Well the good news is look at all the help Clinton suppoters, both Bill's and Hilary's will be to Obama and the democrats I'm sure glad they are on our side.

Your math seems a little misleading. You say that those making more than a million a year pay 24 percent of taxes, then state (in your hypothesis regarding those who don't pay taxes) that they are taxed 24% of their income. So either millionaires collectively pay that piece of the pie or they are taxed at that rate. Make up your mind there.

The point is this, the bottom 40% of people in this country hold 0.3% of wealth in our country. Less than half of a percent, yet you're angry that they make up about 100 times more than their fair share in taxes? What about a flat tax rate? For example at ten percent a millionaire would pay $100,000 in taxes, but even someone making $100,000 a year would only be putting in $10,000. That would make a total of $110,000 paid by those two people, of that, 91% would be paid by the millionaire. Is that fair? The millionaire holds 91% of the shared wealth, so he pays 91% of the taxes. What you're saying is that it is unfair for those who hold 84% of the wealth to pay 24% of it? Damn straight that's unfair.

And you, dear sir, do your own form of distortions. Please re-run your numbers, except this time use the IRS figures for "effective tax rate." That's the amount of tax upper income people pay after myriad deductions, exclusions, write-offs, subsidies for their businesses, and write-downs. If you were at all interested in doing some research, what you'd find is that the upper class actually pay an "effective tax rate" that is substantially LOWER than the middle and lower class. Why? Because they get all of the biggest deductions, sheltered income, etc. that the lower class do not qualify for. So please, stop whining about the 'poor upper class' and their tax burden. You want fairness? Elminate all of the write-offs that make the taxes on the rich a total joke.

The problem IS the size and expense of government.

Since the government has proven time and again that they are terribly inefficient at running anything, the current attempts to greatly expand government programs are going to be a financial catastrophe - just look at Solyndra, the Post Office, Medicare, Medicaid and every other program the government tries to manage. Just the Medicare and Medicaid programs are going to have a Deficit of over $7 Trillion over the next 10 years (a). Do we REALLY want them in charge of the entire health care system as well?

Sources; The official government link to verify Obama's projected Deficits and National Debt (Table S-14) and the Medicare Deficits (Table S-3) is as follows;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

Voters will have a clear choice between the Teapublican "anti-government strategy" versus the Democrat desire for "smart government and a changing economy working together to create the opportunities of tomorrow."

It is mind-bending to see the right-wing vitriol in these threads, though I suspect this is due in part to it being the weekend -- Especially the article on the DNC chair saying the GOP wants to beat the president at the expense of the economy. It's blatantly obvious to most Americans who are paying attention that the GOP has become the Grand Obstructionist Party.

The Tea Party Raucus in the House think they can dictate their narrow destructive agenda to the nation. If they want to see a true spontaneous, ground-swell movement, look at all the rallies across the nation that started with the Occupy Wall Street protests in NY. People are sick of the greed and corruption of corporations and the rich that the GOP/TP protect.

The problem is the millions trillions of dollars poured down the unnecessary War toilet, and in the midst of that - taxes were cut - a first EVER. Top that off with bailing out big business/financial institutions and I would say yeah, government screwed up from 2000 to 2008. But for Republicans and Teapublicans to say all this now has to be paid for by the middle-class, poor, and elderly, the environment, food and water safety, etc. is just plain wrong. I can only hope for more Wall Street protests and eventual open rebellion. Oh yeah, and the frosting on the cake - we have Citizens United to ensure that even the election process is deeply compromised.

The meek will inherit the earth - but by that time no one will want it.

Rich and poor earners pay income tax as instructed. They don't make up the instructions, they're not crooks.

The role of government is to write the instructions.

It is not the role of government to create bigger and bigger public departments that compete in business with the private sector.

Everone wants to pin point this program or that for cuts. The fact is, all parts of the giant machine that is our working culture were negotiated and have evolved for over 200 years. Pin pointing at this point in time just opens up old tired out arguments.

In the interest of saving America, the fair thing to do is to contract spending across the board evenly to the point there is truly a balanced budget which includes a modest payment on the debt.

That will stop some serious bleeding. When the bleeding is stopped, get on with finding waste and dealing with it, and with research and development of the inventions of the future.

NOBAMA-3864250

"Who in the heck do you think employs those of us in the middle class?"

Your pathetic Rovian talking point doesn't hold water, and is getting really, really old.

Most people are employed by small businesses. Many, if not most small business owners make less than $250k/year. These middle class owners hire people. Your assertion that only the rich and large corporations hire people is bs.

Do poor people hire? No, not until they have a job for a while, then possibly. Meanwhile, they still pay taxes.

roy Willson, describe, if you will, how wonderful and efficient were Lehman Bros and AIG at running things. How great a job was done by free market darlings like Enron and WorldCom... tell me once again how gov't can't do anything right, except to put people on the moon and kill Osama et al. and how private business is perfect in all respects..

I just wish we got more for what we pay for. :(

flat tax would be a windfall for the rich, tax rates sound high including corperate taxes but actual tax rate paid is some times so low as to be negligible the answer is a simplified tax code with lower rates & way less loopholes perhaps a deduction for companies that bring jobs back to the USA. This is the richest country in the world it going to need to be governed intelligently we need more people involved in voting these people need to be well educated this takes a certain amount of government to accomplish we need to have sensible government that is not bought and paid for by special interests. If we continue on our current path all the money ends up in the hands of a few who always want more look back in history & ask Marie Anntonette how that worked out for her & her family & friends

Some of you have no clue what taxes the rich pay. Most of us so called rich folks rely on a salary and pay more taxes to the feds than all of you combined.

NOBAMA-3864250

Have YOU bothered to read the Constitution or the Federalist papers??? If you had, you might have a better clue about the role of government - and its proper LIMITS! You anti-conservatives and your anti-capitalist rants really are beyond belief. Who in the heck do you think employs those of us in the middle class????? I have never known of a poor person to create a job? Have you? Also, keep in mind that no level of government - local, state, or federal ever creates a revenue paying job. (And I worked as a public school teacher for 10 years - so I am not bashing any government employee.)

So... I had to put your whole paragraph to keep your context, but the most striking statement is "I have never known a poor person to create a job". So what's your point? So they "deserve" no support or empathy? So we should drop everything and support the rich, the corporations, and all business?

Look, if we were creating a new government and trying to create an appropriate tax structure, I think we all would agree that it should be fair to all, providing incentives for business and a few breaks for those that are struggling. This isn't an "anti-conservative" or "anti-capitalist" view, it's one we have worked on and developed over decades with a wide variety of political influence. And adjusting a rate or two up or down a few points speaks to balance, not "rants". It's not being "against" capitalism to tax the rich 3.6% more with the understanding that we need the revenue as a country. It's being a realist... and the rich will understand. Most say the 3.6% will make little, if any, difference both in their decisions and in their lives.

On a $100,000 project with an ROI of 10%, the increased taxes would be $360. $360. Think about it. Does $360 change any decisions? Not at all. To say so is ridiculous.

Lastly, your anti-government" rant claims that government cannot create a job. And I guess you are correct in the literal sense... kinda. You had a government job that paid you and that you paid taxes on. And, hopefully, when you add your contribution (production) and taxes it equals a net benefit to us, the tax payers. There are many private industry "equivalent" jobs created by the government. Soldiers, teachers, police, social services, etc., etc. But those aside, government has been involved to co-funding private sector jobs for all of these decades to help build roads, bridges, and the list goes on. In fact, I have a local bridge, federally funded, named after our Republican Senator... funny, huh?

So your rant "government doesn't create revenue paying jobs" is just not quite true, is it?

Respect capitalism. But don't bow to it. Balance with everything. Go "all-in" on nothing.

NOBAMA, the reason our highest earners are the highest contributors is because the top 10% own 71% of all the wealth in the USA. Bear in mind that nobody is proposing a return to Eisenhower era tax rates for the rich, what has been proposed is changing their tax rate from 35% to 39% to help reduce our budget deficits.

The debate IS about the role of government and how it can influence prosperity. One side believes in personal responsibility which, in their opinion, is limited to the preservation and accumulation of wealth by those who already have the most, and neglecting those who are struggling to make ends meet. The overwhelming majority of American have nothing against the rich, but since most of us are not rich we believe we - the majority - deserve a right to have a job that allows us to support our families, pay the rent or mortgage, pay the utility bills, make car payments on time, and send our children to college so that they have a better chance to succeed than many of us did. In a nutshell, we want to be able to hope for a better future.

What many of us see are deliberate attempts to destroy the middle class by encouraging companies, to outsource jobs overseas to make an extra buck regardless of the consequences that such action has on the American workforce, we see our stores buying junk made in China while one plant after another is closed in the USA, we see corporations paying little or no taxes and investing their profits abroad, we see attempts to protect the right of banks to charge consumers 18% interest on credit card balances and pay less than 1% interest on savings accounts and we see continuous attempts to demonize the lower middle class and the poor while those who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths are protected and praised. This is not class warfare, this is a fight for the survival of the middle class which contrary to what some people think is what makes this country the greatest country in the world.

DOH DOH

Some of you have no clue what taxes the rich pay. Most of us so called rich folks rely on a salary and pay more taxes to the feds than all of you combined.

And, if you are truly rich, you would appreciate that this country affords you great opportunity to become and stay rich without undo and unfair tax rates. You would know that the rates are the lowest EVER (in our tax history) and that the breaks available to you are many... too many, really. You pay taxes on your raw income at various rate currently topped at 36%, on capital gains at 15%, and then there are state and local and sales taxes as well. But, if you are truly rich, you know you keep hundreds of thousands or even millions every year. You can afford multiple houses, multiple cars, the schools of choice for your kids, nannies, house keepers, vacations most never dream of, and food of your dreams on an almost hourly basis... not to say at all that you don't deserve all that, but you seriously aren't "hurting". If you are truly rich, you seriously should have an appreciation for how tax revenues work and how much they are needed... you, of all people, should know.

But, based on your post, I doubt you are "rich" by any definition of the word.

Nobama - I also have disagreement with your statements. First, if you don't mind, cite the part of the Constiution or Federalist papers that states corporations have the same rights as citizens. Second, government most certainly DOES create revenue paying jobs. (Unless you work for free). Whether it is by purchasing goods and services or by creating opportunity through education and lending, government on all levels creates revenue paying jobs. The simple demonstration of government cut-backs in employment & funding having an impact that zeros out private enterprise job creation in this recovery is the simplest form of truth disproving your assertion.

Unfortunately, your statements prove the assertions of the posting under which you have replied. You have proven acceptance of the abolishment of the middle class and are willing to hand it - and by it I mean the publicly funded infrastructure, public safety services, and even the consumer class over as slaves to a megolithic fabrication of the US economy. This is not a plutocracy.

Don't try to help it become one.

LMarcT, most of us know that the capital gains tax rate went from 28% in the Reagan era down to 16% today. Sorry if 16% represents a tremendous obstacle to your ability to buy Gucci or that sleek Lamborghini...

I love people like "nobama" who ask if others have read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers, and make it clear that they haven't:

Assignment nobama: Discuss, compare and contrast the differences (and similarities) between the views of Madison and Jefferson vs Hamilton on the power of government. Define and name the two schools of thought that they represent. Jefferson made clear he was worried about the destruction of the new government by two forces, give a famous quote of his that tells us what one of those groups were.

Keep your eyes on your own paper, and not answering these questions will demonstrate that you have not read and understood the documents you list.

While I believe the path to prosperity depends on a robust and profitable private sector, I also believe government plays a vital role in ensuring our security and well being are maintained. The private sector invests when there is a good probability of a solid return on investment and growth. Companies don't build roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, airports, or levies because the ROI from such projects is minimal compared to what they can do selling gadgets and services. As a result, our only option is for the public sector to lead the way in areas of vital importance to our well being. Government can and does create jobs and when it does it generates a ripple effect that often influence private sector investment, hiring, and development of new technologies and concepts. Our problem is not that government is too big, but that we refuse to pay for the things we depend on to survive and use or take advantage of every day of our lives.

Dominick-2063552

LMarcT, most of us know that the capital gains tax rate went from 28% in the Reagan era down to 16% today. Sorry if 16% represents a tremendous obstacle to your ability to buy Gucci or that sleek Lamborghini...

Hey bud, reread my posts... I'm on your side. :)

getmoneyout.com

Believe it or not, there is one common thread on both sides of the political debate and that is we all oppose special interests’ influence on politics and policy decisions. Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, right-wing, left-wing, liberals, conservatives, you name it – they all agree on this one issue. Imagine that!

Do something about it. Go to: getmoneyout.com and sign the petition then pass it along. Be a part of the solution by working to ban all political contributions, whether from corporations, political pacs or individuals.

All of us, no matter what our affiliation, need to take back our government.

NOBAMA - thank you for the facts and data... The replies to your post are amazing. Especially those whining that those with wealth should pay even more so that those without wealth can live off of them.

434672 - The point is this, the bottom 40% of people in this country hold 0.3% of wealth in our country.

The point is 434672 is "hold". So what you are saying is we all should stop saving - go and buy that TV or car or house we really can't afford. That the wealthy should come along and carry the tax load to enable the roads to drive our new cars on... I get the metality - its just what is wrong with the country.

There is an even better and more thorough way to "take back" our government, Sarah. Go to www.faircampaignreform.us or http://wh.gov/4Qu and get involved in the Popular Amendment Movement to pass the Election/Campaign Finance Reform constitutional amendment. That will accomplish what you are promoting in an even better way.

joe mota "roy Willson, .. tell me once again how gov't can't do anything right,"

Don't misquote me. I said the government can't run anything EFFICIENTLY.

Case in point - the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the $862 Billion 'stimulus' bill 'may' have 'saved or created 1 million jobs, at a cost to the taxpayers of $862,000 per job. Private industry pays the average employee about $42,000 per year - to produce a product or service that can actually be sold for a profit.

When the government 'subsidies' run out, so do the jobs - Solyndra cost $535 million for 1100 temporary jobs that lasted perhaps a year. I guess Obama considered that a 'bargain', since it only costs $486,000 per job. That's EFFICIENCY??????????????????????????????

The government is good at only one thing - throwing money at problems, but our children and grandchildren are the ones stuck with the bill.

I am a die-hard conservative and do not agree with the current administrations policies. But, yes the wealthier of us need to pay a more equal share, the problem is the liberals make the argument class warfare by their rants of "fair share". They want more regulations, trade those for giving tax breaks, then bitch about rich not paying. Politics at work, both liberal and conservative.

Politics are an evil necessity because never will 300+ million people ever agree, hell you can't get 3 people nowadays to agree. Term limits for ALL politicians is the only answer, then you will actually get people who care about the country and not career-minded decisions from politicians.

As for the "fair share", I would gladly pay 25% sales tax on everything I buy if i could get my whole paycheck!!!!! How long would it take then to cut the deficit if ALL Americans paid that rate? 10% to your state, 15% to the Federal. Then we all would pay our "fair share"

Too dramatic? Look around you, that is exactly what is happening.

Do you have a long list of specifics? Taking over a nation of 300,000,000+ is a huge undertaking. Surely a sector who is only about 1% of employers is leaving a paper trail which can be pointed to and scrutinized.

thinkingman-3118694 " If you were at all interested in doing some research, what you'd find is that the upper class actually pay an "effective tax rate" that is substantially LOWER than the middle and lower class."

BALONEY. Information just released by the government shows that the average 'effective tax rate' for millionaires was 29.1%, while the 'middle class' pay an average of less than 15%, and the lower income people pay 3% or less. The link is;

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1

You've been listening too much to the 'rhetoric' of Obama and Buffett(a) which applies to less than 1% of the people making $1 Million per year or more. You are living proof of the old saying;

"You can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time".

(a) When Buffett claims that he pays a lower tax 'rate' than his secretary, he doesn't acknowledge that virtually all of his income comes from Dividends from corporations that have already paid income taxes at the Corporate tax rate of 35%, so the REAL 'effective tax rate' on his investment income was closer to 50%.

Quit whining, all. You have a right in each election to vote for the best qualified person to go to Washington to represent our interests. If you don't like your Congressman or Senator, then vote him out of office and replace him. At least once every 12 years all of Congress is up for re-election at the same time. Best scenario, vote every one of them out at once and start over. Maybe then they will get the message we're fed up.

Who are you people worried about gov't efficiency? Please look at what you are really talking about. You mention that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for these jobs and such, and you say that is bad. Where is the 'inefficient' part at? Look deeper....Where did the money end up? Did it go into a hole in the ground, and stay there? Or did it get into the economy, into the hands of businesses and subsequently people? It went somewhere, and I'm relatively sure it's not a hole in the ground. All the gov't did was move the money from their coffers and gave it to corporations. Isn't that the whole idea behind the current conservative craze? To give the money to corporations that actually create jobs? Even if someone goes bankrupt, the money is still out there somewhere, either in private hands or those of banks.

As an addendum to my Post #1.32, Obama conveniently ignores the REASON for a lower tax rate on capital gains. Here is an example based on real data;

If an 'investor' put $1 Million into an investment in 1970 and sold it for $1.5 Million in 1980, how much in taxes should they pay? Most people would say "Pay income taxes at the normal rate on the $500,000 of income". But what's the REALITY.

For the 10 years from 1970 to 1980, inflation was 53%, so the actual purchasing power of their 'investment' has been reduced from $1.5 Million to only $705,000. Then, if we taxed his 'gain' of $500,000 another 30%, he would pay an additional $150,000 of income taxes, for a net of $555,000 on an investment of $1 Million. That's a real LOSS of $445,000 on their 'investment'.

What investor would invest in plant and equipment (needed for economic growth and creating jobs) under that scenario? You could take any similar 10 year period over the last 40 years, and you would not find any period where it would make sense for anyone to invest in capital improvements if they had to pay income taxes at their 'normal' rate - In every case, they would lose money.

So Obama is saying "Let's raise the tax rates on investments in economic growth". What do you think will be the consequences for economic growth?

MBE37217 " At least once every 12 years all of Congress is up for re-election at the same time."

Not true. Only about one-third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years, while all of the House is up for reelection every two years.

By the way, for those who say "Congress has a lower approval rating than Obama", consider this;

This was Congress' approval rating in 2008 - just before the elections; "Published: July 8, 2008 - 9:07 PM You read right: the approval ratings for our Democrat-controlled Congress have hit single digits, and are the lowest approval ratings ever seen, at 9%. 52% of voters say that they're doing a poor job, which ties the record high."

This was after almost 2 years of Democratic control of Congress, and most people would presume that the Democrats would lose lots of seats in Congress with such miserable ratings, but the REALITY is that Democrats actually picked up seats in the election just a few months later. It's the same old story - Voters always think that THEIR representative is doing fine - it's the OTHER representatives that are the problem.

Eltex "Who are you people worried about gov't efficiency?"

Spoken like a true Liberal. You might want to read about inflation during the Weimar Republic in Germany after WW1 and in Zimbabwe in recent years.

Thanks for my morning laugh.

Doug: the demand of the eradication of workers rights in Wisconsin and Ohio make real the threat that Freedom Works, the Koch brothers and their ilk hold for the United States. It isn't a one way contract. Do Corporations have the right to make a profit, sure. But, their part of the social contract is to pay a living wage, so that the middle class will flourish. They have failed. Read Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism speech. He lists everyone's responsibility in this Republic and does it far better than I ever could. It is more pertinent now than ever.

During the past 100+ years, there has only been one Republican administration in which there was real prosperity, and that was at the highest tax rate ever.......no other president, democrat or republican, can equal Eisenhower. He warned us all of the military/industrial complex and no one listened. Now look at the mess we are in. I was there during that administration, and he was the ONLY republican that I felt I could ever vote for.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED " Read Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism speech."

The part that struck me was this;

"When I say I want a square deal for the poor man, I do not mean that I want a square deal for the man who remains poor because he has not got the energy to work for himself."

Even Roosevelt made it clear that he opposed "Class Warfare".

For the 10 years from 1970 to 1980, inflation was 53%, so the actual purchasing power of their 'investment' has been reduced from $1.5 Million to only $705,000. Then, if we taxed his 'gain' of $500,000 another 30%, he would pay an additional $150,000 of income taxes, for a net of $555,000 on an investment of $1 Million. That's a real LOSS of $445,000 on their 'investment'.

Not this nonsense again.

Once again I remind you that your investor loses on inflation on disposable income. Meanwhile, the average worker is losing because of the same inflation on every paycheck, a paycheck they are depending upon for survival.

And as far as poor people creating jobs--it happens all the time.

Maybe you've heard of

Steve Jobs

Thomas Edison

Tom Monaghan

John Rockefeller

Richard Branson

Oprah Winfrey

So yeah, poor people quite often end up creating jobs, and I would say more than the wealthy. Each one of these people created more jobs before they were wealthy than after, guaranteed.

http://therationalprogressive.com

Except RoyWilson: the current debate is not about poor people who do not want to work. It is about jobs disappearing overseas. Now, go re read the speech, and be able to tell me what Roosevelt says is the duty of the wealthy and Corporate owners.

The class warfare charge is old and cuts both ways. It is equally class warfare to say that middle class owes duty to the wealthy.

NDD....1.38

That's your opinion. Although I have no doubts as to your conviction of your opinion and respect them, it ignores the realities.

I have read the Constitution, Nobama, and the declaration of independence. I do not recognize the federalist papers as a document that has any bearing in the operation of our government. I don't see the constitution as the sole body of laws for this country, rather I see it as a framework for the passage of other laws. All the amendments are valid, not just the first 10. Amendments are harder to pass because they are sweeping in scope.

I'm sorry we disagree, Doug, though I do admire your respectful way of expressing that disagreement.

James Andre "Once again I remind you that your investor loses on inflation on disposable income. Meanwhile, the average worker is losing because of the same inflation on every paycheck, a paycheck they are depending upon for survival...And as far as poor people creating jobs--it happens all the time."

I'm sure you think there is logic in your statement, but it escapes me. People 'invest' to make a better future for themselves, not to lose money.

Those people you mentioned didn't hire workers when they were poor, - only AFTER they had a measure of success. The story of wealthy Americans starting from poor, humble beginnings is an American Tradition, but Obama's dream is to do the reverse on them.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED "It is equally class warfare to say that middle class owes duty to the wealthy."

And what rational person has made that claim?

Roy -- Who increased the equipment expensing tax break for businesses? Here is a link as an example

http://www.crestcapital.com/tax_deduction_calculator Read what they say about it.

BTW -- I would argue the deficit when it comes to Medicare has been legislated by Congress who refused to increase the rate of tax needed to cover the cost of health care under Medicare. Health care costs increased over a thirty year period substantially yet the tax taken out of a workers paycheck for this insurance has remained the same for 30 years. Why is that? Additionally you must agree that the entire health care industry is out of control concerning what they charge for drugs, services and treatments etc. The majority (98%) of Americans could never afford an unsubsidized system. The entire industry would go out of business without government picking up some of the costs. So the insurance corps, doctors, hospitals all want government money to keep them profitable and accountable to their investors.

434672 "NOBAMA-3864250 Your math seems a little misleading. You say that those making more than a million a year pay 24 percent of taxes, then state (in your hypothesis regarding those who don't pay taxes) that they are taxed 24% of their income. So either millionaires collectively pay that piece of the pie or they are taxed at that rate. Make up your mind there."

There was nothing wrong with the statistics quoted, only with your comprehension level. NOBAMA merely said that people making $1 Million per year pay an average of 24% of their income in taxes, which is true according to the IRS.

The link is not working for whatever reason but this is what it says.... or (Google equipment expensing deduction and you will find link)

Section 179 is better than ever in 2011

2011 is a banner year for Section 179. That’s because legislation passed during the latter half of 2010 expanded and enhanced Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation to new, unseen limits.

The total deduction was doubled, to $500,000, and the total limit of equipment purchased was raised to 2,000,000. These are HUGE increases, and essentially is the government’s “go-ahead” to businesses in regards to purchasing new equipment and software. And it’s welcome news, because after several years of holding back, many businesses need new equipment.

This means if you were waiting to purchase new equipment and/or software, 2011 is the year you’ve been waiting for. In plain terms, the tax savings can be substantial.

And to help you see how much you can save, we’ve provided the following 2011 Section 179 Calculator. This calculator is fully updated with the current limits, and can give you a clear picture of just how much Section 179 can save you this year. Go ahead – check it out and see if you like the numbers.

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy -- Who increased the equipment expensing tax break for businesses? BTW -- I would argue the deficit when it comes to Medicare has been legislated by Congress who refused to increase the rate of tax needed to cover the cost of health care under Medicare."

Accelerated depreciation for equipment doesn't change the overall picture for capital equipment investments, only minor changes in the timing of taxes.

As for the Medicare 'Deficit', I have long advocated for increased payroll taxes to fully fund Medicare. Workers have the mistaken idea that "I put the money into Medicare, so I want my full benefits", when the reality is that their deductions (including the employers contribution) only cover about 40% of the actual cost. I estimate that an additional $142 per month ($71 by employer and $71 by employee) would be needed to fully fund Medicare. the way the program is currently structured.

RoyWilson: that argument is made daily by the Grover Norquists of the Republican Party. We are ALL under obligation to pay for the resources that we use. Sometimes, that means that taxes must be raised. Now, go read what Roosevelt has to say about the duties of citizenship.

Roy -- Look to the latest GDP. I think it helped.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdphighlights.pdf

Yes I remember having a dialog with you concerning Medicare now. But when you throw out statements without your position on an issue it's hard to understand where you are coming from. So your welcome.

NOBAMA-3864250

Have YOU bothered to read the Constitution or the Federalist papers??? If you had, you might have a better clue about the role of government - and its proper LIMITS! You anti-conservatives and your anti-capitalist rants really are beyond belief. Who in the heck do you think employs those of us in the middle class?????

NOBRAINA

Like most conservative you ignore some very important facts. The main one being that the policies you are advocating are the exact policies that were enacted by the failed Bush Administration. The reduction in taxes for the wealthy did NOTHING to create jobs. There was a steady decline in employment during the Bush Presidency that was totally ignored.

If the tax reductions that Bush implemented were to be rescinded, the average millionaire would be forced to scrape by on about $18,000 per week. Oh the horror!

The real problem is that in this country we have a service economy. We have no industrial base. Industry has moved plants to third world countries where they can employ people for $20 per month instead of $20 per hour. With middle class Americans having no discretionary income, goods and services are not being purchased.

The primary cause of the economic recession we are in was the total lack of regulation of the financial markets by the Bush Administration. Blatant widespread fraud and deceit where practiced on a scale we haven't seen since the Great Republican Depression of 1929, which was caused by almost identical abuses.

And due to bizzare decisions by the Far Right Wing Supreme Court, corporation have been declared people! Now, although the corporation is a legal construct designed to protect those who run the enterprise, and although a corporation is made up of many people, some of whom will be injured by the politics of the corporate person, corporations are gaining control of our political system.

Conservatives generally favor a few individuals running the government, much like the European Aristocracy. Today's kings, princes, earls and dukes are CEO's, CFO's and the like.

What is necessary is the imposition of tariffs on foreign goods entering the US. Although this will raise prices initially, over the long term it will recreate our industrial base, the original source of our economic strength. First of course we have to overcome the damage done to this country by the republican party and conservatives while republicans do everything in their power to make the situation worse, for political gain of course.

Who in the heck do you think employs those of us in the middle class????? I have never known of a poor person to create a job? Have you?

First of all, rich people do NOT create jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs. Second, the money spent by poor people and the middle-class IS consumer demand so yes, poor people create jobs. I'm sure your rant is much appreciated by your Corporate Masters but facts are facts! The wealthy are not creating jobs and never did. If there's no demand there's no money to be made and there are no jobs created.

"When they show you who they are...believe them!

Exactly Ol_Doc: you put that very well.

GOP has become the Grand Obstructionist Party.

NO, first there is NOTHING G-R-A-N-D about THAT party , old YES, but not grand.

doc, just because there is demand a job just doesn't appear out of the fog. You have to have an individual, rich or not, willing to take a risk and put capital on the line to make a job. If a person puts themselves at financial risk in business and succedes, then they deserve whatever riches that endeavor brings.

Who in their right mind gives a rats ass what disgraced, impeached, ex-president Clinton says?

How can a political party in any county support a man who has been accused of rape and convicted of perjury?

Who accused Clinton of rape?? And , what was this giant lie about. You clowns spent millions and years to harass a president and came up with a consensual sex act. Sick is too good a word for you.

People 'invest' to make a better future for themselves, not to lose money.

Yes. And the investor in your example makes money.

Those people you mentioned didn't hire workers when they were poor, - only AFTER they had a measure of success.

Come on buddy. You know as well as I do that everyone of those people put in long hours for little pay, creating jobs and paying their employees before themselves. It was only AFTER their success that they began to reap the benefits.

That same story is told over and over again, and you know it.

Frank Morton

Lookup Juanita Broadrrick. She accused him of rape and she has a very credible story. You might even look up Lisa Myers, she had a pretty promising carreer as a reporter until she did the story about Juanita. You are the sick one if you think a President of the United States doesn't have to follow the laws of the United States. Perjury is perjury and a felony. When you are under oath in a deposition for a criminal offense you MUST tell the truth. If not you are guilty of perjury. Bill Clinton is a scum bag who should be a registered sex offender not a person who the libs look up to. But who ever said libs had any morals.

What we need is a national sales tax. There are so many people now who do not pay income tax (illegal immigrants, people paid "under the table, etc.) We can exempt groceries so we do not burden the poor. This will solve the problem once and for all with everyone paying their fair share.

re: Corporations are beholding to their stockholders, and ....

re: Read the constitution.

^ Read it yourself.

Here is the constitutional source for President Clinton's comments:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more *perfect union*, *establish justice*, *insure domestic tranquility*, *provide for the common defense*, *promote the general welfare*, *and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,*do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Corporations, which is to say, international capitalism has no national boundaries, national citizenship, or national obligation. Which is why capitalism isn't mentioned in the constitution, and has no specific claim on this country and its policies or agenda.

ever since corporations became LLC's where everything is taxed at person income to the owner is when business's became people

LOL can't believe what im reading out of some of you, you can't really believe all of what you spew can you, libs?

Sane Central

Do poor people hire?

Nope, the poor do not create jobs.

No, not until they have a job for a while, then possibly. Meanwhile, they still pay taxes.

Then they wouldn't be poor anymore.

Get a clue.

Dude, people with money create demand. A poor persons money is just as effective at creating demand as a rich persons. Demand creates the opportunity for jobs, not the whim of a rich person. Until there is demand there is no opportunity.

Wade,

The discussion was not about supply and demand which obviously drives the economy. Thanks for joining in anyways.

Supply and demand is the heart of the problem, Dude. The economic mess we are can be solved by the correct application of supply. You said the poor can not create jobs. I pointed out it takes demand to create the opportunity for jobs. The Rich can not create that demand by themselves. No demand = no opportunity = no jobs. I will pound away on this point until it is accepted. The idea that the poor can be dismissed from the equation helps nothing and will not solve problems the country faces.

GrammaKnows - Nobama - Second, government most certainly DOES create revenue paying jobs. (Unless you work for free). Whether it is by purchasing goods and services or by creating opportunity through education and lending, government on all levels creates revenue paying jobs.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect gramma --- the government does not create anything, especially not jobs. The government does tax those who create jobs however, and also the wages of those who educate themselves and work hard to improve their position, and if they wish, maybe until they too can create jobs. The government then takes the tax money they took from the creators of jobs, and the workers, and spends it on programs the people approve of. The problem is that the government has become corrupt and our representatives have been lying to us for far too long. They are enriching themselves, and then blaming those who have worked hard to earn, save and grow their money as being rich and selfish. These corrupt leaders are pitting the people against each other, fueling jealousy and inciting animosity and hatred (if you don’t think so just read through the poison posted on these pages) by accusing those who have performed according to social standards that have been in place for generations, by accusing them of being unfair, corrupt, and exploiting those who have not. That is all this government has created, and the Current administration is compounding the problems by taking more, increasing debt exponentially and giving it away on programs of special interests by approving bribes and exemptions given to other corrupt leaders in exchange for approving the programs. He needs to be given away instead, along with his appointees and all of those on either side of the aisle who have enriched themselves at the expense of the people they are entrusted to serve. If you are unable or incapable of understanding that, then believe what you will… you will understand one day soon when you are reduced to poverty in a bankrupt 3^rd world nation.

Nobody is working to destroy corporations, this country has been through this type of thing before with the monopolies and them having too much influence on government, we did not massacre the Carnegie's, or Morgans, or any segment of our population. Not giving a government subsidy to an oil corporation that posts a 34 billion dollar profit in one quarter, is a pretty lame attempt at causing their total destruction. Ha don't you think Brian, republicans won't even budge on that. I will say this we are a hell of a lot better armed than any population in history so if the sh!t ever does hit the fan at least some corporation will happily make a huge profit selling us bullets. Besides corporations can kill people, that is a fact, we watched as it happened in the Gulf with BP, but people can't kill a corporation, you can't kill a piece of paper.

But Forrest, you completely omit the democrats role in this. They had complete control for over 2 years with a filibuster proof senate and they did nothing. This is NOT the fault of the republicans as liberals are so fondly proclaiming. It's a government problem... complete government, not just one flavor. Do I think it's corrupt? You betcha! But to blame one side over the other is just plain wrong. The democrats are just as guilty of the same corruption. They won't budge either or they would have done it.

Ask yourself why the republicans are not in favor of eliminating subsidies... I'm not talking about giving it a standard partisan answer either... there has to be a reason... and if they are guilty of payoffs, where are all the ethics committees forming? Where is the headlines as to who is getting paid off? How come this isn't big news if corruption is found? Wanna know why? Because it's one big happy family in Washington... where all of them are getting something for not stopping the subsidies. They won't turn each other in because they are all guilty of it. Or... some big power broker has them by the leash.

You can make up all the reasons in the world for bashing corporations... if you can't see the parallel with what's coming out today as it did in the 1930's then I recommend a change in antenna's.

You tell me what will be the end result if our country uprises against corporations? Take a look at what's happening on Wall Street today... it's only the beginning of trouble to come. The blame lays squarely at the feet of politicians in Washington. ALL of them... not only one side.

Nobody cares today about Germany of years gone by. We are worried about today and tomorrow. The GOP doesn't care about us, only Wall Street. Buffett is complaining he doesn't pay enough tax. That idiot from Kentucky said "the write us a check". Congress gets paid WAY too much money, too many benefits, too much in an expense budget and too much in pension. Until we rise up against the establishment, nothing is going to change people. Wars, famine, natural disasters, riots in the streets... this world is going into the depths of corruption and the US is leading the way. Thank you monkey-boy Bush. What rock are you hiding under these days? The speaker is the biggest loser I have ever seen. God help us if we get a Republican in the White House. Run Hillary run... PLEASE?

The people are mad because they want wall street and the corporations to pay their fair share, and be somewhat regulated and policed, now which party fights against that as just hard as they can, which party sign pledges saying they promise they will never do that?

The corporations are detroying America moving millions of jobs overseas in the name of profit and with both parties

brought and paid for along with the highest court in the land allowing unlimited funding from unknown sources . We

no longer have any voice with big money taking over our democracy. Great for the rich. We will be another second

rate country in a decade or two. Our middle class will be hard to locate in the following years to come.

@brainb - sounds like a good theme for a "fictional" movie - maybe you can try Hollywood.

Now back to the problem - its OK for Corporate Wellfare but God forbid we help the poor!

Thanks, brianb, for pointing out the truth of hat is being done by Obama supporters- all while they are accusing his opponents of engaging in exactly the tactics they are using.

The problem for the far left lunatic fringe is that they finally got what they always wanted- total control of all three branches of government- and succeeded in doing exactly what we always said they'd do- destroy the economy, and explode the debt.

People don't like that.

See, high minded bull sessions at three a.m. In college dorm rooms are NOT great strategy sessions for running the government. There is a little thing called reality that interferes with all those high minded, idealistic policies. Reality, as we all know, bites. And leaves a scar.

The electorate told Obama, in no uncertain terms, what it thought of his policies last November. It should not have come as a surprise- in 2009, when his approval ratings were still lofty, his policy proposals were upside down. Conversely, when Bill Clinton was president, his approval ratings were low, his personal approval ratings were lower- but his policy proposals enjoyed majority support- particularly AFTER the midterm elections of 1994.

One example- welfare reform. Clinton vetoed it more than once, because he was not finished focus grouping it. In the meanwhile, it just seemed to him that it would be a loser. I can remember an interview with Carville, who told the story of one focus group, where the topic was government funded daycare for the children of welfare recipients. There was general outrage- why, the group members wanted to know, should some people get, for free, what others had to pay for?

When it became clear that the electorate wanted welfare reform, Clinton signed it- exactly the legislation he had vetoed previously. Then, he took credit for having signed it- as if it were HIS legislation.

Clinton, as I have said before, was a master politician. I mean it as a compliment.

Obama? He's merely an ideologue. He does not care what others think, does not recognize his failures, thus, does not take responsibility for his failures. Therefore, he compounds his ineptitude with immaturity. If there is a worse combination, I don't want to learn what it is.

This is going to be a very dirty, despicable election. Obama will pull out all the stops- and, by so doing, will put the last nail in the Democratic coffin.

The people whom formed the No Labels group recognize it. I wonder what it will take for the rest of the nuts left supporting Obama to get it?

This is going to be a very dirty, despicable election. Obama will pull out all the stops- and, by so doing, will put the last nail in the Democratic coffin.

NJNB do you think it will be as despicable as the top republicans representing the USA publicly and proudly stating that their top priority "was to see the POTUS fail, and make him a one term president", "we will break him", and "we will make this his Waterloo". It does not get any more despicable than purposefully working for the intentional failure of the president who was elected by a majority of the citizens. If the president fails, who fails, America fails, Boehner, McConnel and DeMint are guilty of dereliction of duty at the very least, I think that is putting it mildly, they swore an oath to the USA , they broke that oath the moment those words came out of their mouth. You blame Obama for everything NJ, why don't you give some credit to to the top two republicans representing the USA some credit for doing what they said was the main thing they wanted to accomplish for the nation, to destroy a presidency. Not a single republican legislator had the decency nor the USA's best interests at heart to call them out on it. You can rant all you want but thanks to those three men, I will never even consider voting for any republican ever again, I will vote straight democratic for the rest of my life. In the end there is a good chance they wont even accomplish their main goal, their publicly stated number one priority of making him a one term president, because he very well may be re-elected. Now I want to take my country back, Vote straight democratic 2012

Forrest - How many democrats wanted to see Bush a one term president? Let's try to remember what was said about him... and how the democrats did nothing but demonize him.

Again, me thinks your partisanship is showing through. It's getting so tiresome to have to remind you of this all the time. It's easy to blame the other guys... the really hard thing is to look at what YOU believe in and find the problems. If you were to do that, my respect level would climb to the roof. I hate to keep on defending the republicans from you. There's so much about them that I can't stand.

[It does not get any more despicable than purposefully working for the intentional failure of the president who was elected by a majority of the citizens.]

Purposefully undermining a sitting American president...I wonder what the penalty is for treason of that nature? Is it a treasonous act?

GOP campaign bumper sticker:

Republicans in 2012: Keeping Millions Out Of Work To Put One Man Out Of A Job

Nobody ever publicly announced to world they intended to do everything they could to see that the president was not successful, are you kidding me! This from the 3rd and 4th top men of a nation they swore to serve to the best of their abilities, a nation at war, at nation under economic strife, are you kidding me! I tell you what my friend, when you go in to work tonight tell the president of the company your main goal is to eff him real good, matter of fact it is your number one priority to make sure he is gone in four years, and make sure you tell him this in public. We all know how that would go, so some of the people that want to run the government like a business would likely expect that these guys are going to get fired. I will not forget it, I won't likely stop talking about it, I will never forgive them, for Christs sakes we got kids dying for their country while these jack offs spew this crap, and undermine their CIC. Yeah I'm partisan, not a single republican called these guys out, I am done with republicans, they sealed the deal. I'm sorry you just might have to put me on ignore for awhile, I don't want to make your eyes bleed or anything, but I am not shutting up about it, it is a corruption of duty. People bash unions, they paint them all as corrupt, I say no they are not, I am involved in a union and I would not tolerate corruption if I saw it. People say they hate all the corruption in government, ok is that just lip service then, because this is corruption of duty of the higest order, and it is just not my style to stand by not say anything about it. It is wrong, really wrong, it can't be justified, and it should not be glossed over, and I will try my best to not let it be.

I wouldn't put you on ignore Forrest. I consider you a friend. The only thing I am saying to you is to look at your side as well. You may have reasons for disliking the republicans and that's perfectly OK. Right now, there's plenty of angst to go around for all politicians, not just republicans. Some republicans have big mouths and blow crap out of them when they shouldn't... but have you ever heard Biden or Reid? They have mouthatosis just as bad. You know I won't take up for republicans... but I am just as angry with the democrats... I am upset with the republicans for different reasons. They just can't seem to get their game together. I'd vote em all out if I had my way... we need fresh blood in Washington to stop the corruption.

I can understand the republicans viewpoint, whereas you can't. Everything Obama stands for is in total opposite of conservatism... the troubling part is the republicans aren't conservative enough. You and I could sit and argue about the merits of Obama both positive and negative and we wouldn't change each other's minds about him. I think he's bad for the country.. you think he's good for it.

I can appreciate everything you said, but you got to answer the question, were they in the wrong, elected leaders of our nation, to publicly state those things repeatedly, were they wrong to do that?

I don't care if you are a democrat, a republican, a liberal, or a conservative, it is not about politics, it is not me just seeing it through a democrats eyes, it is a corruption of duty, it was apparent, they insisted that it be apparent, it is wrong, we all know it is wrong, it can't be defended, and if we can't agree on that, then what is the point of electing a president in 2012, if we now just consider it to be smart politics for elected leaders of the nation to cheer-lead the taking down of his presidency. If we are going to put our money where our mouth is about the corruption of government you got to vote against the republicans that I am talking about, that is how it is supposed to work, that is our stick, use it, or you will just get more of the same. Straight Democratic for me in 2012, my conscience wont let me do anything else. When it is over I will give what ever poor bastard that is elected president in 2012 my full support and goodwill, in a fair and honest fashion, because if we don't do that what is the point.

never, ever resolve anything, keep bickering while others pull the strings

Brianb-999431, "How many democrats wanted to see Bush a one term president?" Lots of them, myself included. That is not the question. How many Democratic Senate and House leaders said publicly ( in their official capacity) that, " Our number one priority is making Bush a one-term President"? The answer is none. Zilch, zero, not a single one.

It is dereliction of duty to their office. It is traitorous to their sworn oath to the United States of America. It is an embarrassment and insult to the American people that duly elected a President of the U.S.A. Such words from the lowest ranked military member would result in immediate court-martial, jail and dishonorable discharge. Does a Private in the Army hold more responsibility to his oath and the American people than a U.S. Senator or Congressman? I say bring out the 'cuffs. Their oath of office is just as binding as the newest member of the military.

Commonsense has plenty of it. They crossed a line, politics is one thing, even played rough, but they crossed the line.

In fact Bush got almost everything he wanted. Both parties are owned and that is obvious. Banks, wall street and big corporations run America. They will destroy our country if we don't demand real change.

We need to support our young protesters in Mew York and send 10 million in the streets with them. If we don't act the pigs and their government will destroy America.

It was portrayed as being unpatriotic for not going along with Bush because after all we got attacked on his watch and he became a war time president because we invaded the wrong country. We invaded Iraq because they had WMD's, hell they didn't even have WD-40. I guess you got to have a mysterious bomb in a suitcase story to say we are being threatened by a country that is something like 14,000 miles away and does not have a navy or an air force, because that's one hell of a camel ride, besides that, they would possibly starve to death in a month if we did not feed them. Back then if you bitched about anything you were being unpatriotic by showing discord here at home, which lowers our soldiers moral, and emboldens our enemies by giving a them a reason to question our resolve as a nation. What the hell happened to that sh!t republicans, where did that go right after Obama was elected.

Marching in the streets is fine people are pissed and maybe they need to blow off some steam, however it has to come together at the voting booth, tens of millions at the polls is what you want.

Brian b: But Forrest, you completely omit the democrats role in this. They had complete control for over 2 years with a filibuster proof senate and they did nothing. This is NOT the fault of the republicans as liberals are so fondly proclaiming. It's a government problem... complete government, not just one flavor. Do I think it's corrupt? You betcha! But to blame one side over the other is just plain wrong. The democrats are just as guilty of the same corruption. They won't budge either or they would have done it.

The democrats did NOT have a filibuster-proof senate for 2 years! Have you forgotten about Ted Kennedy passing away and being replaced by Scott Brown. Also have you forgotten about Al Frankin's term being delayed while tied up in court?

How many democrats wanted to see Bush a one term president? Let's try to remember what was said about him... and how the democrats did nothing but demonize him.

Democrats were critical of Bush absolutely, but they did not inflict damage on the entire country and do things to sink the economy while Bush was president.

Republicans are denying jobs for millions in an attempt to get one job for themselves.

Bill C,maybe you better back up a little to when Ol Bill Clinton and his Republican Congress sold us out to China.Ol Billy Boy was quite at the head of this stinking foolish idea.Favored trade status(they pay us 2.6% tarriffs,we pay them 26%)was made permanent!What a fu%&ed up deal for the U.S.,since we have now became the dumping ground for foreign junk.They also have a law in China that simply states if it isn't made there,it can't be sold there.This excludes fuel and raw materials.Why don't we bother to even talk about these one-sided deals anymore?What about our trade deficits which run around 50 billion dollars every quarter?Think of it in jobs not had here.GM now sells more made in China Buicks there than made in U.S. Buicks here.Nothing like giving away your economy to some slanty eyed Commies.

srsmith

???? what the hell are you talking about? And what does that have to do with the point i was making?

Bill

srsmith is the type of delusional person we are up against - just keep complaining about democrats until they all give up and do not vote

Todd Willingham burned his house down with his children in it. Simply because he proclaimed his innocense does not make it true. Think of it as the Casey Anthony trial in Texas in 1993 with a different conclusion.

Did it occur to you that they have student loans? Of course, they may be working in cafes and mowing lawns.

Maybe its because the Pubs seem to break the law alot more than the Dems. Look at WI and how many Pubs think they are above the law, its pathetic.

Like the old saying, "What comes around goes around."

Sane Central - they get sued because they don't abide by the copyright laws. The artists own their work. They own the right to sell the use of the work. If the artist does not want their work used because it is used in a way that misrepresents the intent of the creation or gives a (to the artist) false association, or if they simply do not WANT to grant someone the use of their property, the copyright violator is breaking the law if they use it without permission. Simple. The artists request the material not be used. The politicians ignore the requests, they end up in court.

Summerlight: If you are a new member of Newsvine, you cannot post links. If you have been a member, contact Newsvine to let them know.

Ah but the beauty of it is you can start your own company and sell a cheaper product. You can pay higher employee wages. You can ......umm....hmmmm. Ok you probably cannot. Don't feel bad as niether can I. People do however have huge leverage over corporations but they fail to use them.

Look at how many jobs Apple is providing overseas. I don't mean to call out Apple here they are just a random and perfect example. Americans infuriated about jobs could reeeeally stick it to Apple's US sales if they banded together and organized a spectacular ultimatum. Something very Netflix-like that would get an immediate reaction something like:

After careful review, we at Apple have decided to relocate 250,000 jobs back here to the USA by 2016.

But sorry to say Americans would never, ever, never-ever-never-nay revolt with their brains and a little elbow grease to the organizational portions. We're all too busy hating each other and building up tensions that will eventually erupt into the next Civil War.

In conclusion, some Americans want the government to assume responsibility here but the gov't represent the people and the people all hate eachother with a passion so that's that.

Exactly, dls, which means that the "teabaggers" are acting in opposition to what those heroes did. The "teabaggers" have no knowledge or understanding of this country.

tax everybody the same amount, what entitles anybody to pay a different rate????

End ALL loopholes for Everybody, individuals and corporations!

Do not let govt buy votes, Do not let greed (it is seen if every class of people) point to one group and not another. If we all care about America being great, do not let greed get in the way.

newdaydawing, can I get a witness??????

If corporations are considered persons than children should also be considered persons and have the right to participate in the political process by allowing them to vote or have a vote cast on their behalf by their mothers or gaurdians. A true democracy is a government of ALL the people, by ALL the people, and for ALL the people including the future of every society, the children.

I totally agree, but you know as well as I do that will never happen, too much money is being past around by both parties, and they are the ones that need to be stopped.

You do understand, don't you Bill, that if Hillary were President, the Republicans would be trashing her exactly like they do our President? That they would be acting as the obstructionists that they are and causing the same amount of trouble for the country?

Hillary would have no illusions about Republican bi-partisanship. She would not be drawn into compromise by Republican leadership that would shake on a deal to later back out at the last minute. She would insist on their " John Hancock" on paper before shaking their sweaty palms. Hillary, at Bill's side, saw the treachery of the Republican party years ago. A Hillary Clinton Presidency would have produced much stronger and smarter results than those of Obama.

A much weakened Republican party would be chasing her heels for political appointments instead of mounting a still weak, but credible challenge to return us to the disastrous Bush doctrine. The Democratic party made a serious mistake in choosing a fresh face with visions of hopes and dreams instead of a seasoned veteran that would get the job done.

We can only hope that a now battle-scarred President (that shows premature wrinkles and gray hair) may rise against the deceiving and underhanded opposition to deliver the fatal blow to their false ideology. We can only hope that, after he wipes the filth from his hands in bloody battle, he retains enough of his innocence to continue with his promise to America of hope and change. That's a tall order. He's gonna need a lot of help from all of us.

Yes buddy. It is only because Unions are the only way middle and low class people can come together to ensure they are served well by the government. If you do not have corporate money or power, all you have left is to join a union. Dems 'romance' with unions is because they best represent the low and middle class of this country. So the problem you have is that your perception of Unions is skewed. Unions are ordinary people, corporations are not!!!

Thank you Neo.

Are you serious? So it has nothing do with preventing GOP and Tea-party extremist who want to take over America. You have the right to vote your conscience however blind, and ill informed you might be.

lestweforget-3299938

I won't assume you are a Bush fan simply because you are not an Obama fan. That is a very leftist assumption seen very commonly on discussion boards these days. But don't get mad at me as I am no fan of either. Hell, when it gets down to the last 3 on American Idol you can be pretty sure I don't like any of those finalists either.

Might I remind you regardless that in certain context you really should be saying President Obama. It was pretty surreal seeing so few people refer to the former as 'President Bush' from '00 to '08. Do you really want to stoop to that level? I don't want you to.

And....!! You get to sit at the adult table when sharing your opinions! However misguided and politically slanted they may be. Now here are some practice excersises for you:

President Obama is a worse leader than President Bush. Who knew that was even possible?

President Obama and President Bush make Jimmy Carter look professional. (See what I did there? I used the 2 decade rule. No need to refer to Jimmy Carter as President Carter. Your fancy title days are numbered, President Clinton.).

These are just basic examples. You can come up with some more on your own.

And lastly, if you must sling dung at a sitting president please use some common sense. See below:

President Obama seems more like President Teleprompter lately. And what's this about gay people touching his food this weekend!?

or:

President Bush is a liar, a scoundrel, and history will remember him as a bleeding anal wart.

^ Good thing about America we can freely discredit our leaders and (in most cases) not have to worry about government retaliation. But to not address the president as Mr. President is a show of weakness in my opinion. You don't want that do you? To make America look weak? I mean even if we are weak because we elect idiots over and over we still want to look like strong red blooded Americans. Vegetarians would probably agree.

Those who intentionally want America to look weak I take issue with and would like to resolve those issues with fists, or swords. No, better make it fists.

If Obama is a "virtual political toliet" what do you call the repugs running for President, dirty toliet paper!

The GOP doesn't even want the current crop of candidates. That's why they are diligently pursuing others to join the "race". The 'candidates' all are quite aware they don't even have their party's support and that one of them will end up being merely the least objectionable of the bunch. Why don't posters here understand that?

Bl4M3

You're assuming lestweforget is a reasonable thinker - you're assuming too much.

Who is going to beat Obama, Perry is done after yesterday, Cain is done, Bachmann can't beat him, you think Romney can, I don't think so, he has to turn himself inside out to play to the republican base, and that ruins him with the other side, he tries very hard to be anything people will like but in the end no one likes him much. Maybe you can squeeze Christies big rump into a phone booth and he will pop out as superman, good luck with that, ha you think maybe republicans will nominate Ron Paul, the current republican field can't beat Obama in the general election. Do you see the young people protesting in NY and elsewhere around the country, I did not notice a single tea bag hanging from their hats, young people are not buying what republicans are selling, if they don't vote for Obama they may vote for Ron Paul, but they are not voting republican, that's pretty obvious.

I no longer have any interest in hearing this garbage about how it is so unfair that the top 1% of earners pay 39% of taxes. They make well over 60% of the income. Your idiotic argument shows that this bunch of whiners are actually significantly undertaxed. When the 10% of our nation that earns 99% of the income also pays 99% of the taxes, then we will have achieved a common sense taxation schedule.

Damn when I first read that I thought you said Fiesty was humming along to Mr Clintons favorite song. Ended with those immortal words....... Sweetheart grab me a cigar will ya!

Simon--in addition:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing....It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government...God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

It would appear that we are LONG overdue!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

I agree.

We are way out there on the slippery slope and too many people are still waving off the rope.

Peace, liberty and sound money should be our collective mission. Less than that is not enough, more is how we wound up in the ditch next to the folks with the shovels.