy. Don't you libs ever look at the current state of affairs?

JoAnna1 --

By the time the measure — the American Jobs Creation Act — was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004, it contained more than $13 billion a year in tax breaks for corporations, many very beneficial to G.E. One provision allowed companies to defer taxes on overseas profits from leasing planes to airlines. It was so generous — and so tailored to G.E. and a handful of other companies — that staff members on the House Ways and Means Committee publicly complained that G.E. would reap “an overwhelming percentage” of the estimated $100 million in annual tax savings.

According to its 2007 regulatory filing, the company saved more than $1 billion in American taxes because of that law in the three years after it was enacted.

Enough said. Congress in general can change this. Why don't they?

Was Immelt, as head of GE, the right person to bring on board? Globally they seem to have the most experience. Politically, I feel, it was unwise. It's funny how the same people that write the laws that allow GE to pay nothing are pointing fingers at GE as being the problem. Congress is the problem. They can fix this anytime they want to but choose not to. Therein lies our problem.

David Brooks is a sap and I suppose I am too....

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I liked Obama’s payroll tax cut ideas and urged Republicans to play along. But of course I’m a sap. When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill.

It recycles ideas that couldn’t get passed even when Democrats controlled Congress. In his remarks Monday the president didn’t try to win Republicans to even some parts of his measures. He repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives.

He claimed we can afford future Medicare costs if we raise taxes on the rich. He repeated the old half-truth about millionaires not paying as much in taxes as their secretaries. (In reality, the top 10 percent of earners pay nearly 70 percent of all income taxes, according to the I.R.S. People in the richest 1 percent pay 31 percent of their income to the federal government while the average worker pays less than 14 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?ref=opinion

The President was right when he said "The American people can't wait 14 months"....so why the rhetoric and proposals that assure gridlock?

Wow skip, how positively cutesy! But for all of your clever rhetoric, the fact is that all indications are that Obama is going to go down in 2012, possibly in a huge landslide. His poll numbers continue to sink, the Dems continue to lose eyepopping elections in historic strongholds, and even some elements of the liberal mainstream media are criticizing him......I saw a bit on CNN this morning about how the Dems could get Hilary to run against him.

Anyone with any degree intelligence can see that Obama's jobs bill and The millionaire tax bill have no chance of passing. This being said, Obama is obviously campaigning for his reelection. these proposals are just thinly veiled to look like he is trying to help the middle and lower classes. He does not care for either beyond the fact that he needs these voters to be reelected! he can not campaign on the economy or employment. Forget fiscal responsibility! the only hope he has is to vilify the Republicans in the 2012 election! I can see it now look what I wanted to do for you, but those nasty Republicans blocked all my attempts. He needs someone to place the blame on. You know Obama is way too narcissistic to accept any blame for his failure as a President!

Bob,

Excerpt from TACTICS FOR EFFECTIVE CONSERVATIVE BLOGGING By Karl Rove:

"Engage Demand an elaborate, time-consuming comparison / analysis between your position and theirs. Entangle Insist that the Liberal put their posts in their own words. That will consume themost time and effort for the Liberal poster....We are going for delay of game here. Demoralize Dismiss their narrative as rubbish immediately.

Do not even read it. Once the Liberal goes through the trouble to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative your job is to discredit it. Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the Liberal poster... for us, that is a net win."

Bob, What is a Lie? Who believes?

According to Moody's Analytics the economy receives $1.63 in stimulative effects for every dollar we spend on Unemployment Insurance.

Wow, if Zandi said it it must be true.

Over time, Zandi’s predictions are tested by reality. In August 2006, he told Newsweek that housing prices would bottom out in August 2007. In October 2007, he told the National Association of Home Builders that the bottom would come in late 2008. In April 2009, he told Time magazine that housing prices would bottom out by the end of the year. (“I feel very confident about this,” he said.) Three months later, he told NPR that “by this time next year, the market will have hit bottom.”

www.commentarymagazine.com/article/press-man-the-prisoner-of-zandi/

...and from a right wing post

Speaker Pelosi also stated that UI injects demand into the economy, because struggling families spend, rather than safe, the money they receive. However, academic research shows that only 55 cents of every $1 in benefits gets spent, as unemployment benefits discourage spousal work. Unemployment benefits have been handed out for two years now and there still remains a jobs deficit of 7.4 million.

Now John B, I don't have the time to perform my own research but from what I see neither tax-cuts or UI has moved unemployment.

For all the people out there talking about gov as buyer of "last resort", can you tell me why doesn't the gov just tell us what to buy and how much to spend? They are such masters of these topics, surely Obama and Geithner can figure out a way to force Americans to spend that will bring our economy out of its lull.

Lets see.....if John buys a laptop and Amanda buys a car, then maybe Sally will buy a house.......problem solved.

IS GOP TRYING TO REDUCE THE TOP RATE TO ZERO?

"Once the top marginal tax rate is reduced to ZERO, who or what will the GOP blame for any economic slowdown? If you think that question is absurd, one has to look no further than just about every single 2012 Republican candidate or “future candidate.” Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota has proposed a reduction in corporate taxes all the way down to 25%, and also followed that up with a capital gains tax of ZERO. Michele Bachmann, the tea party hopeful has proposed 9% corporate tax in her “perfect world.”

The GOP has been proposing lowering the top marginal tax rate for a generation, all on a premise that by allowing the wealthy to keep their money, they will invest it and create jobs. That theory has been discussed at length and I would hate to beat a dead horse, so let’s take the GOP and the conservatives at their word. Back in 1980s the Republicans, headed by Ronald Reagan began cutting the top marginal tax bracket. In 1982-1986 the top marginal tax rate was 50%. In 1987 the tax rate dropped to 38.5%, so for the majority (7 out of 8 years) of Reagan’s terms the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was well above the top tax rates of today. In fact the wealthy only kept HALF or less of their money under most of Reagan’s presidency, yet that was enough to stimulate the economy according to many conservatives who credit the tax rates for the economic expansion of the 1980s."

http://www.politicususa.com/en/reagan-tax-rates

no joe, no bo, nj

You are absolutely correct in saying that 'chained' (Inflation adjusted) Dollars is the best way to measure economic performance, but my experience is that 98% of the people 'have no clue' when we start using inflation adjusted figures. Most are even confused by 'nominal' figures.

If rudimentary economics was taught in high school, I suspect we'd be in far better shape then we are now.

Since you seem to have some education in economics (as I do - in fact an economics class in my MBA program was perhaps the best class I've ever taken), I am curious to know what you think of the 'Rahn Curve', and it's implications for future economic growth and unemployment, since government spending (federal, state & local) has jumped up to almost 47% of GDP (2009).

I'll check back later since I need to get some work done.

The governing phase is over and the campaigning has begun

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

Governing phase is over? When did that happen? For one day when he was on vacation again?

The campaigning has begun? HUH!?!? When did it ever end?

PMSNBC tries so hard to create the illusion of leadership from our Imitator in Chief. No fiscal policy. He allows the ridiculous Keynesian’s to continue to bankrupt the strongest economy in the history of man. A foreign policy that has created more turmoil in the world than any other administration.

The "Great Mistake of 2008" MUST be corrected in 2012. The incompetence and outright socialism exhibited by this Community Organizer has proven too much for real Americans to accept. Our great Republic can no longer sustain Progressivism. As we see it collapsing in the European Union, so to it will collapse here. Unfortunately the abuses, lies and deceit of nearly 100 years will create an economic tsunami unlike ever before.

Today the IMF has decreased the growth outlook for the United States for this year and all of next year. This is a powerful indicator of the weakness our economy is facing. The ongoing spending has been decried by every authority around the world. The G-20 has not once, but twice, rejected our profligate spending. The European Union has all but refused to even consider any of Barrack Hussein's economic policies. Greece will collapse soon. Italy will be pulled into its own collapse next. Then Portugal, Spain, Ireland and possibly Great Britain from the subsequent weakness.

The groundwork for all this was set in place decades ago. Progressivisms unsustainable creation of entitlements and social programs, here and abroad, are the reason we must submissively watch the once strongest creditor nation become the biggest debtor nation and ultimately collapse. The resistance of Liberal Progressives to reform their sacrosanct entitlements and demand to rape the taxpayers of more of our money will be the final straw. We are told by all the significant authorities that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. This falls on deaf ears as Barrack Hussein continues his fundamental transformation of America into a second world country. He must be so proud to have accomplished what he promised during his campaign and the Liberal Progressives didn't even realize they were just pawns in his quest.

The crash of 2008 should have been a wake-up call to any competent president. Instead, after a wasted TARP program and a failed $timulu$ the focus was NOT like a laser on jobs or the economy, it was to create another more massive entitlement. Had significant spending cuts and reductions in size and scope of government been enacted our recovery would have been well on its way. Had the opportunity been taken for a comprehensive reform of our criminal progressive tax system, revenues would have been allowed to increase as the economy corrected itself. Now we are on course for a Lost Decade very similar to Japan.

The class warfare and deception of the "fair share" argument is ridiculous. When our great Republic needs unity, our president decides to divide it even more than he already has. The promotion of the "Buffet Tax" is case in point. The unmitigated convolution of comparing Buffet's capital gains rate with his secretaries income tax rate is proof of the ongoing corruption of this president. Even IF you compare Buffet's salary, he only makes $100,000 a year at Berkshire Hathaway in salary. Of course he pays lower taxes, that's how the system is designed. Unfortunately the president will continue his lies and the media will continue to allow it.

Regardless of what this president does the economy will collapse because he refuses to address the main drivers of our economic problems. In true Liberal Progressive fashion, he would prefer that we all live equally poor rather than unequally rich, middle class and poor. Of course he and the elitists from academia will be the only rich left because they have read a few books, or more glowingly, written a book. The most amusing part is that most of the faithful lemmings who espouse his fundamental transformation will be among the lower class created by social and economic justice.

Such is their ignorance.

Navy, every word you say is a lie- including the use of an old account to portray yourself as someone else.

That garbage you keep posting, as if it were written by Rove, is a dead giveaway. As you well know, it was concocted in the treehouse, given the heading of a professor of communications at a fifth rate college, a woman who supposedly headed a fictitious company- but who is, in fact, a fifth rate actress in productions thousands of miles off Broadway- and another supposed adjunct at the same, fifth rate college.

The use of that garbage, as well as the copy-paste from the same websites- was the dead giveaway.

What's even more ridiculous about this is that, several months ago, you were in high dudgeon about respect for the military, and I called you out on your treatment of John McCain during the campaign. You shouted that you had only joined this site recently.

Did you think no one recognized your writing style?

So, the Klubhouse Kids got a great idea- since no one was buying their baloney about their plagiarized version of of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals- they'd resurrect old accounts! Then, everyone would think that entirely new people were posting about it! Brilliant! Awesome!

Epic fail.

The Palestinians get a seat in the UN, then the US needs to tell them that they are no longer allowed on our soil, they are nothing but a anti western anti USA group that can not survive without our money, so cut off their funding too. I equate funding them the same as having us fund Al Quida, they are both are bent on our destruction and way of life, they just present behind a bunch of legal talk where Al Quida blows themselves up to do it, and the sad part is, is that the body is made up by a large segment fo countries that support them, what happened to if you are the friends of our enemy then you will be considered our enemy too. Israel went to their synagogues to pray and sent their condolences, and then helped us find the perpetrators. The Palestine's, they danced in the streets with the rest of our so called Arab friends, and some of you idiots have the audacity to call them out like they are not our friend, have you ever seen a book in Israel calling for the death of Arabs and the US, yet you can find them in every school from Turkey to Iran. And we are confused about who our true friend is. Why, because Israel defends themselves. You want to argue, give me you address and then I will move behind you and throw bombs at your children and parents, and to be more Arab like, I will put my kids around me while I do it, so if you retaliate i will call you a child killer, they are nothing but a bunch of nut jobs following a sexual deviant that got his pleasure out of raping pre-pubescent girls (holy man, nothing but a lunatic and a false prophet, and you have 1,000,000,000 idiot's that are willing to follow in his steps.

Colorblind, I would suggest you look into the congressional records and see how many budget proposals this president presented to congress (it is part of his job), he presented one (ONE) and it was not soundly put down by the evil Republicans, but rather his own party wanted nothing to do with it. He got in on a lie to promote votes, claiming to be African American when if you google his linage you will see that he is in fact one half white, 7/16 Arab and 1/16 African black, but because he knew he would raise the African American vote he claimed he was African American. I am 1/16 native American, Where is my check?

He stuffed down Obama care with a overwhelming support against this legislation, he has bowed down to Arab Loyalty that in their text books they use to teach their children call for our destruction, and has run us to the point of bankruptcy. He is the first president we have has in our history that refuses to take any responsibility for any of his actions that bring on bad consequences, he changed Harry Truman's mantra "The Buck stops Here" to lets blame everyone so it does point to me here. and what are his excuses. Bush, but that is worn out and we are living with his out of control spending, then the tea party "The party of no", next it was the Arab Summer. He has let the press without being a man and presidential material and stopping it allowing people to equate disagreement with his policies as equal to racial prejudice. In two years he has managed to turn back civil rights in this country by more then forty years, personally I think that Martin Luther King is turning over in his grave. And then to use th lame excuse of attending a white hatred, anti-US church and having a wife state for the first time she feels American is shameful.

We thought Carter was bad, this president will go down in history as being so bad that he will make Carter look like Abraham Lincoln. One and done, he is a shame to the office, the country, and to every person that believes in the American way.

"Engage Demand an elaborate, time-consuming comparison / analysis between your position and theirs.

Actually I pretty much just asked if you were too obtuse to not understand the difference between public dabt and national debt.

Entangle Insist that the Liberal put their posts in their own words. That will consume themost time and effort for the Liberal poster....We are going for delay of game here.

Sheez ...... I wasn't trying to delay, I was pointing out the lie and explaining why it was a lie.

Demoralize Dismiss their narrative as rubbish immediately.

I didn't demoralize or dismiss .... I destroyed your argument (at least for those with enough intelligence to follow a few sentences.)

Do not even read it. Once the Liberal goes through the trouble to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative your job is to discredit it. Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the Liberal poster... for us, that is a net win."

I read your stuff. I read your source and pointed out that your source was correct , but you were using a wrong source / arguing something differently.

I then explained to you - why you were wrong.

Yea... it was a net win - win.

Bob, What is a Lie? Who believes?

A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of a known fact in an effort to deceive.

I explained in pretty good detail why your comment qualifies.

BTW - Thanks for the stupid liberal Karla Rove or whatever game.

It is so cute.

Hello . . . I just wanted to be #1.102 - you egomanics would place yourself 100 down the line in an attempt to be read before #2 - is there any other logical explanation?

John McCain is a great man, and I saw more s$%T thrown at him from the 'neo-conservatives,' (soon to be the DOUSCHE BAG PARTY) than the left. He has voted for some things I disagree with, but is nevertheless a hero and a great politician.

Don't tell DOUSCHEBAG PARTY PALIN, that, though. The Stupid people who want to inflict big government on the Republican party have picked this pinhead from Alaska to tout over McCain, who MADE her. No McCain, NO PALIN. John picked her at the time and has stood by her, even though her and her staff have acted like traitors against him. It shows why the Douschebaggers need to be THROWN OUT of the Republican party!

John B., great points. Congratulations for battling against all of the negativity this morning.

The righties are so blinded by their own perceived expertise that they cannot see the realities.

Truly, the mantra of the day seems to be to discredit Warren Buffett. In any way and by any means possible. That in itself says something. That the truth is so powerful it must be destroyed.

John B: According to Moody's Analyticsit, ....

Yes, the Liberals favorite economist, Mark Zandi.

Here's what others think about Mr. Zandi: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/06/16/mark_zandi_always_quoted_often_wrong_never_in_doubt_99077.html

Paris, who are you to judge what any Christian is or believes. Certainly your are entitled to your own or lack there of. It amazes me that those that believe the least are the ones that judge the most. Kind of sounds like Obama. He too is so immersed in his own ego and narcisism that he finds fault with everyone and everything else but himself. It isn't the Christian Right you need to worry about. It is the Bill Ayers teachings to Obama that you need to focus in on. Post your feelings about that. I would love to know your thoughts.

Bob,

You are repeating your own time-consuming & very large Whoppers in your own earhole.

Would anyone like to explain why this debate is about who should pay more and more taxes, rather than why government isn't held responsible for the current amount of taxes they are taking in?

Why is it ok to borrow 45% of what they spend? Why aren't we holding them responsible for spending money instead of demanding more of it?

Roy, first, let me explain to others what the Rahn Curve is-

This curve represents a theory that too much- or, too little, as the case may be- government spending hinders economic growth. Rahn posits that government spending of more than 10% to 15% GDP hinders economic growth.

I find it a highly interesting new(er) theory- and, my take on it is- it depends.

There is no question in my mind that the current level of spending by this administration is hindering growth. There are those who laugh off the specter of uncertainty- as if it did not matter. These are people who know absolutely nothing at all about economics or business.

Uncertainty, however, is very real, and affects not just businesses, but consumers. Here we go back to RET- rational expectations theory- where both firms and consumers make decisions based on their thinkingmof where the economy is headed. Thus, the deleveraging we see today among both firms and consumers.

As to Rahn- first, exceptions to this curve MUST be made for war and large scale natural disasters. Government bonds funding both of these circumstances are, nonetheless, indebtedness that must be repaid. Therefore, flexibility must be built in to any administration that takes this theory to heart, and attempts to impose it.

Second, I have a problem with the idea of "percentage of GDP" used as a benchmark.

Let's look at a couple of scenarios- under normal circumstances, with a GDP growth of year over year of 3%, government spending would be held to -for the sake of argument- 15% of that three percent growth figure.

Now, let's assume that, coming put of recession, the economy soared-as it should- and growth zoomed to 7%. Under Rahn, government spending would also increase, so, now it would be 15% of seven percent.

Since a growth rate of seven percent is not sustainable, growth would, necessarily, slow. Do you honestly think government would then drop the extra spending they incurred when that happened?

I don't.

My own preference, should this be tried, would be that spending, indeed, be capped to a percentage of GDP- but with the caveat that it not exceed a percentage increase of a given dollar amount. Thus-

If GDP in one year was equal to $100, government spending would be capped at $15.

If GDP increased by ten percent the next year, spending COULD NOT increase by ten percent, but would be
capped at the rate of inflation the prior year- thus keeping that extra money from being committed.

If such pragmatic attention were paid to these details, I'd be happy to support Rahn.,

Unfortunately, I don't see it happening.

Fielden- Please explain to us all what the truth is...and please include the realities...

fielden

The righties are so blinded by their own perceived expertise that they cannot see the realities.

Truly, the mantra of the day seems to be to discredit Warren Buffett. In any way and by any means possible. That in itself says something. That the truth is so powerful it must be destroyed

That's how it works. Since they can't make a logical argument against what Buffett is saying, they will attempt to discredit and marginalize him. I've already seen several things asserted as "fact" that appear to be complete fabrications and lies. Typical rightie tactic, if you can't fight the message, tell lies about the messenger.

Dave,

Save the hypocrisy. Show me any logic in politics from either side. Neither group working on solutions, they defend special interest groups and themselves. One thing they succeeded in is dividing this country and pushing us farther from the real truth that they don't care about our country, only their own asses.

I am sure Jesus would be standing next to the tea people cheering the death of fellow humans. Jesus would not want people to have health care and Jesus would definitely put the rich before feeding and caring for the poor people.

The tea people like to pretend they are Christians and Jesus would turn and walk away from the party of hate that cheered the death of fellow humans for any reason.

Come on show us the quotes from the Bible that shows Jesus would be for tax cuts for the rich while the poor suffer. It it is truly amazing that those that believe the least are the ones that judge others the most.

Republican tea party are so immersed in their own ego, they think that cheering the death of another human is a christian value. Perhaps you should look at the republican party you support.

@ backhouse.

You have to ask yourself,

1. If the rich are not paying their fair share, 34% and paying only 15% based on capital gains, why is Obama going after Federal Income Tax rates? Why not deductions and capital gains? Raising the Federal Income Tax Rate will not get Buffet to increase his "fair share" of taxes paid.
2. You very conveniently left out the effects of the Dems and Reps. signing Free Trade Agreements in your surplus argument, the real damaging issue to our economy. Not taxation.
3. And the upper 2% got a tax break of 700B, not 3T as you pointed out. That included the middle class tax cuts. Simply and FYI, I think that we should end the Bush era tax breaks for everyone, including the rich.

Well, I think you are all doing a fine....oh, excuse me a second..

SUUUH-MACK!

..sorry, I had to swat a spider.

Like I said, you're all doing a grand job this morning so I don't think you need my help.

Now, be sure you try out that "ignore" button. I'm telling you it has changed my life and made me a happier human being.

America held hostage, day 263

Obama/Biden 2012

It seems the Obama supporters are very good at demanding that OTHER people's taxes be raised. Don't come after them or do so marginally. We are setting some interesting records under Obama. The highest national debt in history, global history, and the highest tax increase in history, 1.5 trillion. Now, his supporters can't understand the difference between income and capital gains taxes, they don't want to understand, all they know is to follow Obama's lead and parrot whatever he tells them.

The logic argued against Buffett seems to be hypocrisy. Nothing else. If anyone argued against the tax codes and special deductions they would have to argue against their "party". As both parties are guilty of favoritism and both write the laws that allow it. So where do you see anyone arguing for tax reforms and ending the tax shelters they seem to be against. Certainly not here with NJNB or JoAnna1. So what is their argument? NJNB are you for ending the shelters you are railing against? JoAnna1 are you for ending all deductions for business? What are each of you advocating? Be careful as it might undermine your parties position.

Mygirl, do you read at all?!

You have it exactly backwards. It is the right that is demanding that the middle class shoulder all tax burdens while exempting the rich and corporations.

It is YOU that doesn't understand. It is YOU that are parroting.

no joe, no bo, nj

Excellent post # 1.24

It is truly frustrating how many Americans are uninformed about BASIC economic policy. But then again most Americans don't know what I mean when I ask them if they reconcile their own checkbook. This is the outrage of our education system which is a completely different thread. The problem is this ignorance predisposes the uninformed masses to be manipulated by our slick-tongued establishment politicians. For nearly 100 years Americans have been led by the nose down a path of economic malfeasance and fiscal malinvestment and have no idea how or why. Unfortunately the most vulnerable are the Liberal Progressives who have been raised and indoctrinated in the belief that more government is the only solution to their own insecurity and inability to care for themselves.

I always chuckle as the rabid supporters of Keynesianism and the Progressive propaganda continue to champion the failings of the past as some convoluted success. The fact that they STILL believe FDR did anything but extend an 18-24 month recession into a 10 year Depression is sobering indeed. Their persistence that there was some mythical "surplus" somewhere between 1998-2001 that was squandered is the epitome of delusion. And of course the current administrations belief that government can somehow subsidize an industry, the "Green Initiative", into existence would be humorous if it wasn't so misguided.

Perhaps most telling is the latest Associated Press release of how much Barrack Hussein and Warren Buffet have distorted the truth. I'll just leave a link so the uninformed can finally read it themselves and realize how much of liar a politician can become when desperate to regain his chances for reelection.

http://mynorthwest.com/178/549000/FACT-CHECK-Are-rich-taxed-less-than-secretaries

Unfortunately, I'm sure the Liberal Progressives will somehow claim that the AP is a Right Wing propaganda outlet.

Yes, the Liberals favorite economist, Mark Zandi.

John McCain's favorite economist technically, but I quote him often for two resons; 1) Being chief Economist at a highly respected firm his name goes on a lot of analysis, and this analysis gets a lot of attention. 2) He IS a Conservative, in the traditional sense of being cautious, prudent, and fiscally aware.

The current Conservative Movement is none of those things. It's notable that even CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS are greatly at odds with the prevailing economic quackery within a GOPTP dominated by Ayn Rand and Supply Side economics.

As such these Economists are even greater apostates to the faith than wealthy people who speak in favor of the middle class like Warren Buffett. At every turn they are pilloried, vilified, and disowned.

Dcia, great post at 1.117. The "little people" who argue for tax increases on wealthy elites who pay a lower marginal rate than themselves are engaging in "class warfare." The wealthy who state correctly that they can afford to pay more and it would be good for the country to do so are "hypocrites."

In other words, Conservatives are conducting an attack on language in which it's inappropriate for ANYONE to make a case for increasing taxes...ever. It's positively Orwellian.

The argument against Buffet is an embarrassment to McConnell and other conservatives. Obviously it is about making the tax code fairer, and not about one person sending in a check. Gawd, does anyone really fall for such nonsense from the right-wing?

As for governing, conservatives don't even know what that means. They wouldn't know a "governing phase" if it bit them in the arse -- if only they had a phase.

Felden: Actually, I read quite a great deal. I also do some research before buying into rhetoric and bias. Do you understand the difference between capital gains taxes and income taxes? Do you understand how Buffet makes his money? Are you aware that Buffet's money is taxed twice? Are you aware of Buffet's tax problems?

Perhaps you should do a bit of investigating rather than mouthing the progressive party line. As to the middle class, they are screwed by both the poor and the rich.

Where are you on a flat tax or an overhaul of the current 1,500 page tax code? Wouldn't that make more sense then arbitrarily stating that the rich need to be taxed more? You are aware that almost 40% of all taxes collected in this country comes from the top 1% earners, aren't you? You might want to examine the corporate tax rates of 35%, the third highest rate on the planet, before you start screaming they're not taxed enough. Closing the loopholes while persisiting with the 35% rate would mean that a company would pay almost 50% of its earnings in taxes. How are you with having half of your salary taken away by the government?

no joe, no bo, nj "If such pragmatic attention were paid to these details, I'd be happy to support Rahn., Unfortunately, I don't see it happening."

I agree - politics will prevent any significant changes, but the "Rahn Curve" is a long term theory, and naturally, there will be short term fluctuations, especially in times of recession/recovery. I did a 20 year analysis of our actual GDP/government spending rates for America and Western Europe, and the results were remarkably consistent with the predictions of the Rahn Curve. Of course the reaction of most people is "It can't be that simple", but my personal take is that it makes sense from a logical perspective, since more money paid in taxes means less money available for long term investments, which translates to lower growth rates, which translates to higher unemployment rates.

Personally, I support Keynesian economic theory, when it's properly applied (ie; Use deficit spending in a recession, and repay the debt after the recovery). Unfortunately, our politicians only use the first half - Deficit spending. When they get the extra revenues, they do not repay the debt, but instead use the extra revenues for their 'pet projects' (buying votes), with the result that we have an ever increasing debt.

I reviewed Obama's 2012 Budget projections, and they are scary - showing a National Debt exceeding $26 Trillion by 2021, but his projections are hopelessly optimistic (GDP growth exceeding 5% per year, government revenues exceeding 7% per year, and interest rates averaging 2.7% (the 20 year historical average is 4.72%).

When I cranked in more reasonable figures (GDP growth at 3%, government revenue growth at 5%, and interest rates at historical 4.7%), the result was a National Debt of over $36 Trillion in 10 years - SCARY.

I feel sorry for our children and grandchildren who will get stuck paying the rippling interest on the Debt. I also think that the Fed will try to 'inflate the debt away' as best as they can over the next 10 years. About 85% of the National Debt is relatively long term - and the people holding bonds are in for a rude shock, when inflation wipes out much of the value of their bonds - and they will have to pay taxes on their 'imaginary' interest gain to boot. I think it was P T Barnum that said "There's a sucker born every minute".

Gotta go now - My 5 year old wants to ride her bike.

Because the system is so complex containing so many tax credits, etc, it is nearly impossible to compare apples to apples. And because most people are not even educated enough to complete their own 1040, the politicians (liars and bribe takers) are able to pit everyone against each other because most don't really know or understand how much money the gov is collecting or who from.

Lets remove some of the complexity and in 10 years we can sit down and actually compare who is getting what, in terms of tax breaks or whatever.

Goodness gracious, some of the people on here complaining about taxing the rich are out there making $60,000 with 5 kids. But I bet they gladly take those tax deductions because they have kids. Who said they should get a tax break in the first place? Having children is a choice, if you can't afford it on your salary then don't ask the feds for a tax break.....right?

Any notion that people on the top rung of the income ladder should pay less income tax than the rest of us is ludicrous. There is no justification for it and certainly no need for the prolonged debate. So, Mr. President, put an end to this and correct the anomaly in our taxation law, fix it!!

wtw of KC "Any notion that people on the top rung of the income ladder should pay less income tax than the rest of us is ludicrous."

They don't. Recent information released by the Treasury Dept shows that the 'rich' pay 29% of their income in taxes, the Middle Class pay between 12,4 and 15%, and the 'poor' pay NO income taxes, but they do pay about 6% in other taxes.

Obama's claims are just 'campaign rhetoric' - Class Warfare is his only hope for re-election because of his dismal record on the economy and jobs.

ROY WILSON-336103

Thank you for highlighting the “weakness” in my comment.What needs to be addressed in our current taxation system is the number of tax breaks and loopholes both companies and individuals can apply for and benefit from. Making some adjustments to the system and getting rid of these loopholes will most certainly address the anomalies that are currently distorting our taxation system overall.

Bill-857242 #1.71- You are wrong on all accounts the Bush tax cuts have not been repealed, GITMO has not been closed and the unemployment rate has not been below 9.1% since Obama took office and there was no surplus in OBAMACARE and part of it was found in fact to be unconstitutional. So PLEASE TRY AGAIN. You know it is people like yourself that believe all the lies from the left that has helped the country return to 9.4% unemployment. You know you should try and form your own thought, I know that maybe difficult but try.

They do, Roy. From Forbes, hardly a bastion of Liberal propaganda;

The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html

In addition to raising the upper tax rate and closing the loopholes for the wealthy within our tax system they should also go after all offshore banking activities and try to recover lost revenues through these tax dodges.

Seizure of assets and properties of the tax cheating wealthy would go a long way to stimulate both the economy and the public perception of government.

Great post, GBM. We can no longer afford to give millionaires and billionaires preferential tax treatment. As wealthy elites I know many of them think they deserve it, but they don't. This long-established project of Conservatives to redistribute wealth from the middle to the top needs to come to an end.

Write the Buffett Rule into law.

Pass the American Jobs Act.

Fair share time, indeed......46% of Americans pay NO income tax. Are you willing to pay more to the Government, Gingerbread ?

Or do you just play the worn out class warfare card?

Endless shell games of the leftists..they think money and wealth is owned by the Government, to confiscate and redistribute at will.

Take from [this group] and give to [this group]..

Time for a flat tax, and to trash the IRS Code. Everyone pays.

46% of Americans pay NO income tax

Why is that? How many of those don't earn enough to have to pay an income tax? How many of those have a neato-cool accountant who can find them all the loopholes they need to avoid it?

Get back to us when you have that answer.

Hey Da Noid, How many of them have cable, internet, Cell phones, two cars and eat at McDonalds?

And you think they don't need to pay taxes?

Get back to us when you can explain that.

GBM--- Your post this morning is a must read for anyone who wants to stop the downward slide of our country.

It's time for congress to do their jobs!!!

No one benefits from tossing the same BS back and forth daily...

Income tax and FEDERAL tax are not same.

Q: Do 40 percent of Americans pay no taxes?

A: About 38 percent of households have zero or negative income tax liability, but they pay other federal taxes.

FULL ANSWER

Towards the end of the campaign, John McCain and prominent conservatives like Lou Dobbs claimed that Barack Obama’s proposed tax plan would amount to welfare because it offered a tax credit to the 40 percent of Americans who pay no taxes. We’ve already looked into the claims that Obama’s tax plan is a welfare handout (in short, it’s primarily a matter of how you define "welfare," but Obama’s plan doesn’t look any more like welfare than McCain’s). But what about that 40 percent with no tax liability? Can it really be true that more than a third of the country pays no taxes at all?

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, it is true that 38 percent of "tax units" — which can be singles, couples, or families — are projected to have zero or negative income tax liability in 2009. About 60 percent of these households make $20,000 per year or less.

However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you’re exempt from federal taxes. Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck. There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes.

– Jess Henig

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/americans-paying-no-taxes/

The Flat Tax, as Mitt Romney so clearly stated in the last republican debate, would overburden the middle class.

There are no easy answers or simple solutions, but asking more from an already dying American middle class makes less sense than most.

Eating at McDonald's is now considered a luxury? Damn...I'm gonna go pound a couple Big Macs and live it up!!!

I've seen many posts that say people making over 200k/year need to pay more in taxes, but I have never seen someone post a number that they think is fair. In 1944 and '45, the rate was 94% - was this fair? When someone today makes 60k/year pays 0% taxes (after deductions), is this fair?

Another tax that hasn't been talked about is that states have upped their tax brackets to cover the reduced income from the federal programs.

Nice deflection Noid, with no answer.

Yeah. it costs more to take a family to McDonalds than it does to eat at home.

It's all about priorities.

46% of Americans pay NO income tax

Repeating the same old lie over and over still does not make it true.

A flat tax shift the tax burden to the less fortunate and middle class, instead we should rescind the Reagan tax cuts until the federal debt is paid off.

armurray

Great post. Every time one of these loons is asked what is "fair share", they are silent. Gingerbread Momma, what is the fair share the so called wealthy should pay, 100%? Just in case you think I fall into the +200,000 category, my wife and I have a combined gross income of around $40,000.

You loser liberal/progressive/socialists do a passable job at posting talking points, but that's about the only thing good I can say about your political philosophy.

Move the Capital gains tax back to regular income tax and then run the numbers. This way, all earners who attempt to avoid high tax rates by using only cpaital gains as income, will pay dearly. This includes not only corporate CEO's, but also the Wall Street traders and investors like Buffett. It does not impact the so called middle class because they have minimal capital gains income.

Insert a minimum 1-2% income tax on all reported income, regardless of income level. That why ALL pay something and own a part of managing their country, not just taking from it.

Gingerbread, did it occur to you that maybe the problem is that Obama is making false implications that the rich pay lower taxes than middle class just to create class warfare ?

People arguing against Obama are saying he is all politics and not necessarily oppossed to paying some more taxes . I just despise all his false implications that they are not already paying way more than middle class and just doing it to create his class warfare. He implies this will solve everything, but in reality will only provide peanuts. You will notice there are no projections on how many minutes of the deficit this will cover.

So White Collar, how would you define too poor to owe taxes - cut off from the world, living in a cave, eating weeds? Or have you forgotten that people in the bottom tiers of income do indeed pay taxes - sales taxes, state income taxes, etc. Federal income tax is not the only source of government revenue, but if you are dissatisfied with the tax code, please contact your representative and volunteer to pay more. I suspect that you, like everyone else (rich or poor), try to get every deduction/exemption possible or exploit every loophole available. Everyone pays their taxes (at least all those who receive salary or social security checks), but many of us get some or all of it back because of said deductions and loopholes. Don't forget that most of those who get it back are seniors, the disabled and people whose income is below the federal poverty level. Don't try to make us out to be cheats or deadbeats.

It is time for all fair minded Americans to come together behind our President and support him in pushing for a shared sacrifice of all citizens. Baaaaahhhh, Baaaahhhhh

Lot of sheeple on Newsvine today. As usual.

You say "shared sacrifice of ALL citizens" but I don't see where you mention the 47% who pay zero (or actually get back more than they paid in). So you don't actually mean ALL citizens do you?

I would venture to guess, very few, if any, posting here, will ever become millionaires. So what's the real reason for being against raising taxes?

Translation- "keep those benies coming since someone else is going to pay for them"

Bob, White Collar and Roy Wilson always fail to mention the demographics of that 47%, they love to pontificate about, that don't pay federal income tax:

Grandma/ Grandpa (retirees)

Uncle Bob (disabled due to his leg being blown off in Iraq)

Junior (intellectually disadvantaged with down syndrome or people with other disabilities)

Nice folk (who don't make enought to be above the poverty line maybe Michelle B's eliminating the minimum wage will help their plight)

Unemployed (9%+)

1500+ mega millionaires who didn't pay any federal income tax due to wrting off foreign investments(read ski chateau)

Lazy people unwilling to work (please assign a percentage that you feel is reasonable after looking at all the above)

Those goshdarn deadbeats like granny should get off their ass afterall McDonald's is hiring...............don't you just feel all the Republican /Tea love for disadvantaged people.

Please keep in mind these people do pay taxes every time they buy gas or any other products along with licensing fees, registrations and various other governmental fees so it is somewhat disingenious to say they don't pay taxes.

Don, Your posts leave me shaking my head. If you make as little as you say, why in the world would you defend millionaires against paying a more fair share?

When you get your head out of idealogy and look at the facts as they are stated, it might help you see things a little more clearly. The President proposals have not implied anything, you are just projecting your idealogy on to the proposal. Open your mind and try to see things in a more multidimensional way, because that's the way the world is, far more complex than the right would have you believe.

If you draw a line as to where you wont go to see another's point of view, leave out the fact that you just dont like the President and anything he proposes. He cant write the laws, he can only propose, then it is up to the Congress to work to get any law to his desk. However, if Congress (the House) wont work with him then their idealogy is the problem. Comprise is the name of the game, find a way to make it work so everyone benefits. Make Congress earn their fat salaries and perks that we pay.....there are no free rides why would you give them a pass?

Danoid, come here to my neighborhood in Detroit, Not only are we the second most dangerous city (next to Flint Michigan) We have the largest group of people living on welfare food stamps and Bridge cards. My neighbors on all sides are either all 2nd or 3rd generation welfare families or there are members of thier families that are. I over heard one of my 18 year old neighbors patting her belly and talking about her welfare baby the other day. I drive a 2009 Dodge Journy my neighbors for the most part drive big impressive SUV's/Chrysler 300 (blinged out) or Cadillac CTS/SRS. All you would have to do is sit on my porch and you would see what Im saying.

Ask yourselves, why are you in support of efforts by the GOP/TPrs to obstruct and negate any proposal that the President proposes to help move the country forward, and not liking him doesn't count. Are you intellectually honest with yourself as to the real reasons you're against working to help this country?

You were ok up to there. True as of only lately, the reps. have done some things that have made my stomach turn (think Boner..uhm..Boehner "loopholes will NOT be touched"....grrrr).

But being extremely open-minded on this 'stimulus' thing, I HAVE to deduce, it will NOT work. Some of the programs will help true, but to CONTINUE to fund general funds for cities to keep paying their civil servants, is a BAD idea...again. If he'd take that part out, I'd stand behind it. Keeping that practice up, only allows towns/cities to NOT address how to continue funding their employees, with their COLA/yearly raises, added bennies..etc.

Case in point, which many people see in their own communities, our local PD, starts out being paid more than big city cops. Yet they'll go sometimes nearly a WHOLE shift (10 hrs) with not a single call. Do they deserve the same as a big city cop? AND, next month, their contract is up, they're asking for 10% raise, and double life insurance, they've already been told they'll get it.

OUR $$ stimulus is FUNDING that. For a YEAR or 2. Then what ????? It then falls back to us home owners being asked to raise our tax, or yet another levee, to continue paying that INFLATED by the government wage......Sorry, I can't condone that.

(sorry, we all look at this mess we're in through different eyes and experiences. Personally, YES many of the things you address SO need attention. And though some say we CAN'T blame both parties....I sure do. *tax & spend* dems. had a HUGE part of this also. I'd like to see a clean slate myself on the hill)

....sorry...rant over...good luck to US ALL !

Gingerbread, did it occur to you that maybe the problem is that Obama is making false implications that the rich pay lower taxes than middle class just to create class warfare ?

No. It didn't occur to me and I'm sure it didn't occur to GBM because it isn't true. The wealthy elites pay an average effective tax rate of 17%. The middle class pays an average effective tax rate of around 25%. It's time for that sweetheart deal to end.

Write the Buffett Rule into law.

Pass the American Jobs Act.

John B,

Do you understand the definition of personal income tax? How about capital gains tax? Are you familiar with the current personal income tax brackets? Are you familiar with current capital gains tax rates?

Thanks Gingerbread Mama for a great post.

I like to think of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and now Mark Cuban as the poor man's lobbyists. They certainly get nothing of monetary value for their efforts; but I appreciate them just the same:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/mark-cuban-taxes-buffett-rule-obama_n_970266.html

I'm sure the head in the sand crowd will use whatever rovian tactic that attacks the source; but the bottom line is this, Cuban isn't NEARLY as wealthy as Buffet and he GETS it.

From the New Testament:

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

Seems self explanatory. But the howlers of Foul will no doubt deride the source. PS. Jesus was a socialist.

Overpaid,

Hooray.

Part of what got local gov'ts into trouble was starting programs on Fed grants without looking further down the road. The Dare program is an example; alot of block grants, CASA grants to State's Attorney's offices. When the Federal money stops, are the people funded by that program laid off? No the expenses are taken out of general fund for awhile. Then they have to do the real math on how much that employee costs.

I saw this argument every year at County budget time.

Pres. Obama's proposal to fund lower gov'ts just perpetuates the dependency. Until the money runs out.

Let's follow up a moment onthe "pays no federal taxes" allegation. Forone thing the Social secirty tax is a federal mandate. That's a tax. Second, Micare and Medicad recipents are taxed for health care tand that's deducted fromtheir benfits. That's a tax. Go to the ball park-there's an amusment tax. Drive your car-ever hear of the Gasline Tax? Buy anthing that's shippped anyhere-Wal-Mart whatever-the price of the good include the gas tax as a pass thorough.

Driven to drink by your tax bill..sorry-there's the beer tax and the wine tax. The more you feel sorry for yourselves the more you pay-keep drinking,we need the money.

The idea that 40% pay no taxes is ludicrious when you think about it seriously-and this just goes to show the Republican inablity to think.

@Gingerbread Mamma

When you get your head out of idealogy and look at the facts as they are stated, it might help you see things a little more clearly.

ROTFLMAO!! Oh my GOD! Do you own a mirror?!?

@Arlin Carlson

The idea that 40% pay no taxes is ludicrious when you think about it seriously-and this just goes to show the Republican inablity to think.

47% of the people in this country pay zero federal INCOME tax and many qualify for earned income credit which gives them a return of more than they paid in. INCOME TAX. Are you admitting you are too dense to understand what people are talking about or just using semantics to deflect the argument? And you're accusing others of having an inability to think. LOL!

gingerbread - facts??? Fair share??? Shared sacrifice???

You said that it is about time the millionaires on up contribute more (paraphrased) and ...

It is time for all fair minded Americans to come together behind our President and support him in pushing for a shared sacrifice of all citizens. The tax increase he is requesting is to help the country recover from the financial plunge we have suffered since 2007. These new proposals consist of a special new tax for millionaires, closing loophole and deductions for those making more than $250,000 and an end to the portion of the Bush tax cuts that goes to higher incomes.

You libs are amazing!

When has it ever been "fair" to single out a small minority to support/benefit the majority? Or to even presume that the government knew how to handle $$$. On the 400, even if you were to liquidate (essentially taking all their money) the assets of the top 400 would only amount to $1 trillion and they would be done, no more assets, no more $$$ to give to charities, etc. That $1 trillion won't even go far in paying down our projected debt.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/23/news/newsmakers/forbes_400/

OK, we know liquidating all of their assets really won't help our long term economics. The 2009 stimulas with its $800 billion injection failed over the long term of 2 years. Really think by asking them for a little more that will impact the economy?

About those 2%. Last fall the FR libs were screaming about how allowing the bush tax cuts to expire for them would generate (over 10 years) $800 billion in revenue. OK so 2% is definitely a minority, but $80 billion a year is going to save the lifestyle you think you deserve? Heck, the FY2011 budget turned into a fight big time because obama and company didn't want even $38 billion in cuts. When all was said and done even the $38 billion was just smoke.

According to IRS data the top 1% pays 38% of all income taxes collected, the top 10% pay in 69.9% and the bottom 50% only pay in 2.7%

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

And then we have about 48% of taxpayers that pay no taxes at all and in many cases get money back from the government. Is that fair for the rest of us that do pay?

Yes, the wealthy obviously have more descretionary income and yes they can afford to give more of it away. Isn't that what most already do without government mandates? How many hospitals, clinics, schools, libraries, museums, etc have been created by the wealthy? How much research dollars have been spent by these wealthy individuals and corporations? How many good paying jobs have been maintained and created by their investments and risk taking. No one is being forced to work for them, why are they evil?

Ever wonder why more wealthy, heck anyone in fact, don't fill out that little box on the tax forms giving the government more money? Probably because they feel that the government will just waste it and that they can direct their excess funds to better use. Just think of all the donations to united way, salvation army, the red cross, military relief for families and the large variety of religious and non-'demoninational relief agencies. The government has historically shown us their consistant inability to resolve any economic issues effectively except perhaps inflation.

Face the facts dearie, the reason the Taxed Enough Already party exists today is mainly because of the past wasteful and excessive spending by both the democrats and republicans alike. Dang, and I am not even affiliated with the tea party, But I can recognize the past stupidity of the right and the ongoing stupidity of the left and the radical progressives.

Fairness and shared sacrifice needs to be applied equally to all, not just by punishing the small few who by their own design or their forefathers chose to be innovators and risk takers and in many cases became wealthy or founded profitable businesses.

Go ahead and change the tax codes, but do it the way tip Oneil and reagan did it in 1986, across the board lower income to top income and business, not by singling out a small group just because they have more discretionary incom than you or I.

Sidebar, allowing all of the obama (bush) tax cuts to expire after 2012 will have an increase in revenues of about $3.5 trillion over 10 years. If Obama wasn't just interested in re-election why doesn't he start promoting this fact?

Do you understand the definition of personal income tax? How about capital gains tax? Are you familiar with the current personal income tax brackets? Are you familiar with current capital gains tax rates?

Yes. Are you familiar with all the ways the wealthy elites are allowed to treat their incomes as variations of Capital Gains in order to skirt the top tax bracket? Are you aware that even St. Ronald of Reagan considered this inappropriate?

How long will the very rich be allowed to pay a lower effective tax rate than average Americans?

Write the Buffett Rule into the tax code.

Pass the American Jobs Act.

abitgreen

Appreciate that someone sees what this is actually about. Best of luck abitgreen. We gonna NEED it !

Dare, yes, good example. As is *in school cops*. They continue that crap here in tiny-ville usa. STarted out as a grant, now...well ... sigh. Might be needed in large cities. But here ? omg.. what a waste of $$. And worse ? The cop doing it, is double dipping. Retired, rehired, drawing a pension AND current wages. Show me ANY private business that operates like that !!

((typed, entered, edited, deleted....))

Just don't seem to matter anymore..sigh.

rickster- I thought that was a very good question, so I started googling, not sure if this is a real answer or not.

It all started back in high school when I took a part-time job bagging groceries. When I received my first paycheck, my jaw dropped. Between union dues, the largest culprit, and FICA taxes, my paltry wage of $5.50 per hour fell to about $3.50 for each 60 minutes of labor. Thus began my skepticism of unions.

crosscut.com/2011/01/03/workplace-labor/20512/How-I-became-an-anti-union-Democrat/

I'm guessing they do but there wasn't enough information and obviously from the pay scale this was "back in the day" so if anyone else can answer this I'd be extremely interested to know also.

Well said, Richard.

Write the Buffett Rule into law.

Pass the American Jobs Act.

So John Obama "Job Plan" limits donations to Charity write offs. Which basically will kill off most charitys. So your for throwing the poor under the bus for unions? Which Obama NEVER waived his 2009 American Recovery Bill he signed into law in 2009. Which gives federal construction to unions. Nice. Kill the poor for the unions Obama new slogan.

Details please, Jake. "Killing off most charitys" sounds like a talking point.

See, Jake... you guys just really don't get it, do you?

Your post is NOT about John or Democrats "throwing the poor under the bus" as you are attempting to advocate; in truth, it is about REPUBLICAN CONTROL...

Your post says it all: the President's plan will NOT "kill off charitys" - but Republican donors might do so, if they so choose. And that makes a statement about the Republican and Tea Party adherents.

Your are telling EVERYONE that Repubnuts and Teanuts only support charity because of the personal advantages they receive by giving to the poor, and that they insist on maintaining that control, that they want to be in charge and decide who receives what and in which amounts.

Please remember that this great nation was founded upon the self-evident truth that ALL men are created equal. You, the Rightwing and your ilk want to ignore that premise, or at minimum hold a slanted view of it.

Get behind our President's leadership ...pass the jobs bill and the tax proposal! Do something good and positive for our country!

The Democrats continuing to sweep all the serious problems like Medicare under the rug will cause one hell of a train wreck in the near future.

Yeah, Don...

very possible.

That exact scenario has been predicted since the 1950's and may happen, espcially if the t-party House and the Senate continues to obstruct effective operation of government. I think we had better oust Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and company so our government can get back to work!

Your are telling EVERYONE that Repubnuts and Teanuts only support charity because of the personal advantages they receive by giving to the poor,

Ummm, there is no "advantage" to giving away your money. Removing the tax deduction simply makes it more expensive to do so. If you can afford to give 10k to charity now, you'll only have 6.5k if the gov is going to tax that money first. Are you honestly too dense to comprehend this?

btw- if you think it is only republicans who won't increase there charitible donations significantly to cover the increased cost of taxation you are drowning in the Kol Aid.

Here is another example where John B and others don't understand.

As the charity deductions change, the amount of giving is sure to change. Why? Because as the charity write-offs decrease, it costs more for a person to give to charity. Currently, the gov subsidizes charitable giving by giving individual humans the ability to not pay tax on at least a portion of the charitable contribution they gave. By not paying taxes, the individual doing the charitable giving simlpy writes a check and sends $10,000 to YMCA. Well, if the tax dedcutions disappear, then to give that same $10,000 the person will first have to pay taxes, say 25%, and then give their contribution with after tax money. Therefore if the rules change, as per this example, then to give that same $10,000 will cost the individual $12,500. That is $2,500 they were setting aside for the family vacation.

So I ask you John B, how will this not change individual behavior in terms of giving? You have no argument here. Everyone knows, including elected officials, that the whole reason they put tax break in there for charitable giving in the first place was to encourage people to do it. This means that removing this tax break is sure to reduce giving.

As charible giving decreases, we can expect the feds to spend a least a little more. Lets face it, the gov relies on charitable giving because that means they can spend fewer of our tax dollars on feeding the hungry, etc, because there are non profits out there helping to feed the needy.

Not as stupid,

And what you don't see or understand (because you can't see past your party hatred) is that all individuals who are free to choose have to make their own financial decisions. So as I explained above, any person (dem or repub, or alien) will no doubt give less if there is reduction in the tax breaks because it COSTS more to give the same amount with the tax break gone.

I have to admit, taxing charitable contributions is wrong.

If that's the case, much better to let the big charities which can accomplish monumental tasks flounder (where my 10K/year is now only 7K since i'm taxed on it), and start your own 501(c) so you can expend the same amount of money towards philanthropy.

And, by the way, that's a big deal to the upper middles and rich. Our pet charities are how we try to pay for our sins :D

Excuse me, johnlaz, but, unless I am 'giving at the office' (pre-tax), that 10K$ has already been taxed. If I lose the tax deduction, then I pay 10,000$ instead of 7,500.

Get behind our President's leadership

Clearly you'd ahve to find it before you could get behind it. Good luck with that.

rick,

Doesn't matter how you give throughout the year. You do file a tax return right? If you made contributions to charity you claim and receive tax break.

Look at it however you want to......$12,500 vs $10,000 or $10,000 vs $7,500.....the point that most miss is that gov subsidizes charitable giving and it will no doubt drop at least to some extent if gov removes tax breaks for charitable giving.

The government doesn't 'subsidize' charity. It just taxes it less.

Which is good. Some people have money that they'd prefer not go to buy guns, or bribe foreign officials, etc. they want their money to go for a cause they believe in. Like feeding people, or medical care for people of a certain religion, or the YMCA. whatever.

A subsidy is DIRECT monetary aid. Aka - the government gives someone money. Sollyndra? Subsidy. Obama's bailout plans to date? Subsidies.

Taxing my charitable contributions less? not a subsidy.

btw. subsidy definition;

1.a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

2.a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.

3.a grant or contribution of money.
4.money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

1.a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking

And you don't think a tax break is a "direct penuniary aid furnished by a government"?

Yes richard and johnb - please do follow obmas re-election campaign and believe that the POTUS's job shouild now be one of continuous campaigning with the occasional stop to sign a bill. Of course he will be signing very few bills if they don't include raising taxes on the top 2%. Nice to see he ignored funding for his programs pushed thru in 2009 and 2010. But he did take away some medicare funding to pay down obamacare.

looks like from here on out the potus job discription will be changed to ...First and formost the job of potus is to always campaighn for re-election. The nations business will take a back seat.

ROTLMAO, so glad I am not a youngster.

Unless the gov is reaching into it's too-deep pockets to hand me some bills, which I then can distribute to my charities, then no. no, it doesn't match pecuniary aid.

NASAUT. Please, it does not fit. You are totally wrong about Republicans wanting control. The dems have pushed an agenda for decades and given handouts to millions upon millions of Americans. They want people to be totally dependent on the federal government so when the Republicans want us to stand on our own two feet, they dems can scare the crap out of all of us. obama stated specifically in 2009, that raising taxes in a recession was a terrible idea. But, he now proposes tax cuts in a recession. The same plan he has proposed, is the same plan turned down by the democrat controlled senate in 2009. The senate has been without a budget for almost 3 years, unprecedented. For the first time in our nation's history in 2010, we had not budget proposed or passed. Who controlled the house and senate? That's right, the democrats. Why did this happen? Because the democrats wanted this. They want the class warfare and are playing with our economy and lives just to further their agenda. Again, they want the American people dependent on the federal government, for votes. Most of them do not give a crap for the poor and middle class. They only care about your vote.

looks like the only "job" obama is campaigning for is his own.

To think that when Americans are asked "do you think that the US is heading in the right direction?" 70% now say no. Heck of a job obama in leading America, Oh I forgot... that is no longer part of your job discription.

John Laz, I asked for specifics of the changes being proposed, not a theoretical lecture. I hope it made you feel better to play professor. There seems to be a lot of that going on around here lately from the Right.

John B,

I could copy and paste your comments for your, but they do nothing to offer a solution. You indicated that another commenter was incorrect that charities would be hurt. Therefore, I thought that you did not understand the tax structure and how it works. That is why I explained it. I did not want to write that post, but I thought people were in need of understanding how it works. You seemed to be one of them. If not, then great.

But thank you for your sarcastic and helpful post!

Btw.....Who says I am on the right? Just because I understand taxes I must be a conservative? That makes you look like an even bigger fool, although I do not disagree with you that many on the left don't understand much, including taxes. But just for your knowledge I will say it out loud, I am a libertarian.

Oh yes, lots of condescension as well from our Conservative posters. Whatever it takes to deflect attention from the fact that the ultra rich get one heck of a deal on taxes...at the expense of the rest of us.

And Libertarians are just an extreme right wing position. I suppose you'll try to tell us it's something different, but when David Koch ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket with a hand-picked puppet Presidential candidate his approach was referred to as "Anarcho-Capitalism." Since he's one of the prime supporters of the Tea Parties as well as several well known Conservative talkers including Glenn Beck I think we can ascertain where he stands on the ideological scale.

How are any taxes I pay, or don't pay, at your expense?

Seems they're at my expense, doesn't it?

Unless you feel you have a right to my wallet?

JohnB is just here to get all spun up and yell at everyone.

All I did was talk about how charitable contributions work in relation to tax code, and he is coming out fighting.

Forget you JohnB.

At least I am not a good for nothing liberal who wants the government (gov = absolutely proven system of waste for centuries upon centuries) to do everything. Give them more power JohnB, then we will all have more to complain about. More waste, more fraud, more special benefits for elected officials powerful friends. Your problem is you aren't smart enough to recognize the problems. There is always human greed and corruption. Instead of taking steps to limit the corruption, you want to centralize power. Just like Russia. Do you think the Russian officials were starving along with the rest of the population? No, they controlled the show (talking Communism here) and they made sure that they had nice houses, cars, etc while the rest of the country lived like crap.

One of the main problems with the world is people like you. People that believe that they, or a gov, can make better decisions for the citizenry than the people can make for themselves. Yes, people like you have always been around and I suspect always will be. Heck there is money to be made in it.

Do you know that your kind of people are the anti-Christ in someone else's world?

Lets all take a page from JohnB. Gov is the best!

Ummm.....how much money did the American and Soviet govs waste during the cold war? What would have happened if the lines of communication were open between the average American and the average Soviet during the cold war? Did we want them all dead? Did they want all of us dead? Sure we disagreed with each other, and because we disagreed we unded up creating tens of thousands of nukes that could destroy the world many times over. Did that do any good for Joe average in either country? Too bad the resources we wasted were not spent on any number of other useful things. Governments making horrible decisions since the dawn of time (that might just be my new bumper sticker)

JakeJ:

Obama "Job Plan" limits charity ... write offs.

backcountry164:

Ummm, there is no "advantage" to giving away your money

Sheesh! Can't you wingers get the story straight? Hard to remember all those RNC talking points isn't it.

See: "If you don't lie, then you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain.

So if you guys stop lying, you might start to make some sense...Nah, probably not, but at least you might be coherent.

Try it for a change.

And Libertarians are just an extreme right wing position.

Yeah because we all know that the extreme right wants to end the war on drugs, decriminalize prostitution and support gay marriage. Try getting a clue.

Sheesh! Can't you wingers get the story straight? Hard to remember all those RNC talking points isn't it.

First off I'm a Libertarian not a "right winger". Aside from that did you have a point or just felt like spewing rhetoric? Maybe you'd care to explain how giving money away to charities somehow benefits people since that was what you quoted? Please do prove that you are not as stupid as I think you are. Or is your screen name just more BS?

Backcountry,

Thanks for thinking. Just like the example I was giving JohnB. He is so excited to centralize gov power and give the all knowing politicians even more room to control people and make stupid decisions for the rest of us. The unimaginable waste of the cold war was my example. And I was on my way back to add the 5 decades long war on drugs, many decades after experiencing the fiasco that was Prohibition.

I am right there with you. I too would end war on drugs (at least marijuana), prostitution should be legal, and gay marriage is totally fine with me. But I guess Libertarians have it all wrong according to JohnB and other non thinkers.

John Laz, you have no idea what I want, but you have no problem throwing down the same stereotypical talking points and caricatures that you can hear on any Conservative talk radio show. You accuse me of being "angry", but you went on not one but TWO rants about what's wrong with ME...someone you don't even know.

I'm not the enemy, I'm a concerned citizen...

Never mind, concerned citizens who disagree ARE the enemy in the eyes of the Conservative Movement.

It is simple JohnB. I believe I have you pegged.

All of your posts indicate a want for more government. I never called you the enemy. I said your type of people are what is wrong with the world (at least one major thing). Too bad that hurt your feelings.

As for radio or tv talking heads, I haven't listened to either side in a decade. I like to think for myself. If you do too, that is great. We have simply come to different conclusions. But I certainly would like to know how someone can advocate for your positions if they know history and are paying attention to what is actually going on in society.

Good work by the way calling my examples rants. Instead of replying with some actual thought. The garbage you spew the stronger my points. Your type of people wanting more gov are responsible for a significant share of the blame.

Question: Will be as upset about Governor Perry's campaigning for President when he has a job as Governor of Texas?

Danoid -

Yes. The whole system sucks.

According to my quick math, Obama announced his candidacy for President Feb, 2007, took office in Jan 2009, quits governing in Sep 2011 and will be kicked out Jan 2013.

That wortks out to about 38 months of campaigning and 35 months of governing and billions of dollars wasted.

So yeah, the system is broke, no matter who is running.

According to my quick math, Obama announced his candidacy for President Feb, 2007, took office in Jan 2009, quits governing in Sep 2011 and will be kicked out Jan 2013.

That wortks out to about 38 months of campaigning and 35 months of governing and billions of dollars wasted.

So yeah, the system is broke, no matter who is running.

Even if you buy that argument, it's still more than what Sarah Palin did in Alaska, only she didn't even bother pretending to govern for the last year and a half of her term.

I agree White Collar but I'm trying to find a bright side, at least while they're (Perry and Obama) campaigning it means they're not hanging around screwing everything else up even more.

Michael- Palin is a non-entity she's not running for President and she isn't President now so who really cares what she is or is not doing?

Even if you buy that argument, it's still more than what Sarah Palin did in Alaska,

Obama's better than Palin. That's your rebuttal? Seriously? So I assume you won't be voting for him again if that's the best defense you can muster.

Obama's better than Palin. That's your rebuttal? Seriously? So I assume you won't be voting for him again if that's the best defense you can muster.

I wish I had better options. Obama has been a severe disappointment, because as much energy as he puts into campaigning, he put almost no energy into governing. In retrospect, Hilary should have been the nominee, because at least she will fight for what she believes in. But at the time, I thought Hilary would be the ONE Democratic candidate that would mobilize the Republican opposition behind McCain.

But for 2012 there really isn't anything better on the other side of the aisle.

Romney is nothing more than a slick politician who wants to be all things to all people, and can't even begin to try to reconcile his hypocrisy on the health care issue.

Perry is what George W Bush would be without the moderating influences.

Bachman is another Sarah Palin, but without the charm.

Gingrich is about ten years behind any relevance he may have had to the political system.

Ron Paul's take on the role of government is about a century behind the times (at least).

The only one in the Republican field I might consider is Huntsman, but he has almost no prayer of getting nominated by the right-wing base that tends to turn out in primary elections.

I guess it's appropriate that Obama was compared to a rock star, because like many stars, he has shown to be a lot more flash than substance. Yes, he has had a number of important successes, but a lot of them were due to luck and timing, and the ones that he played a direct role in, he didn't do it until it was too late for him to really influence anything other than the outcome (such as that horrible health care bill, or the extremely weak debt ceiling compromise).

Say what you will about Republicans, at least most of them have spine--Obama has given and given and given to them and got very little in return. He just doesn't want to fight on policy, even when his opponents are slapping him over and over in the face daring him to strike back. Yes, he's finally doing it now, but fighting in a campaign is far different than fighting for policy. Perhaps if he had shown something--anything--resembling guts, he might not be struggling in the polls as much as he is, because at least the base would respect him for standing up for the issues.

Thanks Mike for showing us how far into the abyss you have ventured. "Ron Paul's take on the role of government is about a century behind the times." Why do you believe that? Have you been brought up from day one being taught by other non thinking people that the gov should do everything?

WCA: Now he spends all his time and other peoples money trying to hold on to a job he's not even going to do for the next 18 months?

How do you feel about Rick Perry, a sitting governor of Texas? Michele Bachmann, representative from Minnesota? Ron Paul, representative in the House? Are they doing the jobs we are paying them for?

They are all out campaigning and have been for months. Do you suggest that the President should sit by and let them continue to attack?

But for 2012 there really isn't anything better on the other side of the aisle.

Obama will spend this country into oblivion. A friggin trained chimp would make a better President. At least the chimp wouldn't be able to sign checks. I think Obama's a great guy and excellent orator but he has leadership ability equal to the lemming that brings up the rear of the pack. At least the republicans realize that if they spend money the way they did in '02-'08 they will be one and done. If Obama wins reelection he will have nothing to lose and nothing to hold him back (not counting a potential Republican super majority of course)

fielden

last I checked Texas's economy is doing a lot better then most of the US. what about the Democrats in Wisconsin that took off running to IL. this year on tax payers money to duck the vote in their home state where they doing their jobs?

Sarah? Sarah who? Quit living in the past, obama is now and this blog will be a reminder to all voters what obama thinks about governing, leadership and unity.

All traits he has failed at, but i do give him an A+ in campaiging

Well then cherrytom, you haven't checked the news lately. Texas is performing worse than the rest of the nation in terms of job creation now that the federal government has stopped pumping them up.

Felden,

Da Noid asked me the same thing. (4.1/4.2)

Yes. It sucks for all of them. The whole system sucks.

you just described the problem. Liberals think this is some kind of game. That explains California with a 12% unemployment rate and a budget problem. But the "game" is about babysitters and drink cups". Obama's game is class envy to score political points. Speeches full of insults and condescending remarks to rally the liberals won't create a job or reduce the deficit. The game started by a lack of leadership in the White House needs to stop.

Dear Tony C-2383666:

BULL SHYT!!!

Both sides play games, fellas.

The lower class perceives the rich as lazing about poolside sipping champagne, lighting a cigar with a flaming $100 bill and using some orphan as a foot rest while every color minority cleans up after their mess.

The upper class perceives the poor as dressing their kids in potato sacks while they buy another blu-ray movie using food stamps to watch on a 60" inch HDTV screen while high on illegal drugs.

Both sides use these biases to gain political points. We need drug screening for welfare recipients. We need to tax the rich. We need to reign in lazy welfare recipients. We need to reign in greedy corporations. We need to knock these lazy and expensive union jerks down a rung. We need to knock these snobby rich jerks down a rung. Both sides have carefully crafted these perceived unfair situations. It is the best way to get votes.

Both sides are telling the same story: that there are people out there who don't live by the same rules as you and I and get special treatment. Doesn't that burn you up?! Vote for me and I will correct this injustice!

Not As.... that is the response one would expect from a liberal. All you know is hateful comments, name-calling and displaying your lack of ability to deal with views other than your own. Predictable.

lmao...... a wimpy californcation guy calling for war. Put a flower in your ear and go protest somewhere. You wouldn't know a war if it bit you in that sun tanned ass!

hat is the response one would expect from a liberal

no, Tony, that is the response you get when your comment is idiotic and barely deserving of response. The problem is that liberals think its a game?! I don't care what you said after that. That is so hypocritical.

Thank you Rick -

You and most American voters understand and grasp the principles, (even if some on this board choose to remain in denial and don't get it.)

Muster the loud mouthed union, errrr, communist brownshirts and lets get it on! I'll meet you at my gate, but you won't like the introduction.

And the authoritarian wing of the Conservative Movement rears its head.

Jolly -

I've fought in two (2) Wars, how many have you fought in?

You would lose that bet Princess? I think Joe Biden said it best "The Oval Office is no place for on the job training." No one has proved that postulate more than Barack Insane Obama.

No one has proved that postulate more than Barack Insane Obama.

If you don't count Reagan or Bush, but then again people like to forget the two worst presidents in our nation's history.

There is no job training sufficient to be president. You need to be a diplomat, a general, a scientist, an economist, a teacher, a lawyer, a banker, a poor worker, a middle class professional, an upperclass executive, a normal down to Earth person, an extraordinary leader, a public speaker, a philosopher, a multitasker, a single minded tasker, a technologist, a planner, a thinker, a doer, etc etc etc.

Most people select a few out of the list because you simply can't be everything. But we never get terrific choices for president. That's because everybody has the "anybody but HIM" mentality at the ballot box. There are bad presidents, but they have names like Milliard Fillmore and Warren Harding, who have always ranked very low.

good reply pragmatic.

If the pubs/tea are so adamant about experience in the White House who do they have to run with the necessary experience. The only two possible candidates with the qualifications they so desperately want would be Barrack Obama or George H. Bush....................nobody else has Presidential experience

...Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

That would make a great team. We could fix the Middle East troubles AND balance our budget - 2 birds with one stone.

A lot of you obstinate right wingers won't like that, but remember it was Carter who was able to broker the Camp David accords, and Clinton who insituted the economic policies which balanced the budget....

and you guys claim to HATE them???

Guess that makes a resounding statement about YOU and the things you advocate on this board (as well as the direction YOU would like to take this country.)

I see the cheerleader for class envy and class warfare has made an impact on you! Too bad, that individual is the President of the USA.

There is no "war" without two sides. The GOP has used the idea of "undeserving" people getting something from the hard work of others from President Reagan's time (if not before). Why do people in GOP care about what benefits other people are getting? Is that envy? Resentment? Perhaps a sense of "entitlement" that only "they" deserve benefits?

The "war" you describe is not about class -- it's about the lack of class. People who are aware of their social class and position don't worry about losing it, but people in the US don't have a social class...there are no permanent aristocrats or outcasts. Gov. Romney is worth $250 million, but boasts that his father started out as an apprentice lather. Gov. Perry draws attention to the fact that he was the son of a tenant farmer. But their success today doesn't guarantee them or their family any assurance that it will always be so. Hence the GOP stokes the fires of envy by seeming to indicate that "some" people pay no income taxes and get benefits they don't deserve.....and that someday they will displace the current middle class members, who will then drop down the ladder.

The fact is the top 1% pay more in tax dollars than the bottom 95%, with 50% paying zero income and receiving "credits" in some cases. Obama's constant use of the word "everybody" needs to pay their fair share is offensive to those of us who have worked and earned our wealth and pay plenty of taxes. Obama's continued attacks only allienates and agitates people, which seems to be his goal in order to score political points. Obama shows he is only concerned about reelection when he continues to attack the symptoms and encouraging class envy and class warefare. This is not leadership and not very Presidential. Obama's administration has proved over the last almost 33 months that short term government solution do not improve a weak economy.

Tony C. fails to mention the demographics of that 47% (he says 50%) that don't pay federal income tax:

Grandma/ Grandpa (retirees who paid into the system already and now you want more from them???)

Uncle Bob (disabled due to his leg being blown off in Iraq)

Junior (intellectually disadvantaged with down syndrome or people with other disabilities)

Nice folk (who don't make enought to be above the poverty line maybe Michelle B's eliminating the minimum wage will help their plight)

Unemployed (9%+)

1500+ mega millionaires who paid no taxes due to using foreign investments as write offs (read this a ski chalet)

Lazy people unwilling to work (please assign a percentage that you feel is reasonable after looking at all the above)

Those goshdarn deadbeats like granny should get off their ass afterall McDonald's is hiring...............don't you just feel all the Republican /Tea love for disadvantaged people.

Please keep in mind these people do pay taxes every time they buy gas or any other products along with licensing fees, registrations and various other governmental fees so it is somewhat disingenious to say they don't pay taxes.

I see the cheerleader for class envy and class warfare

Rick 'em, rack 'em, ruck 'em, ruck 'em, get your cash and really...er...fight!

Check the IRS data for the filing year of 2009, it was 50%, not 47%. None of what you stated is the point. The point is the President should be about a solution, reforming the tax code for individuals and corporation not engaging in poiunting out a symptom to gain political points with his base. Obama's tactic is the issue here. Obama seems to think he needs to allienate and agitate as a prelude to a solution. By the way, everybody pays the other taxes you mention. That doesn't justify a President who seems to be a cheerleader for encouraging class envy. Exaggerations by you or Obama do not help sovle the problem either. No one believe people in real need are deadbeats. However, there are folks who take advantage of the system. That is a fact.

Tony C -- you can feel as you want, but the reality is that people pay taxes on income, on capital gains...if you don't have any income, you can't pay tax on it. If you don't have money invested, you can't pay on that either. What your statistics show is that the vast majority of wealth in this country is in the hands of relatively few people. If the top 47% of the people are earning 100% of the income, they will be the ones paying. For the past 10 years, they have been allowed to keep much of it (Bush tax cuts), but it has not improved our unemployment statistics, our job creation statistics, or demand for products. The President has suggested reforming the tax code, but every reform he suggests is seen as a "tax increase."

Tony C.,

So your reply is to split hairs over 3%

I noticed you failed to mention the demographics of who makes up your 50% of deadbeats. Do you care to address why you feel the need to tax Grandma or other disabled people presently unable to make a wage?

BBTW............listing the people you disdain so much isn't an exaggeration. If you care to correct me let me know the exact percentages of who isn't paying income taxes, you seem to know all the per centages so I'll wait to see your answer

So, Tony, you're going to argue about the 47-50% of the people in this country who are at or near the poverty level.

You're going to try and argue that they should pay income tax on non-existent income.

And you have the temerity to suggest they are engaging in class warfare?

Really?!

Sure he will. Tony will do almost anything to keep people from carefully examining the American Jobs Act or realizing the Buffett Rule should be written into the tax code since the ultra wealthy pay a lower effective income tax rates than the middle class.

Seems some of you can read but cannot comprehend what you read. The cause of the problem is the tax codes The symptom is what Obama wants to focus on to score political points. If Obama's goal was to have a fair tax code for "everybody" he wouldn't use the language he uses, which divides Americans. This is not leadership. The Obama administration has failed to strengthen the economy with their short term "sugar" highs which have only added to this countries debt. The last 32 months prove this whether or not you want to deal with the reality of the situation or not. This next "stimulus" will not work either. Obama is now concerned about reelection, not jobs or deficit reduction.

Kate, the Bush tax cuts were tax cuts for everyone. Wow, the government "allowed" people to keep their money. You wonder why people call Obama a socialist. Every proposal Obama has put forth has been a tax increase.

The economy will not improve with a President who adds uncertainty everyday and gives lectures.

So Tony, you agree that the very wealthy should have to pay an effective tax rate at least equal to that of the middle class?

The tax code for both individuals and corporations is both too complex and unfair depending on individual circumstances and many other factors for businesses. Again, Obama is attacking the symptoms because it scores political points. Is that all you can do is jump on some "talking" point? That is Obama's tactic to encourage class envy. The AMT is a example of how a "fix" like Obama is proposing is not a solution. To draw a conclusion that all wealthy people pay less in taxes than middle class wage earners is an exaggeration. The top 1% pay more tax dollars in total than the bottom 95%. The blanket statement that wealthy people do not pay their fair share or pay less than the middle class, even when it comes to an effective rate is just not true across the board. This is yet another mis-leading statement by Obama, one of many. Who decided the definition of Middle class in terms of earnings? if you make $100,000 a year and have 4 children and you live in New York City, does that qualify you as middle class? It probably does in Iowa. Again, Obama throwes around "talking" points to play to "votes".

Actually it's you that is jumping on talking points. I asked if you believe the very rich should pay a lower share of their income as taxes than the middle class, as is now the case. You respond with a flurry of non-answers about a complex tax system, the AMT, and how the people who have nearly all the wealth in the country are being put upon if they have to pay more taxes. You even claim the middle class is a concept too complicated to pin down.

So the answer, Tony, is that yes, like most Conservatives you DO believe the wealthy elites should pay a lower effective rate than the middle class.

John, you are wrong. The data does not back up Obama's claim. I said that above. The rich already pay at a higher rate. Obama is into the "big lie". Again, read what I said. Yes, I offered an explaination as well. Obama exaggerates and liberals and the media run with it. My point stands. All you did was jump onto a "talking point", which is, again, another Obama lie.

The data you don't provide, Tony? Here's some food for thought;

So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html

Sorry, but Obama has been in his re election campaign mode since the day after the inauguration. The presidents only plan has been towards the re election goal.

Gary . . . the "critique Obama" comments are getting lamer and lamer . . . wtf is Congress doing to earn a paycheck or help anyone other than the folks who sponsor their re-election? Enough with the the foolishness now.

Over 200 bills Nashville since 2011. The question should be what is the lazy as& Senate doing?

Jake:

Please, please, please don't come at me with no BS about number of bills. Hell Jake, naming an airport is a bill. Just stop it. Just stop.

Nashville--- The right can't see the forest because they keep running head first into the same tree trunk.

Come on people, President Obama is not the problem. It's the bought and paid for congress.

Actually Tom the forrest is the lazy as* ones sitting on the bills (senate). You would be screaming if congress was sitting on 400 plus bills. And what is Obama saying about all those bills sitting in the Senate?????? Do I hear a nothing.

Jake:

What SPECIFIC BILLS are you concerned about? How will that bill HELP SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT A CORPORATION?

Leave President BIEBER alone!!!!! lol

I'm waiting to see the youtube...

"the governing phase is over"-----I say hooray for that. I was wondering when the President would get tired of being the only one trying to compromise.

P.S. Thanks to your Titans for beating the Ravens on Sunday, Nash!

No meaningless poll to pimp this morning dangerfield?

I thought I could at least get your usual blah, blah, blah about the President needing to endorse the findings of the Debt Commission . . . you know the one we wouldn't even HAVE if the President hadn't used an Executive Order to form it . . . because the Republicans in Congress stopped supporting their own bill when the President endorsed it . . . but hey, that isn't their fault, right?

All BS all the time.

Good morning Steeler Fan . . . hey, nobody is more surprised than us Titans fans that we beat ANYONE, let alone the Ravens . . . looks like your Steelers got back into fighting form pretty quick . . . I got a feeling that losing to the Ravens is going to be bad news for every other team ya'll play this year! :o)

If you read more than your own fanmail, you would see exactly how silly your lashing out really is, but I have learned that is all you really do. I post on many topics, but always enjoy lampooning your silly love letters to the president...

But thanks for commenting!

Tom the Unions own President Obama lock, stock and barrel. Just look at everything he has given them and only them.

richard:

What force in America today can counterbalance the power of corporate people?

Give the whole "union" talking point a rest . . . we are about to lose our freaking union, as in the United States . . . and it ain't because of unions, mmmmkay.

I notice that no one has 'splained to me wtf Congress is doing for anyone other than themselves. And that goes double for the "corporate people".

They're not doing a gosh darn thing Nashville, hence the reason they ALL need to go too as quickly as possible. House and Senate both!

Jake J,

The record number of filibusters being used by the pubs/tea in the Senate might have something to do with the non passage of anything....................I think your anger is misdirected, talk to your pub/tea congressman if you don't like the "do nothing" congress............afterall you guys elected these bunch of dolts

I have read more negative criticism concerning President Obama decisions what he believe would help this country go in a better direction to help themselves. Reading these comments from some of the people who blaming the problem on Obama and the White House. Several comments I am about to make; some of the people didn't say too much of anything when Bush and his administration was in office he influence congress to bail the STOCK market out. when formal President Clinton left a $236 billion surplus, it wasn't no complaints then. Wasn't too much pressure put on Bush to change the law concerning the homosexuals when he was in office. His Vice President, Chency daughter is one and suppose to be married to another women. Why nothing was said then? Bush cut taxes for the rich and Corporations, didn't too many people say anything then. A majority of Congress voted for it too. If Bush, his Administration and others that went alone with him was concern about our economy his last three years in office to make sure the American People didn't face this kind of opposition, we probably would not be going through this at this time. But look at how short I memories are and you want to criticize Obama when he trying help the country. Take a look at the Republicans don't want no Balance Budget, they feel that's too much of their incomeis been bother with.

Perry, haven't done that much for the State of Texas Because if he had, we down here wouldn't be going through some of the same situations that the whole United States is going through. For example; A lots of people has lost their jobs, homes, we have a deficit. Out of all the years he has been the Governor of the State of Texas, we should not have these problems. First, you need to learn to take care of HOME first before you try to be over the United States as a President.

As President Obama has said it's all our problem and we all have to do our part. When are we going to start? NOW or LATER?

don'tgivemethepenguin==You are just too cute for words. NOT

typical untoward tea party comments................that's all they have

simple answers for simple minds ~tea party mantra

Then, by all means, Gary, please point to the landmark legislation that the Congress has passed since January 1, 2011.

Take your time...we'll wait for you.

everything is sitting in the Senate. When you have over 400 bills sitting there it should be called the lazy as* Senate Committee.

The House passed a budget that the Senate has not even brought to the floor. In fact, the House has passed several bills that Harry Reid won't even bring to the floor of the Senate.

Right Gary.

Notice they call Obama just Obama, but they refer to congress as the "do-nothing congress".

How about calling Obama what he is?? The empty-suit, incompetent, teleprompter trooper. The foodstamp/downgrade King. Instead, they refer to him as a President. LOL

Reid would not even be in office if the tea baggers had not gotten involved in his last election,we can't let them do thesame thing in another presidential election,sarah palin factor.Vote republican not Bachmann,Palin or Perry although he is not sure who he wants to represent yet,king of the flip floppers.

Its ok....... The progressives are going to challenge Mr Obama with a few candidates (as per Mr Nader) That should allow us to vet the liberals as well and they are vetting the Conservative's

Jake J,

tea/pub senate members have set a new record for filibusters................that might
have something to do with your alleged 400 bills languishing in that chamber of
congress. If you want to blame the do nothing congress look to the
obstructionist tea/pub factor

bftiz / armurray, the governing phase started when the recession ended, Gitmo closed, unemployment lowered to 8% due to Stimulus, another $1 trillion in Obamacare surpluses were found to lower the debt, the Bush tax rate reductions for everyone were not extended, and we got out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Sorry you missed it!

Right Seattle Sue,

We need to raise taxes 50% across the board immediately. That will create millions of jobs. LOL

Why not go the whole route? Obama should propose that EVERY American be taxed at 100%. Send all that you earn to your good friend President Obama and he will magnanimously decide who gets how much from the good ol Federal government. Would that shut all you liberal/progressive/socialists up? If so, please write the president and beg him to do it. He will listen to you, won't he?

a little foggy out west Sue? have a sip of java and snap out of your LWNJ state of mind. Why would you want to hear from a lawyer? We already have one in the White House or is he a community organizer? and look at where we are.

What we really need is Perry to kill the ponzi scheme known as social security while leading us to the rapture. Or maybe Romney with his magic underwear, and hiring bush's economic adviser who came up with the great plan of giving tax cuts during war time. What could go wrong with that?

Most of all the plan is to never raise taxes on the richest and that has worked so well so far. While earlier someone pointed out that Clinton had a conservative fiscal congress, as soon as bush was elected they turned into spending like drunken teenagers giving tax cuts while starting wars. Just as suddenly when President Obama was elected they became born again fiscal conservatives.

Just look at where we are now, brought to you by the republican party.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” - Sen. Mitch McConnell, 10/25/2010

Seems parts of Congress declared war on the President first. Brutus IS an honorable man.

Sandie- you are right on. His new stance of campaign mode is what he has been in since day one. It is his way or the highway- to use his words.

We need a President to lead, not campaign and make speeches. We need to have a President who can forcibly suggest to Congress to implement programs like WPA and GI Bill for workers. He needs to show specifics such as changing the Capital gains back to regular income, tax all income at some level, tax corporations at a lower rate, but tax all net income of a US corporation-including its foreign affiliates. Cut Dept of Education, Labor, EPA, and other, severely reduce Foreign handouts, eliminate all handouts to countries that oppose the USA, cut off funding of Fannie and Freddie, etc. and bring the budget back to a income level, plus reduce the deficite 5% per year. This will bring the US Deficite and spending under control, plus provide stability for companies and corporations to expand as demand increases for goods and services. The "rich" wil pay more, the "Middle class" will pay some income tax, the unemployed will have the opportunity of working in WPA type jobs at a higher level than unemployment, and consumer spend will increase , creating demand.

SO far, all Obama does is rant and rave, with no Jobs Bill of Tax Proposal written down for vote or implementation. His is strictly campaigning.

When Obama took office:

Gas was $1.50/gallon

Unemployment 5.1 %

Gold $740/ounce

National debt 9 trillion

Budget deficit $400 billion.

2.5 years later:

Gas is now $3.50/gallon

Unemployment is 9.2 %

Gold $1520/ ounce

National debt $15 trillion

Budget deficit 1.3 trillion

I don't think we can handle any more of this "change."

ProudAmericanVeteran -- where are you getting your facts?
Gas was over $4 a gallon the summer before the 2008 elections, and although it dropped below that, it was NEVER as low as $1.50 a gallon. If your first figure is patently wrong, how are we to believe the rest.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm

Increase in unemployment rate in January 2009

Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points.

Kate

I just checked. The average nationwide was $1.68 and the gas where I live was $1.50. Stick that in your liberal/progressive/socialist water pipe and smoke it.

Increase in unemployment rate in January 2009

Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January

And when did Obama take office??? Gee... you mean he walked into this trend when he became President and has been fighting to reverse it constantly since 1/09??? YES, we voters know that regardless of the RNC spin and talking points that attempt to mislead and place the blame elsewhere than where it belongs.

As for proud's spin and RNC sales pitch kate, just don't pay any attention to the biased rant; typical Republican campaign tactic is spewing unsupported statements as "facts" and re-writing history to fit their platform planks...then spout the fear factors and illogical allegations.

We've seen it all before, and it is very old and tired, but they have nothing else - look at their candidate roster!

Dave-309982 Check Again!

The average price of a gallon of gas nationwide is $3.65 — the highest ever, adjusted for inflation. California's average: $3.90 a gallon. The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects a $3.66 per-gallon average this summer.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-05-08-gasprices_N.htm

notasstupidasyouthink, you are more stupid than you care to admit. When your great messiah came into office, the democrats had already had a senate and house of representatives majority under the leadership of pilosi and reid for two glorious years leading the economy in a downward spiral.

Amy 2007 to 2008......DoH! It was $1.67 a gallon here!

Everyone that is informed know and use their common senses know this economic has been in certain situations before 2008 got here, but some people don't want to admit this. They want to blame Obama and all those that might be trying to what help all us. Because they don't want the last president blame for nothing that have led up to this point. It took the Republicans eight years to put this economic to this point and it going to take another ten years or more to get it straight out.

Is it true there are five people in this world that nobody knows about rules this economic?

some people don't want to admit this. They want to blame Obama

So true Brett's -

Just look at the two posts before yours.

And they try to convince themselves we will believe the Republican lies again and accept what they spew as truth.

Amazing!

Guess some will NEVER learn...

Union Baby: I'll ask you the same question I asked Ozzie: How much money should a worker pay on the following wages: 1. $50,000 2. $100,000 3. $200,000

No spinning allowed, i.e. no deductions, just straight dollars, fair share only like the MAN said.

10% to 100k, 20% to 300k, 35% to 1 mill, 45% to 5 mill, 91% over 5 mill.

35% to 1 mill, 45% to 5 mill, 91% over 5 mill. <----- all those people will leave the US. Who do you go after next!

typical jolly.............. fear mongering, as usual. How many people do you know that will quit their multi-million dollar jobs if they had to pay taxes? If they do will nobody replace them? Go ahead deadbeat, non tax paying, multi millionaires please leave now......we don't need you and I am sure there are plenty of people who would love to pay taxes to have such a great opportunity to earn money in the US

Not if your going to take it all away!

Property taxes, school taxes, sales taxes, are not leved by the federal government. They are local taxes.

Say sharky call them apples I don't care but "it still taxes " that the rich pay

I understand. Facts never mean anything to teabagger crazies.

BINGO!!

...And, it appears by their own statements, it is the state and local governments that are "out of control..."

Jim,

the ignorance of the tea party members is astounding. You really need to stop getting your lips loaded by Rush and the rest of the imbeciles

Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?

Tax Year 2008

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%

$380,354

38.02

Top 5%

$159,619

58.72

Top 10%

$113,799

69.94

Top 25%

$67,280

86.34

Top 50%

$33,048

97.30

Bottom 50%

<$33,048

2.7

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

But most new companies are started by private capital whether borrowed or their own. The Democratic plan is to remove as much capital from the private sector as possible. Tell me how the government removing that capital ever creates more jobs. I see nothing in the Presidents economic plan which will create jobs. Rich people in a growing economy invest their money where they get the best return. Start ups come from venture capital from these types of people.

Excellent point, not-a-Dummy D.

Job-creators in Maine have been entrepenuers like L.L.Bean, who borrowed $400.00 to produce his first line of rubber/leather boots.

Job-killers have been large out-of-state corporations who buy up Maine businesses, then lay of workers (examples too numerous to list here.)

Why don't you explain how higher taxes create real jobs? We need jobs that create tax dollars, not short term jobs created by tax dollars. The results of "government "sugar" highs, which is Obama's plan only increases the debt.