E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“In proposing a 5 percent surtax on incomes of more than $1 million a year to pay for job-creation measures sought by President Obama, Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday escalated efforts to strike a more populist tone and to draw Republicans into a confrontation over how much affluent Americans should pay to help others cope with a struggling economy,” the New York Times says. “The White House, after dismissing a similar proposal late last year, left the door open to backing the plan. ‘We are open to different ways of paying for the very important broadly supported measures in the American Jobs Act that would grow the economy and create jobs,’ said the press secretary, Jay Carney.”
President Obama’s approval rating is 41%/55%, according to a Quinnipiac poll.
“Criticism of the president has long been a staple of politics, but experts say lawmakers are becoming more extreme in their rebukes of the commander in chief,” The Hill writes. “White House scholars say that although every president has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous barbs, it has not historically been members of Congress hurling them. But more lawmakers are now doing so, and that has diminished the office of the presidency, historians say… H.W. Brands, professor of history at the University of Texas-Austin and the author of books on several presidents, said he is not aware of ‘mockery of the president by elected officials at the frequency that Obama has been getting it.”
Leave a Comment:
And the polls of Republicans, Tea Partiers, Independents and Dems say......?
(you already know what they say)
Maybe that's why members of Congress have been criticizing the president. Per the article, disrespectful "mockery" as never seen in history -- This is what the Teapublicans are guilty of. But both diminish the office of the presidency, and for any president of either Party in the future. Tsk, tsk. And we know it's the Teapublicans who are obstructing and causing gridlock -- They should try doing their job for a change instead of spending all their time conniving and slinging barbs at the president.
You liberals jump started all of this when Bush was POTUS. I said back then ; the next POTUS was going to catch hell.
Republicans are doing exactly what those who VOTED FOR THEM expect them to do; BLOCK ALL BS!!!!
If the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would do the same thing.
I'm not sure what they say, but taxing "job creators" to make sure that they actually create the jobs seems to me to be the right thing to do.
We gave them tax breaks and loopholes so that they'd create the jobs and what did we get...no new jobs and bigger bank accounts to the top 1%.
Now lets pass this bill and start really creating those jobs.
It should be obvious, but alas.....
The top 1% controls 15% more of the wealth then they did 30 years ago. Corporations are sitting on tons of cash, and are making money, but they are not hiring. They are not hiring because there is not enough demand for their goods and services. There is not enough demand because many people do not have jobs, and many others are worried about the economy.
How can we create demand?
Put money in the hands of the people who will spend it.
And keep putting it there.
Bring the wealth gap back down to where it was in 1980, where the top 1% held 10% of the wealth....and not 25%.
How?
The best thing we could do is remove the massive amount of money from politics so the 1% would have less influence, and the policy would represent the people again.
Repulicants
I agree with you. We can create demand by passing Obama's job bill. More jobs = purchasing power = demands for goods and services = mr job creator wanting to hire more to meet demand. that's the circle. it's a merry go round. would GOP/TP agree to this after signing their lives out to Grover Norquist to keep.......NO.
This next year and two months should be interesting.
Much can happen in a year and a half, and despite the blind confidence from the neophytes on the right, this election is not set.
It will be interesting to see if Obama and the Democrats can use what appears to be a growing populist sentiment to thier advantage. (It will also be interesting to see if that sentiment is signficant, and will last..)
its going to be like getting our money back that all these fat cats in washington have been stealing from ous for years......time for Robin Hood to come out of sherwood forest.......
It is socialism and the progressive left's attempt a social justice through wealth distribution. It will fail and not see passage to law.
Socialism is an economic system where the state owns businesses and corporations. We do not have a socialist system in this country. Social justice through wealth distribution is not socialism.
You could look at it that way....I am sure that is how you were told to see it.
Or..you could look at reality, and how much better off the coutry was, and how much more stable the economy was when the 1% didn't control 25% of the wealth.
Also, considering taxes are at historic lows, especially for the wealthy, it is really undoing the previous wealth distribution that has favored the top over the last thirty years.
And the law probably will fail. The GOP has yet to do ANYTHING to help the economy. However, it does play into what appears to be a growing narrative that probably will not help the Republicans.
This administrations agenda it systematically taking over business in this country, through regulation and creating uncertainty. This is progressive policies that are based on socialism. Social justice is at the core of a socialist, how can you say it's independent for it. That is simply not true. Wealth distribution is socialism, can not deny it.
It is just wishful thinking, if you feel that this is helping the president.
Social justice is at the heart of Christianity. You may be thinking of wealth RE-distribution, which is often a feature of revolutions, when people are so upset at the society's economic INJUSTICES that they revolt.... when there are revolutions, and new governments are produced, they are not necessarily communist or socialist or totalitarian or capitalist...they are usually the reverse of the government that produced the inequitable situation.
MSWSR: Like it or not 2/3 of Americans favor increasing taxes and closing tax loopholes for the wealthy. Its ridiculous that they pay less % of their income in tax than those that earn far less. Those of you on the right are still trying to ride the 2010 wave that has already come ashore and are totally blind to the tsunami that is about to hit you in 2012.
It is not the heart of Christianity, that Kate is an out right lie. Social justice madates moral obligation. That is not christian. It is a choice and has to come from the heart not a policy. You can not make people give, it is thier choice.
Wealth RE-Distribution is socialism. Take one to give to another. The group gathering at wall street right now cry for socialism and hand out's. When all most 50% of house holds recieve government assitance, we are on a progressive track for socialism.
MRWSR.
That is not this administrations agenda. That is the projection your were fed.
You and the people you parrot then use projection after projection to justify the other projections.
It helps you preserve the leftover 2008 campaign narrative you bought into, but could not let go.
---------------
Also. This country, and many others, have long integrated policies one could label socialistic, and policies one could label capitalistic.
The think you ideologs do not understand is that what you label things is irrelevant. What matters is what works. Where we are now (recession, wealth inequality, etc.) is the result of 30 years of policies that work for the wealthy, and not the country as a whole.
I realize that holding hands and screaming socialism makes you feel like you belong to something, but it also makes you look mindless.
NO MRWSR; those in the Wall St. protest are advocating against the influence that Wall St., corporations and the wealthy have on US tax and job policies. This is about taking money out of politics so that the politicians will start serving the America instead of creating policy that favors the wealthy.
MRWSR.
The worst thing about you far right nuts is that you never think or digest issues by yourselves and that's absolutely dangerous. All you do is wait on the Bachmans, Becks, Rush or Faux news to hand you notes and you guys take to the street with and start blabbing. name one company owned by the U.S government.........just one? or name one proposal Obama has made to own a company? Stop been stupid.
MRWSR Look at oil speculation, there is the perfect example of deregulation. OPEC does not control the price of oil anymore, its the speculators. So some guy in a office is driving up the cost so he can make a easy buck on my back and the backs of the American public.
Have not seen what you said in one single interview from anyone protesting. There is nothing peaceful about it or clear outcome. They are not helping anyone.
Repubicants,
Sir, I do not need you to tell me who or what makes me feel. Mindless is the the amazing way you fall at the alter of you leader. Can't wait to read your post when he is not re-elected. You act like you are a majority. There are more of us than you will ever know.
Republicants: "I realize that holding hands and screaming socialism makes you feel like you belong to something, but it also makes you look mindless."
You are so full of BULL, it's stunning. Where do the Unions who have a hold on the Obama admin. fit into your narrative? Their pensions and cadillac health plans are unsustainable and not equitable to what the private sector tax payers have........and please don't RANT on about "wealth inequality" , as if it's a republican thing. Obama got more than 3/4 of all Goldman Sachs campaign donations in '08.
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS??????
Maybe it's time to bring out this oldie again:
Think vaccines for a little while, here. To avoid a big hit of, say, diptheria, you receive a little tiny dose of the very disease you are trying to avoid. The body uses that to develop a resistance (or, a 'systemic fix') to the disease. Vaccines work very well.
Now, back to a society (the body) and socialism (the disease). To avoid a full blown case of socialism, maybe administering a very small dose of socialism is needed? Then, the 'body' can circumvent the 'disease' in a more acceptable manner?
I'm telling you- if this wealth disparity is not corrected in some way- even a little bit- there is going to be a huge case of socialism forced upon ALL of us, whether we want it or not.
Nowhere in the definition socialism does it mention wealth re-distributional MRWSR. Your making thinks up or you're being mislead by Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) again.
Mo,
When you adjust the system from private to government, by methods of wealth re-distribution, it creates socialism. This administration has from day one tried to piece by piece strip the private sector. I am not being misled. You are not wanting the truth. Read between the lines that is where you will find your messiah, he will not come out and say it. Knows it will make it worse for him that it already is.
MRWSR...No use in beating a dead horse, I know, but WHERE do you see the current administration stripping the private sector and turning it into a government one? A media company? A utility? A bank? It is not happening. Asking people to pay a certain percentage of their income in taxes is not wealth re-distribution, either. The tax money does not flow from Person A to Person B. .... it goes toward paying for things that government takes care of, like roads, like the military, like the FBI and the FDA. It is true that not every Person A uses all the things the tax money goes for, but that is also true of Person B. The bottom line here is that you seem to feel that if you pay any money in taxes to any government, it is bad. The solution is either to accept the necessary role of government OR to find a home in a country or territory that is ungoverned.
Kate,
I will ask you to tell me where the government over the past 3 years has not put there stamp on. They have infected just about every industry and banking system. I have no idea how you can not see that. This is why the "fat cats" sit on thier money. I am for taxes that support a basic system of government, I don't know who argues that. What is bad, is again the concept that your president is step by step, slowly bringing the fundemental change of socialism. You can try as you may, but overall can not deny it.
MRWSR.
I realize that you do not need me to tell you anything. You already have an ideology you worship, obviously.
The alter of whom?
Sorry kid. I also realize it is hard for blind ideologs to entertain the possibility that people actually think for themselves, have studied the issues, and thus, can make sound, supportable arguments.
Perhaps if you took the time to study the issues and think for yourself, you would not have to continually parrot leftover projections and talking points (socialism), nor would you naively predict an election over a year out simply because it makes you feel better.......or because the entire backwoods shack you call a bar holds the same mindless opinion you were all fed.
MRWSR.
More projections.
The problem with the economy is not regulation. It is lack of demand.
There is no evidence, save some WSJ OPED's, that shows it is regulation that is holding this economy back. None. Zip. Nada.
Corporations have been sitting on cash because they have no reason to spend it on expansion or hiring. You could remove every regulation in this country, and if their is no one able to purchase the goods and services, no bussiness will hire.
This regulation regurgetation is is very similar to the right wing position on taxes. You have no economic analysis that backs up your ideology, so you simply make crap up that fits your ideology, and keep repeating it.
All the while you ignore the fact that taxes are at historic lows, and regulation has been on the decline for over three decades........the end result being the recession and high debt.
Face it. Your ideology failed and history proves it.
Republicants,
No demand, based on the lack of confidence in the markets, Professor. Your job is to post your crap here. You belong with MSNBC and will never be able to see past the end of obamas nose. Try as you may, you and the left will serve this country no more. Prediction or truth. You have every right to your thoughts, as do I. So i am done with responding and will just say lets agree to disagree.
What?
You just got done saying it was regulation. Now, you are attempting to rationalize the fact that is is lack of demand with your ideology.
The average person spending money in the economy doesn't give a rat's arse about the markets. They care about the money in their pockets, jr. When they have it, and do not fear losing it, they spend it.
Which is exactly why the policies over the last thirty years that exponentially put more wealth in the hands of the top 1% has led us to the situation we are in.
My job? No kid. I merely enjoy mocking ignorance.
You seem to enjoy repeating crap your ideology feeds you....which is why your only defense of said crap is to project onto me what has really happened to you (the reason you hold such an ignorant position on the economy is because you cannot see past your nose and cable news), and make naive election predictions to make you feel better about your inability to support what you parrot.
I agree we disagree. However, don't think that means I won't knock down your drivel in the future. Try not to let it make you so angry when I do.
repulicants - In your zeal to oversimplify, please explain how the democrats didn't also contribute to the ideological imbalance you profess to promote.
Why limit yourself to just the last 30 years, shouldn't we go back 50? After all, the "great society", "war on poverty", medicare and medicaid are policies that very much affect us all today.
Do you want us to believe that the 1986 tax reform act was a failure, or perhaps it needs to be revisited?
How foolish of you to ignore how the markets and regulations play an important part in creating confidence towards future liabilities for both those with skin in the game and those who don't. Confidence plays more towards what is perceived than ideology.
Mixing an eliment of truth into your ideologic rhetoric (5.18, 5.19 & 5.21) won't go far because you still fail to understand or refuse to identify all the elements of why.
Interesting that you post this...
but fail to do so yourself. Sounds more like you are yourself nothing but a mindless puppet.
american.
Huh? Oversimplify?
Explain how the Democrats didn't contribute to what? What are you projecting I am promoting?
Try and be a bit more clear.
Because the deregulation and tax reductions started thirty years ago, primarily with Reagan.
The reason we do not go back fifty years is because that is not when the problem of wealth inequality and low taxes on the wealthy started. At that time, the regulation and policies from the "great society" were still in place. The war on poverty, medicare and medicaid did not create, or contribute to the lack of regulation and the income inequality.
Seriously. Your logic and cognative abilities suck. Take a class.
Projecting again. Happens when you don't really know what you are talking about.
I never said it was a failure. I didn't mention it specifically at all. Perhaps your spoon fed arguments need to be revisited?
I ignored nothing, jr.
I just realize that they do not play as large a part as you think. More important to confidence is knowing there will be demand for what you are trying to sell. The regulations play a much, much smaller part.
And the confidence argument you used is part of your perceived ideology....that's why you all parrot the same arguments.....at the same times....shifting in unison....still rarely able to support it....(mostly because it was fed to you).
Ideological rhetoric?
LOL!!!
The FACT, jr, is that the income inequality in this country has grown from the top 1% controlling 10% of the wealth to controlling 25% of the wealth. Another FACT is that regulations - that grew out of the Great Depression and worked to keep the economy stable for many years after - steadily decreased after 1980. Yet another FACT is that more money in the hands of the many stays in the economy because it gets spent, but more money in the hands of the top does not.
LOL!!! Naaa...you are simply another mindless ideological drone, who never thought one thing he was fed through, and thus, is incapable of supporting his arguments.
You will likely never be able to make or understand a rational argument because you will never be able to hold any position that you are not fed.
repulicant - thank you so very much in proving my points on your oversimplification by proclaiming that ideology is the reason. why.
As in the past, your attempts at rhetorical bluster still fails.
I see that my questions on the 1986 tax reform legislation hit a nerve with you, why? Doesn't it deserve a better responce than..
Actually, it is a reflection on your own insecure ability to present a logical argument.
Please do keep on showing us on how you enjoy tripping over your own feet in trying to show us all on how it is all about ideology rather than bipartison supported legislation prior to 2009.
try all you want, but wealth redistribution always fails, it just always fails to take into account human individuality.
Thanks for trying to play though and remember follow through is also important.
P.S. Drop the ideology BS and you might actually get somewhere and yes, going back 50 years is important for it sets the tone of change.
To everybody out there blaming Obama, Bush or any other singular government official as the cause for America's prosperity getting flushed down the toilet. You're missing the big picture. The situation is simple: The near entirety of the US government is corrupt and run by political Bribe-takers bought and paid for by people who have amassed the most wealth overall in this country (Top 1% of the US Population). These politicians, now solely representing their funders and not the voters turn around and pass legislation that gives the Super Rich here every advantage possible, including free money (Quantitative Easing/Bailouts), lower taxes and zero accountability for their actions. In order to prevent revolts from the increased burden to the unrepresented in this country, the Super Rich have set up a bogus political party to siphon off and redirect the anger of the masses (The Republicans) and an ineffectual party (The Democrats) to cave to “republican pressure” while pretending to care about the masses. In addition, they have co-opted and bought out nearly all of the mainstream media in order to filter out any info that would lay the blame on the true culprit, instead leaving the majority of America divided and focusing their energies on decoy scapegoats and partisan nonsense. The super rich and those they pay for care not one bit about jobs or the welfare of the country they grew from. They merely care about having as many digits as possible for their bank statement balance. And if that means the middle/working class will eventually need to vanish, then so be it. The entire system is broken.
2/3 of americans want to tax the millionaires more.... if the GOP reject this proposal becasue of the tax increase then it is more clear than ever that the republicans are the party of the rich.
60 years ago 2/3 of Americans wanted to keep blacks at the back of the bus and have separate drinking fountains...thank God we don't always do what the majority wants... When the other 47% of Americans that pay ZERO Federal tax start paying their "fair" share then things might equal themselves out....
JK: You answer to forcing the wealthy to give back to the society that gave them the opportunity to gain wealth is to consolidate wealth into as few hands as possible. Since we began this failed "trickle down" experiment that started under Reagon; wealth has been transfered from the middle class to the wealthy few in the form of stagnating wages, loss of benefits and higher consumer prices. The rich have been participating in class warfare since Reagan and they are winning no thanks to those on the right that are like putty in their hands.
KRT, You still haven't argued the fact that 47% of Americans pay no Federal tax. How can this society sustain itself when 1/2 of the population doesn't contribute to the good of everyone else. Now don't get me wrong, I think that everyone should pay their fair share and that means eliminating the tax loopholes that were created by both sides over the course of the last 30 years or so (since the tax reform act of 1986). But when 1/2 of society doesn't even contribute one dime then the argument that the rich should pay more simply because they earn more doesn't hold much water. Like I said, I'm all for a fair tax code system, but that means that everyone has to contribute something to the pot...otherwise, nothing changes.
JK; If the 47% you speak of were payed a living wage they would be able to pay taxes. Instead they are paid peanuts and people like you expect them to make peanut butter and give it back to the rich. You can't get blood out of a turnip; taking nothing from nothing still equals nothing.
Cutting pay, benefits and jobs away from American workers while the rich increase their own salary and bonus while paying less in taxes than anytime in history is the problem. The corporatists and wealthy are stealing the American taxpayer blind in a corrupt collusion with government; its the right-wing way of doing business. The system is broken and guys like you don't want it fixed.
krt -- please define the living wage that 47% of Americans do not receive today. personally i do not know what those 47% make and will be interested in hearing your source. thanks
I stated before that I believe the tax code needs changing, but to your point, who defines what is "FAIR"? I mean you state that the 47% of people who don't pay can't afford it, but how do you justify them not contributing SOMETHING? Again, when nearly 1/2 of the population doesn't contribute a DIME to the tax coffers, how are we supposed to sustain ourselves? And you forget that the well off pay already pay for the other 1/2 of the population. SO how is that fair they contribute even more?
JK; everytime they purchase something they contribute. Every day they go to work they contribute. The average size of a family for those that are in the bottom 47% of income is about 3.5 people and their average annual salary is less than 32,000 per year. I don't know about you but I can't imagine trying to provide for a family of four on less than 2,500 per month. These people have no disposable income and are barely making ends meet as it is.
KRT, It seems clear that you still want a portion of this society to not bear any responsibility for contributing to the whole of nation. You would rather push that burden to folks that have contributed more to the pot (in total dollars to the whole), then others who fault of their own (starting a family without having the resources to raise them) pull more from the system then contribute. As to your notion that contribute, they are not contributing any federal tax dollars (except for the small portion that would pay purchasing gas, or in your world, cigarettes and alcohol and SS). Shifting the burden to where the more well off that are considered easy targets by the rest of society just shows the lack of responsibility by the folks that don't pay anything. It would be a much different story if we had a tax system where EVERY incremental dollar from just $1 is taxed at an incremental higher rate. That way , people would see that the more you make the more you get taxed and then EVERYONE would know that they are contributing to those folks that earn less than them.
JK; Do you have any notion of socio-economic injustice/inequality? Do you have a notion of its history in America? Do you understand that in not all Americans are born with equal opportunity? Do you understand what happens to children that are born at a disadvantage at no fault of their own? I rose above all of that, because of a caring teacher and government programs that allowed me to obtain an education which has allowed me to reach my potential. These programs are going away; they call it austerity, but without making those responsible for the economic down fall and those that have profited from it share in the responsiblity, it means nothing except that greed, hypocrisy and self righteous indignation has taken over America.
The first line of the republicans Pledge of Allegiance goes, I pledge Allegiance to Grover Norquist for he is the one who holds my BALLS real TIGHT. How about Pledge, a Pledge to work for us, not the likes of Grover. republicans why is Grover more important than us? This pledge is only for the 1% not the 99%!!!! Hows that for fair?
“White House scholars say that although every president has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous barbs, it has not historically been members of Congress hurling them. But more lawmakers are now doing so, and that has diminished the office of the presidency, historians say…"
Only Obama has DIMINISHED the office of the Presidency because he is NOT a leader, he is the DIVIDER-IN-CHIEF. The truth su%^& but it's still the truth. (i.e. "Republicans can sit in the back", "John , the election ended, I won" )
leona If there are dividers, your the biggest one. Who are your historians?
I don't rely on historians ( those books haven't been written yet) , we'll have to wait on that. Just listen to Obama's own words...............He is the DIVIDER-IN-CHIEF. The truth su%^& but it's still the truth. (i.e. "Republicans can sit in the back", "John , the election ended, I won" )
The jobs bill has parts that both parties have previously supported. In fact, over half of the bill is tax cuts for employers and employees that Republicans have called for. The rest is stimulus money for infrastructure and retaining public workers threatened by budgetary cut backs that Democrats have wanted.
But, since both Republicans and Democrats were against the original proposal to raise money for Obama's jobs bill, the Dems decided to rewrite the bill in a way that guarantees the Republicans will reject it. While politically it may be advantageous, this makes sure the bill will not pass through the House.
"the Dems decided to rewrite the bill in a way that guarantees the Republicans will reject it. While politically it may be advantageous, this makes sure the bill will not pass through the House."
Now, is this what true public servants do? This is all political nonsense from the Dems because they are losing the narrative and are desperate for anything that will get them re-elected. Those on the sinking "Titanic" are now acting below contempt.
LEONA-2986819
It's politically advantageous because that's where the people (majority) stands. Dems fight and stand by the people........ok. and by the way, it won't pass through the house simply because Grover will not approve of it. Under the present circumstances in the house, Regan would not have been able to raise taxes 11 times. Who are this present GOP/TP congress serving is the question that needs to be answered.
Leona, American Express did a poll of the wealthy (yes they do polls) and found that 66% of the wealthy agree with paying more taxes. If they agree what place do you have to tell them what to do with their money. There has been class warfare for over 20 years against the middle class in this country and it time we fight back against this. If you find that offensive I suggest you lock yourself in you home and do not come out until it is over.
PEN-24, TAXING RICH PEOPLE WILL NOT SOLVE THE DEFICIT. Only reforms on the entitlements will do that. Aside from the tax issue (THAT'S MINOR) , how is Obama proposing to create permanent JOBS ??!! ANSWER: govt. does NOT create long term jobs. ONLY THE PRIVATE SECTOR DOES THAT !
Tis the Season, I know the struggle you speak of. I am middle class. I work hard and pay taxes. I haven't taken a vacation in 3 years because everything has gotten so expensive BUT govt. is not the answer to our woes. The govt. does nothing but raise taxes and then they get to decide what to do with our money ( i.e. SOLYNDRA) . I'd rather allow the private sector to create more jobs and the tax money will the be generated. We need to reign in govt. spending, reduce regulations and allow businesses to grow.
LEONA-2986819
"TAXING RICH PEOPLE WILL NOT SOLVE THE DEFICIT. Only reforms on the entitlements will do that"
This is straight from the GOP/TP play book. LEONA, take a minute and think for yourself, i betcha, it will surely help you.
Leona, you have it half correct just taxing people rich or not will not solve the issues. It needs to be a balance approach. Increase tax revenue and reduce spending is the only solution. The debate is what spending do you cut. As usual you go after the one thing that will cause the most harm to the most people. Not the way to go. No different that City governments cut police and fire fighter first due to the fear factor to get what they want, been done for decades, always hit the people were it will hurt the most. Never seen them cut administration cost, lay off administrators, managers just the workers. As for Jobs, again half right. Yes government can only create short term jobs, but those jobs can start the process for permenent jobs in the private sector just like a snowball rolling down hill, it picks up speed and mass, but someone has to start the ball rolling and the private sector is not going to do that. Your way is to continue sitting on your hands and wait for a miracle. Sorry not in this century. Doing nothing gets you nothing.
PEN-24, Don't listen to me. Why don't you listen to the Democrats ( because you obviously hate Repubs so much) who make sense. They are all saying the same thing. Entitlement reform is a necessity or we will lose them all together .
Tis the season: "Your way is to continue sitting on your hands and wait for a miracle. Sorry not in this century. Doing nothing gets you nothing."
Doing nothing by Repubs is what Obama wants you to think so he can re elected. I see you drank the kool aid. The republicans passed many bills which are sitting in the Senate because Reid wont bring them to a vote. The repubs have their hands tied by that dingbat Reid. If the Senate goes republican, there will be alot of bills being passed that are tied up there.
Leona, you need to look at those bills they all contain tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, which is why the dems are sitting on them, we can not continue to give these groups tax cuts, it does not work, it does not create jobs. Corporate American is sitting on over 3 Trillion dollars of profit right now but they are not creating jobs with that money. The oil industry continues to bring in record profits, profits after all their cost. How are they doing that and why. Cost on a barrel of oil is somewhere around 75.00 yet we are still paying for gas at the 100.00 plus price why. Were are the private sector jobs, were are the jobs the republicans promised in 2010. All tied up in Tax Cuts not the way to correct our economy and that is not from the dems but from scholars in economics. The easiest thing in the world is to simply call someone a name like dingbat. It is a lot harder to acually do something. You need to stop reading and listening to only repubilican talking points do some out of the box research, you might be suprised at what you learn.
pen - human nature says that the majority will always support a plan where they do not have to pay as well.
tis - without demand why should anyone hire employees to do nothing but increase a companies cost of doing business and thereby just passing those costs unto the end user?
Actually the right only said that they wanted to create a more favorable environment for business to want to create jobs, jobs that they can understand how to determine costs on. The private sector creates jobs, not government. The private sector makes it possible for the government to exist.
Cool, oil profits come in at $.06/$ of after tax revenue. Computer and drug companies come in with profits exceeding $.15/$ of after tax revenue. Bad, bad oil companies. lol!
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7365896n&tag=api
Ever stop to think that if the greedy consumers hadn't used their homes like ATM machines. Or that easy credit really doesn't lead to good things. We may very well not have the levels of consumer debt and home foreclosures we have today? Consumer demand (jobs) is stifled by their own debt and companies learned how to control their debt by controlling liabilities.
Wow! and they ask the question if the Tea-Bagger/Republicans are Racist! The first African-American President is the most disrespected in history. If I am right President Obama is the most filibustered in history! This is what hate looks like!
Tommy, I feel sorry for you. Your love of Obama because he's black is just NOT a good enough reason to allow him to ruin our country. Inciting this type of racist reasoning is a sickness you need to recover from. Obama was elected overwhelmingly by WHITE people in this country ( many of my friends and family voted for him) . Do you think only Blacks elected him? Everyone knows he is a very likable person. He's given the benefit of the doubt all the time (especially in the media). If Obama were White, they'd probably have tried to get him impeached by now !
Leona that was a racist comment "If Obama were White, they'd probably have tried to get him impeached by now" You can not rightfully critizied for what you are guilty of. The American Public elected Obama and the republicans decided they would get rid of him. So where is our voice if one party can determine who we have as president. That is suppose to be the Peoples right not one group. If one group can make that determination then you have a dictatorship not a democracy. We the People all of us by popular vote select our leaders not the republican party.
Tis the Season, "we the people" as you say, elected Obama. Now we are living that nightmare of the ushering in of Socialism. (i.e. "spread the wealth", "level the playing field" , this is NOT a christian country", the illegals are the "future of this country" etc. )
What are people like you going to do when all the hand-outs dry up? ANSWER: You'll be rioting in the streets like the Greeks.
Tis - A democracy is based on a majority rule with the minority having little say in how they will be treated.
Better to live in a republic defined by a constitution that defines the rights of all.
How many of the millionaires in the Senate Democratic Caucus who proposed this surcharge displayed real leadership yesterday by pulling out their checkbooks and writing a check to the US Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt for 5% of their 2010 earnings over $1 million?
duplicate
Glenn-2073644
The answer is all Senate Democrats did just that yesterday by including 5% tax in Obama's job bill.
What did GOP/TP senate and house members do? Answer = They signed their lives out to Norquist to keep. what do you call that?
PEN-24
No they did not, all they did was make a change to the bill as a political "stunt". It is all a game to add something they know the Republicans won't support, so the Democrats can point blame across the aisle.
I am looking for real leadership by example where someone would actually put their money where their mouth was; not political posturing and bull@!$%#.
Hey Glen; The Dems learned political posturing and BS from those that are best at it, the Republicans. The Dem millionaires in Congress support raising their taxes by 5% what about the Rep millionaires in Congress? Will they support it or will they go on record otherwise?
I don't know, I think the Republicans are on record as being against tax increases, just as the Democrats are against certain things. I am an independent and I think we need both cuts in spending and raises in revenue (tax increases). However, I believe true tax reform is needed and that everyone should bare the burden of the cost of government and reducing our deficit. Personally, I am pro Flat Tax.
I would prefer that the Democrats keep to Mr Obama's promise that the bill will not add to the deficit. The proposed surcharge will take over a year to pay off the cost of this bill and that means some of the cost early year costs have to be added to the deficit.
Glen; the problem of course is that it does not matter what the bill contains or how it is funded, the Republicans are going to vote against it. For republicans, governing is not about what is doing what is best for America, its about maintaining wealth and power. I'm an Independent as well, but I'm smart enough to figure out years ago what the far-right agenda is all about.
Glenn - you appear to have a good handle on what "fair" & "balanced" mean whereas krt and pen do not. Please do keep on keepin' on!
I too, have no problem with seeing the obama tax cuts expire across the board but recognize that without meaningfull expenditure cuts as well, we will have no hope of achieving any type of fiscal responsibility
KRT, unfortunately not being wary of what Obama, the Democrats and the extreme left is doing to America causes a "Dumbing Down" of your opinion of your own intelligence.
I am watchful of all politicians.
Glen wrote:
"of your opinion of your own intelligence"
That makes absolutely no sense. It reads as if your mumbling. What are you trying to say, spit it out. I am an on the left liberal and Obama has mostly governed from the center and there are very few from the "extreme left" that even serve in Congress. The extreme left has NO power in America, the threat to our liberties comes from the extreme right. If you right leaning Independents were really watchful of all politicians; GWB would have never been elected at all, much less twice.
KRT - If you don't understand what I said, let me be blunt. Although you claim to be independent, your liberal bias causes you are not be smart enough to to also see the damage and threats that come from the Left.
KRT - Newsvine crashed without posting my whole thread - it said
KRT - If you don't understand what I said, let me be blunt. Although you claim to be independent, your liberal bias causes you to turn a blind eye to the left . Frankly, you are NOT smart enough to see the damage and threats that come from the Left.
Hey! Hey! I know how to put this country back on track, create jobs and make Government smaller!
Get rid of all Republicans!!!
fred, what a great idea ( NOT). You'd like to see our govt. in the hands of "Whorehouse" Harry Reid, Nancy "read the bill to see whats in it" Pelosi, Eric " I never heard of Fast & Furious" Holder, Charlie"I forgot I had to pay taxes" Rangel, Maxine " I gave tax money to my husbands bank" Waters, and loud mouth liberal Debbie Wasserman BULL Schultz ??
wow, things would be so much better. lol
Leona, you are cherry picking, you forget about the republicans and their gay members, the Hammer in jail and ,many more on that side of the fence and you seem to be unable to clearly state your issue without calling someone a name. That shows you to be a very little person, any grade schooler can to that. You are so full of hate you can not see anything else. You only recite what you have heard not what you think. Get out and do your own research on both sides not just one.
Tis the Season, Does that mean YOU want to see the govt. in the hands of the ones I mentioned? You need to come clean. No one thinks those politicians are any but a laughing stock. Are you with fred owens? He thinks only the Dems should be running the country. lol
As far as "cherry picking". NO, you are wrong again. I used the names of the Minority Speaker Pelosi, the Senate Leader Reid and the DNC head Wasserman BULL Schultz, to name just 3. They are the "big guns" of the Dem party. Scarey.
As far as me being a hater, you have a point, I hate those bumbling idiots for what they are doing to this country. You should too.
There are billions of dollars being wasted by Washington with abuse, fraud, over lapping programs, lack of oversight, and more many over funded programs. When the congress forces the current agencies in Washington to cut their budgets, instead of creating more agencies, then we can talk about tax increases. Cut the money set aside for the health care bill which is currently pending a decision by the federal courts. Quit wasting money on start up solar energy companies, there are solar energy companies doing quit well without government money. The so called tax on "millionaires" will not pay for this non job bill, lets have the CBO score the bill before its voted on.
It is not the federal governments obligation to continue to pay for so called "first responders" and teachers, that is the responsibility of the states and cities and school districts. (They all have the right to raise taxes for needed services.) State and local governments also need to cut their waste and fraud to save money.
As for this so called "jobs bill", when the President talks about the infrastructure being shovel ready, remember winter is setting in and I doubt anyone is going to be building bridges, repairing roads, etc., during the winter months. This is nothing but political posturing by the democrats and to support jobs for Obama's biggest contributors, labor unions.
sfcret, I am reassured that NOT everyone is buying into this campaign mantra......"Pass this Bill", Pass this Bill" Bulls$%^.
Leona are you Glenn Beck in a dress?
Smitty, I hear Glenn Beck is pretty good at what he does, so I take that as a compliment and I thank you.
Obama has been criticized by politicians for doing too little too late to create jobs. How about Congress? Every member of Congress has the ability to introduce legislation for programs to create jobs. Not a single member of Congress has done so. What does that say?