How clever! I LOVE IT!

This weekend, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) held its annual meeting in Chicago. The MBA represents some of the nation’s top foreclosure mills, and has over 2,400 members, including “mortgage companies, mortgage brokers, commercial banks, thrifts, life insurance companies and others in the mortgage lending field.”

In order to protest the practices of the MBA member companies represented at the meeting, a group of 40 protesters from National People’s Action, working with a coalition called Take Back Chicago, decided to dress as Robin Hood and kayak up the Chicago River. Once the protesters reached the Michigan Bridge, they unfurled a banner that read: “Wall Street: Steals from the 99%. Gives to the Rich. Let’s take it back!” Watch them

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/11/340154/protesters-dressed-as-robin-hood-kayak-up-chicago-river-to-protest-mortgage-bankers-association/

Only in Chicago... lol

MSNBC poll. What would you expect.

Many Americans would love to see parts of this bill happen, including most of the republican party. There won't be a whole lot of no's on this. Take out the taxes and new regulations (DUST !) and he won't have any problem with passage.

Obamas job bill?

It's the American Peoples Job Bill, just in case anyone forgets!

Tea People are you listening to The American People!

Why don't they put a moratorium on the EPA, delete obamacare, reinstate Glass Stegall, delete dodd frank and business will hire again. Otherwise, why should business hire when they don't know what other laws are coming down the pike???

It's simply more wasteful stimulus.

"When asked simply if Congress should pass the legislation or not, 30 percent of respondents answer yes"

30% is not "popular" no matter how you attempt to spin it.

The Congress hears as well as the President when 76% of the Country said they didn't want Obama's Healthcare bill. Well we have it anyway. I think we should just take all the rich people money and eradicate them from the face of the earth. After all they are the root of all evil. Once we get rid of them we wont have to worry about anything, like going to the Zoo or Museum. No more movies or professional sports or college sports for that matter either. Also we won't have that dam Salvation Army hangin around for the holidays. Won't it be great no rich people and we'll have all their money. Of course we will still have to pay our national debt and after we use the rich peoples money to pay it off....oh I'm sorry to pay of 3% of it. Well we will all have time to play. It's gonna be great.

30% is not "popular" no matter how you attempt to spin it

But 63% is... may I suggest a remidial course in basic math?

63 percent say they favor the bill and 32 percent oppose it.

Spin THAT! lol

So, MAW- if YOU were the business owner, and they did all the things you list, you WOULD hire more people, even if there were NO increased demand for your product/service?

Really??

MRWSR- that is the problem with most programs- they work in total, not in parts. You can't cut expenses and not raise taxes. You can't lower taxes and not take away the write off/loopholes. It is what is wrong with the healthcare bill and what happened to the stimulus - too many details left out.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

@ Feisty: Too many people are automatically voting down party lines, without actually seeking full understanding of the candidates, policies and legislation being voted upon. That's really the biggest problem in our electorate today. No matter what, Republicans vote for Republicans, and against anything to do with Obama and Democrats. Likewise, too many Democrats automatically assume everything the GoP has to say is tainted with greed and corruption, without fully understanding the topic at hand. I personally know people who've said no matter who the GoP or Democratic candidates are, they will vote down party lines...because, apparently this is about one side 'winning' and the other side 'losing', whereas the reality is, we all lose because nothing gets done when we can't play nice with each other.

MAW, I am not sure if you are the brain washer or brain washed. Businesses do not care about how much a worker will cost them. They will only hire someone if there is a demand for their product and they can make it a cost that will make them a profit. Here is the part individuals such as yourself totally miss. If the job cannot provide an individual a living wage with benefits, then the only person that profits is the rich guy. I cannot understand why you want us to feel sorry for rich guy. What is going on now is the rich guy has figured out that people are so hungry for work, he can hire them at low wages, work them part time, and pay no benefits. These jobs do nothing to assist anyone in living the American Dream. They only make the rich guy, richer.

I don't put too much faith in questions requiring Americans to actually think about an issue and then thoughtfully respond.

The call from a polling company often interrupts folks from the things that are really important to them...keeping up with the 'Jersey Shore' morons, seeing what's happening with the 'Real Housewives of Whatever County'...and pondering the activities shown on the latest 'Keeping Up With The Kardashidodos'. For many, these are the vital things in life that must be followed...the business of the nation can be found far down the list.

The only person who seems to be on TV more than the above clowns is President Obama...who nobody could possibly be prevented from hearing repeatedly bleating about how his latest plan is going to instantly create a billion new jobs for American workers. Based on past performance, why would any rational person buy what the president is trying to sell ?

"But when the legislation's details are included in a follow-up question -- that it would cut payroll taxes, fund new road construction, extend unemployment benefits, and that it would be paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy -- 63 percent say they favor the bill and 32 percent oppose it."

And this is supposed to be a surprise????????????? Who wouldn't favor raising taxes on SOMEONE ELSE, as long as it didn't cost them anything.

How about this for a question;

"Would you be in favor of the government sending a $1,000 check to every family in America, paid for by the 'wealthy'?"

I suspect about the same 63% would say yes. How about some reality, such as;

The Congressional Budget Office says that Obama's 'Jobs Bill' would increase Deficits by $417 Billion over the next 2 years, and virtually all of the 'jobs created or saved' would be for union workers. This is just more of the same 'big spending' policies as 'Stimulus 1' which was supposed to 'keep unemployment under 8%' but was a huge flop. Here is the link to the government's CBO site to verify – See Table 1;

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12470/s1549.pdf

PS – The CBO says that the $862 Billion 'Stimulus 1' may have 'created or saved' 1 million jobs, at a cost to the taxpayers of $862,000 per job – most of which ended when the money ran out. In contrast, the typical private sector employer pays the average employee about $42,000 per year to produce a product or service that can actually be sold for a profit, at a cost to the taxpayers of $0. I wonder who is more 'efficient' at creating jobs? Do we REALLY want a 'Stimulus 2' which will only make us 'Another day older and deeper in debt'? (Apologies to Johnny Cash)

People are still trying to claim that taxes and regulations create jobs ... really?

Ok... Conservatives, what happens in the retail world EVERY YEAR in November and December? What will happen in about a month? We are going to start seeing companies hire for the holiday season. This happens every year. Now, do ALL of these retailers hire more people because taxes suddenly go down in November and December? Do all of these companies hire more people because regulations go down in November and December? NO... taxes and regulations stay the same. So why do they hire? What possible reason do they have to hire more people? DEMAND for their product.

Still confused? Ok, did you know that Disneyland and Disney World have employees that ONLY work in the summer and on holidays? Now why would these theme parks hire MORE employees in the summer and on holidays? Is it because taxes and regulations drop during these times? Or is it because they have more customers... and thus more DEMAND for their goods/services at these times?

Still not enough? Fine, let's say you own a car dealership and you only get 35 customers per week, so you have 5 salesmen that handle 7 customers each... that's one per day. This means that your salesmen have a lot of down time where they sit around, doing nothing, waiting for customers to walk in. If your taxes go down, will you hire another sales person? No, of course not... because you don't need to hire someone else, your current staff handles the current demand. However, if your customers increase to 350 per week, and your salesmen can not get to all of them, resulting in some walking out... do you hire more? Yes, because no business man wants to lose a sale.

STILL don't understand? Let's use a family analogy... we all know how much you love to compare the economy to your family. You own a home, you hire a gardening team to mow your lawn, trim plants, etc. Your gardeners come once a week and make sure your property looks great. You get a tax cut, do you hire ANOTHER team of gardeners just because you got a tax cut? No, because there is no need to. Your current gardening demands are being met with your current staff. Now, let's say you buy a second home in another state. Your gardening demands have just increased, do you hire another team for the 2nd house? Probably.

DEMAND creates jobs... not taxes, not regulations... DEMAND. Watch what happens in the retail world next month.

@Tony: Agreed, thinking hasn't been a very 'American' concept for quite some time.

spider-737231 Tea People are you listening to the American people! Are you suggesting, chilled, that I am not an American?...

Hold on spider.......Afterall, it was the Tea People that championed at least the phrase American People...remember......the constant repeat. Now, not so much, tea people in congress have forgotten, and now only serve their corporate masters!

For you......If the phrase fits!

Rick,

Is that the Occupied wall street journal? Read the survey questions. Its bogus. If fox had put it out I would call it bogus then to. Its crap as are most polls.

Many Americans would love to see parts of this bill happen, including most of the republican party. There won't be a whole lot of no's on this. Take out the taxes and new regulations (DUST !) and he won't have any problem with passage.

Now, how do you pay for it Sherlock? Isn't THAT what's at issue?

Roy,

Just like with your statistics, you are incorrect about Johnny Cash, it was Tennessee Ernie Ford's song.

Feisty, talk about trying to spin. You are only looking at the numbers you choose to see. Read again what pjam09 quoted and then try to recalculate. I'll give you a hint. 1st question of the poll was? Figure that out and you'll find out pjam09 is spot on. And you are so wrong.

Spin THAT! lol

Why was it so easy to give money to the banks when they were struggling but it is so difficult to give middle income families a chance to survive? Somehow the interest of the people is not heard. Yes everyone wants their own way to help middle income families and small businesses survive. There has to be some aggreement and some action soon, otherwise we might be looking at more people at the unemployment line. Everyone (democrats and replubicans) are saying that we need more jobs. Doing nothing to protect their jobs (congress) is the wrong thing to do.

How can you deal with a person who only believes in a poll that fits their ideology?

a. ignore them

b. ignore them

c. ignore them

d. all of the above

Typ Reid flip flop. Vote yes then change to no. Leave it open to consider down the road. Atleast he can argue well I'm kinda for it. Make up your damn mind.

@ fiesty

63% percent said they favor it. Read the beginning 63% did NOT think they should pass it. Big difference.

Sounds kinda like Harry "ya-no" cant loose with that reply!

What is very sad is none of the a$$holes voting for it prob even read it. I doubt Obama even has.

The tea party votes for the 1% in congress everytime they vote not to raise taxes. Did you really buy into that smaller government fantasy that the rich sold you to never raise the richest taxes again? Especially now that the republicans are ready and willing to raise taxes on those who it will hurt the most, the working poor and middle class just not the richest.

Either way tea people, you are not voting for the people the 99%

Open your eyes and see that voting for a republican is voting for the 1%.

You can see by the very collasping of post they believe in freedom of speech, theirs but not yours.

And you are so wrong.

I don't think so sweetie - it's you who seem to have an issue with reading comprehension... lol

One more time...

But when the legislation's details are included in a follow-up question

Pay close attention to the word detail...

63 percent say they favor the bill and 32 percent oppose it.

Then you wonder why you're referred to as low information voters... lol

Thanks for playin darling - we have some lovely parting gifts for ya! ;o)

ROY WILSON...well Obama has not proposed sending that $1000 check to all Americans, but it was Bush who sent out checks twice, funny thing he did not make the 'wealthy' pay for them...he just borrowed the money from China

But you don't carp about that do you?

Nah

Hypocrite

In one ear out the other, you can't get it to stick because there is nothing in there to absorb the information, I think the realization of basic math is beyond most peoples comprehension, if the Government is having trouble paying the bills what makes them think giving more money away to the RICH solve, they won't create more jobs and a vaction in an other country won't help will it ...... TAX CUTS don't create jobs neither does less regulations what that does is put more money in to their pockets that they don't spend so it's a lose, lose, situation ......

I noticed that Spanky and our gang collapsed Feisty for saying:

"Who are these Congress critters are listening to, it sure as hell isn't the people!!!

But when the legislation's details are included in a follow-up question

Knowledge is POWER!

Like I mentioned under First Thoughts - this is another brilliant move by our President!

Breaking the Jobs Bill down piece by piece and forcing these obstructionists to explain why they answer to the corporations instead of their constituents is one more step in ridding DC of BIG money!"

Why did they do that. I guess their politics can't stand the light of day.

The real poll will be taken in a bit more than a year. If Democrats and thinking independents get off their fannies and return control of this country to Democrats, we will have every reason to believe there is a clear mandate to follow the Obama agenda; a government that follows the will of the great majority of Americans who actually make this country run. Make no mistake, it will be the responsibility of the citizenry to make sure Democrats do not stray from their mission; the one we gave them, not the marching orders of corporate America.

If, on the other hand, legislative control remains in Republican hands AND a Republican is elected as President, then we must concede that a right-wing agenda is what this country wants; a government that serves the wants and the needs of the rich and the super-rich only.

At the moment, it is clear that as the President explains his plan, the number embracing the agenda grows. What will be truly interesting is when the Republican Presidential candidate faces off against President Obama. Whoever wins the GOPTP nomination is going to be running away from the past extreme positions and a far more moderate appearing President is going to tear him limb from limb....in a very calm fashion.

It is my fervent hope that we see the Democrats take full control of the legislative AND executive branch, and rather than think of 2013 as the beginning of a lame duck Presidency, we see it as the return of the soaring eagle.

Fiesty, can you tell me how one of the provisions in the bill, the tax credit of $4,000 to small businesses that hire veterans, will decrease unemployment? As a small business owner, I will hire someone when the cost of hiring and employing them is covered by the revenue that employee will bring to my company. So, if I know that hiring someone is going to cost me say $30,000 plus payroll taxes, but not generate that much revenue, how will a $4,000 tax credit intice me to hire that person. All this does is shifts employers to hire veterans from a non-veteran. It does not cause me to go out and hire someone simply to get the tax credit. All this provision in the bill does is tries to get veteran votes to Obmama when in reality Obama knows now intelligent business owner will hire someone simply to get a $4,000 tax credit. It does nothing to help reduce the overall unemployment numbers.

Who are these Congress critters are listening to, it sure as hell isn't the people!!!

Give me a break. Only 30% support passing the bill and we all know that if Obama proposed a bill to raise Stalin from the dead those same 30% would support that as well.

66% of the people are smart enough to know that the "jobs" bill is nothing more than "mini stimulus 2". At 200k per job it's as big of a joke as "failed stimulus 1". This thing got killed in the Democratic controlled Senate. THAT says a hell of a lot more than any poll ever could.

@Americans First-3238795

Open your eyes and see that voting for a republican is voting for the 1%.

You can see by the very collasping of post they believe in freedom of speech, theirs but not yours.

Clearly you are the one who needs to open your eyes. There are more conservative posts collapsed on this thread than liberal. Check to see who's standing next to you before you start pointing fingers at the "other side".

Hahahahahaha 44% undecided and they call the bill popular? Hahahahahahaha.

Feisty, well I see the war on you continues, the "collapse" brigade is out in force! How childish! Then Newly-Independant, you just make things way too easy for Tpubs to understand, logic, reason, alien to Tpubs. Great post. And as Steve Ducy said on Faux Flase Friends, "There were a 1000 in the mob, in Occupy Boston, who dared to deter him from his steak dinner." The new Faux/Tpub cry, "let them eat steak", when most of us cannot afford hambuger? Tpubs vs. Reality, never the twain shall meet. Gag.

Wow, what a stunning revelation. What this poll says is when people are given the actual facts about the President's AJA a difference is markedly better.

Like bob marley says you can fool some of the people some of the time but

[I noticed that Spanky and our gang collapsed Feisty for saying...Why did they do that. I guess their politics can't stand the light of day.]

That's because they LOVE the United States Constitution...especially that First Amendment...

drjj, I agree with you. It's funny(yet it's not), that when ol Hank runs in the room raving that the banks need help, and should be bailed out, there was all the money in the world to give to them, hand over fist. Now, when it comes to the people needing help, what did we see? Stimulus you say? Correct you are, but, where did most of that money go? Shovel ready jobs fixing roads and bridges? Umm, isn't that money normally in the yearly budget? Oh, that's right, they cut it back. So in reality, they just added that money back into a stimulus bill as a one time deal. Oooo, makes me all warm and fuzzy knowing they care so much for us. I have heard countless people saying that if there was stimulus money floating around, it never made it's way into the areas that they live in, and if it did, it never amounted to a hill of beans, and didn't help the jobs issue one bit. Where is the money now? There isn't any left.

So where does it leave us today? Well, we have a government that doesn't have clue one as to what the words financially broke means, and yes, there are many people out here that also can't grasp that concept. It's like, we have a money system that is need of over all revamping, yet, many can't stand the idea of seeing it go away, and want it to continue. How can one be comfortable living daily in a debt ridden system, owing everyone and their brothers and still want more of it? Sooner or later people, we need to get use to the idea of change in our lives, and not the kind the President has promised.

Wake up people. How freaking dumb are you. The American Dream does not mean you can live like the "rich guy" who went in debt to start his company, only to become successful. That "rich guy" put his time in, and paid his dues. Maybe he got lucky, but that in no way gives you a right to what they make. You all get so caught up in the "living wage" and "american dream", but you don't realize you have distorted these images into something unattainable. You forget that it takes a good bit of responsibility on your own part to make sure you live within your means, and the american dream is defined as "a national ethos in which freedom includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success". It does not say "we will all be taken care of, and we can have as many kids as we want without respect to our own financial shortcomings".

Also, when you sum up countless pages of legislation into a generalized statement to suit some poll, you already f'ed it up. comparing the before and after understanding of the bill only shows how out of touch most of Americans are about what is going on in their own country. If you think the gov't is responsible for your hard times, you disgust me. This is not how this country was built. We need to take responsibility for our own actions, and ONLY WE CAN CONTROL THAT.

DAUC is right. Instead of asking them to pay the way for the rest of us, we should aspire to their examples of success.

Of course "eat the rich" is popular. It always has been. Winston Churchill warned of its attractiveness in a letter to FDR way back before WWII:

A second danger to President Roosevelt’s valiant and heroic experiments seems to arise from the disposition to hunt down rich men as if they were noxious beasts. It is a very attractive sport, and once it gets started quite a lot of people everywhere are found ready to join in the chase. Moreover, the quarry is at once swift and crafty, and therefore elusive. The pursuit is long and exciting, and everyone’s blood is infected with its ardour. The question arises whether the general well-being of the masses of the community will be advanced by an excessive indulgence in this amusement. The millionaire or multi-millionaire is a highly economic animal. He sucks up with sponge-like efficiency money from all quarters. In this process, far from depriving ordinary people of their earnings, he launches enterprise and carries it through, raises values, and he expands that credit without which on a vast scale no fuller economic life can be opened to the millions. To hunt wealth is not to capture commonwealth.

ROY WILSON-336103 -

Just to let you understand some facts. Every stimulus dollar is not spent on payroll. Infrastructure spending also pays for materials and equipment.... As a Public Works employee I can tell you that on average 10% - 30% of project $ totals go towards the employee costs. So lets do a little math, yes there are some assumptions here. So her are the links for you.

So from the NYTimes article I will use the 27.5 Billion on just infrastructure. Yes I'm sure this is low but when you look at the breakdown what else should one assume is solely infrastructure. Then from the economy . com pdf I will use the 377,000 infrastructure jobs. ok, I'll use 20% as the payroll cost. 27.5 billion X .20 = 5.5 billion. Ok now 5.5 billion divided by 377,000 = 14588.86.

So using your logic $14,588.86 is what government spent per job. Again considering the sources I'm sure this isn't 100% accurate, but if your going to compare try doing it apples to apples.

Hyperlinks got stripped out. Copy and paste in Google and you'll get there.

projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/The_Job_Impact_of_the_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Plan.pdf

Backcounty, you should read the whole article before commenting. It makes you look foolish and/or ignorant.

Why all the collapsed posts? Really, does it bother you that much when someone says something you don't agree with and you don't have a response for it, so just report it? Crazy! So much for freedom loving people. You know if Feisty bothers you teabags that much just use the Ignore Author choice and then you won't have to read what she says. Have a nice day.

Here's my psychic prediction:

The Repubs will continue to hold to their "never never never raise taxes ever" pledge to Grover. The jobs bill won't pass the House, and the Repubs will take the blame.

Simply put, the people want something just like the jobs bill. A majority also think the rich and the corporations should be taxed more. Arguably, a majority might even want a universal healthcare bill that is understandable and affordable, because a good number of people are starting to view healthcare as a basic human right.

The current crop of potential Repub candidates are amusing, but not one of them is electable because they all feel they have to (or want to) tow the Tea Party/Religious Right line. A majority of American "independents" won't vote for a far-right-wing religious zealot, and it's the independents that will carry the next election.

As long as the current crop of candidates continue to "out-right" each other, they will be sealing their election night doom.

Only: If only you were close to being right. The stimulus money was 275 billion in tax cuts. That seems to not have worked! In my state, lots of bridges and roads got fixed. Perhaps your governor spent the money on, hum, let's see; reducing the state budget and giving even greater tax breaks (more than the 275 billion already in the bill) to, hum, let's see; corporations and incomes in the 1% bracket? Check out what your state did with the money. Might be interesting!

Well then, hum, 80% of that money went to Democratic districts, so, hum, I notice you're still not blaming them.

I keep seeing people say you can't fix things without raising taxes and people need to pay their fair share. I guess that means the 46% of households in this country that pay no income tax every year are finally going to start paying their fair share...I am so glad to hear that everyone will finally be paying their fair share.

I guess that means the 46% of households in this country that pay no income tax every year are finally going to start paying their fair share...I am so glad to hear that everyone will finally be paying their fair share.

That 46% number includes the unemployed, elderly living on retirement, and those making under $20k.

So you want to collect income tax from the unemployed? How do you plan on doing that?

Those making under $20 represent a total of $1.4 trillion in assets... everything they own. Fox News claims that raising taxes on the rich by 3% will only produce $700 billion and that is not enough. That $700 billion which is "not enough" is equal to half of everything the poor own. Should we start seizing their assets to take "enough" money from them? Do you propose we take ALL of their assets? Is $1.4 trillion enough?

And the elderly... shall we tax their 401k retirements AGAIN, twice? Or perhaps we take from their social security. They are only old people, who really cares about them, right?

What a stupid article and writer to use this poll as factual. How about if they asked a few other pertinant questions such as:

"Do you think the government should add $447 in spending to support a few thousand union jobs?"

"Should the Jobs bill be deficit neutral?"

"Is it the constitutional responsibility of the government to provide jobs?"

"Do you think everyone should pay more taxes?"

"Should those that use the governments welfare system contribute to it?"

Go ask a few of those and I'll show you how a huge majority of the public is AGAINST the jobs bill.

The first stimulus did not work and we are going to have to pay for it for many years and you want to do a second one? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is just plain stupidity.

@ir12

Backcounty, you should read the whole article before commenting. It makes you look foolish and/or ignorant.

What on earth makes you think I didn't read the entire half page article? Only 30% of people support the bill until you tell them someone else has to pay for it. Only half of the people who didn't originally support it changed their mind when they were told someone else gets the bill. If only HALF of the people you ask would take something if you GAVE IT TO THEM, obviously what you are offering is garbage.

So Backcountry, you do understand that 63% support it when they understand. I also understand you were trying to spin things to your way of thinking. So who do you think will get 63% of the vote when everyone understands?

By the way Backcountry, had you taken that remedial math class, you would know that 75% (63%-30% = 33%, 33%/44%=75%) of Americans (US) would take something if you GAVE IT TO THEM. Thanks for playing.

ir12 you make sense and by the way Obama and the Dems did try to play nice with the Reps. Case in point the Health care bill asked to the table many times ideas accepted only to be told no deal by the Reps. Same thing with the debt ceiling issue the Tpers want no compromise and the rest of the Reps go along with them not wanting to break ranks however when one sees the Dems we see no real monolithic voting case in point the article you just read.

So who do you think will get 63% of the vote when everyone understands?

Please. If everyone understood what was in this bill you'd be stuck with the 30% who would vote for anything Obama and the dems proposed. What do you suppose the numbers would be if it were given an appropriate title? "Jobs bill", ROTFLMAO! It's the exact same thing as the failed stimulus. Why not ask people if they'd support a second stimulus? What numbers do you suppose you'd get then?

By the way Backcountry, had you taken that remedial math class, you would know that 75% (63%-30% = 33%, 33%/44%=75%) of Americans (US) would take something if you GAVE IT TO THEM

LOL! 30% would take it regardless. 63% minus the 30% who would take it if it were on fire equals 33%. 66% originally said no or no opinion. So HALF of the people who didn't say they wanted it won't take it even for free. You can exclude the people who said no so the numbers look better for you but let's be honest shall we. If even 25% of people, who have no opinion, wouldn't take it if you gave it to them, how great is it? That's your defense? 75% of people would take it if you gave it to them for free? LOL!

More progressive lies from "Newly Independant" (Independent my a$$). The 46% is the percentage of PEOPLE WHO EARNED WAGES SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX PROVISION WHO PAID ZERO INCOME TAX. In fact half of the 46% that were subject to the tax recieved in excess of 100% of what had withheld from their paycheck. That's right, 23% of eligible income tax payers are being directly subsidized by the 52% that actually pay income taxes. So, like many before me I ask... WHO IS NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE? The 46% (closer to 50% actually) don't just not pay their "fair share" (zero is not a "share" of anything)... hell as a group they pay less than nothing.

dmac, you really do not get it. In order for big business to pay poverty wages, they will not allow the Government (they do control it don't you know) to tax people that can barley feed their children. They are smart enough to know that these people cannot afford to pay taxes because they know how much they pay them. If they did raise taxes on them, people would not be able to afford to pay them and the IRS would have to have them jailed. The rich would have to pay more taxes to build jails to house them or pay more money so they can afford to pay their taxes. Either case is unacceptable to the rich. Telling everyone only 47% pay taxes is another form of class warfare practiced by the rich to keep your focus where they want it and not on what they are doing to this country. It amazes me how many people think individuals that do not pay taxes in the United States are living of life of luxury. Lounging by the pool all day, going out for restaurant diners every night. Such fools.

...people that can barley feed their children...

And yet a surprising number of these same people manage to find the money for cigarettes and booze. Imagine that.

The reality is that only a small percantage of these people are so bad off that they "can barely feed their children". That's just more liberal BS that the facts and numbers don't support.

ir12, you keep screaming how the 47% thing is wrong. Please. Enlighten us. Tell us where those 47% pay FEDERAL TAXES.......you know, the money that pays for welfare, food stamps, schooling, housing, unemployment extensions, etc.. I'll wait.

You won't find it. So basically, what you're saying, is just over half the country should foot the bill for those that enjoy the most federal perks, yet pay nothing. Awesome. Power to the proletariat, da comrade?!

Yes I do suggest we collect something from everybody...if you get an income of any amount you should pay something. Sorry but many of the so called poor I know all seem to have cell phones, nice cars, nice tv's with cable, brand name clothes and so on. If they can afford those things I think they can afford to pay their fair share as well.

Gharms, please take a remedial reading class and then come back to the conversation. We are discussing individuals that quote the 47% number with the phrase individuals that pay "no taxes". No one said Federal Taxes, although they do pay Federal Tax, it is called payroll tax. They also pay a host of state taxes. I do not think only half the country should foot the bill for those services, though they are not as big a budget item as you would think. I would rather see all businesses pay a decent living wage to all employees or go bankrupt. If a business cannot afford to pay a decent wage, then there is no reason to have that business except to make the rich richer.

Employees don't pay patroll tax. Employers do. Nice try, but no.

Nice try, but you are wrong. They are social security and medicare. Why do you not research facts before posting them? Do you really think people will believe what you say just because you type it? Or are you just that out of touch with reality?

I don't get here often, is Gharms a troll?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL,

If it is a problem to love someone for what they say and think, then, I think I have a problem with you! :-) YOU are brilliant!

I wish I could be as short and concise and correct as you are in your posts!

It's about time we hear it from the tea party/republicans mouths who they are in Washington D.C. to serve, The American People or the corporations that backed their campaign!

Thank you for your support of us lowly 99%!

;-)

Those aren't taxes, as it is against the Constitution to tax us for medical care and retirement. Maybe YOU should look up your facts before you run off at the mouth.

Thank you for your support of us lowly 99%!

Thank you for your kind words sammy sezso... ;o)

LOL who are you trying to impress Feisty? You could be in the bottom 1%, and everyone else could be rich, and you'd still say it was terrible. You just want what everyone else workd for. Sad, sad little nation we've turned into, when we have the BALLS to call $22,000 a year "poverty".

Sad, sad little nation we've turned into, when we have the BALLS to call $22,000 a year "poverty".

You know what @!$%#?

YOU try living on it or better yet try to raise a family and then get back to us...K?

BTW - I make well over that and also live in the real world not some fantasyland ginned up by the right wing nut jobs...

YOU should try it!

I can't help but laugh when I see responses like this. Jobs bill by butt. This is doing nothing but giving money to unions and SHORT term projects? What's going to happen next year? The year after? The unions will have their hands out for more. Which in reality is just a way to funnel money back into the Dems hands. I agree that we ALL should pay our fair share and believe me, I do. But who decides what's fair? Elite Dems who really don't care about anything but controlling people? I have worked hard for what I have. Why should I have to give it to those that don't?

If someone has more kids than they can afford THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM! Unless they are mentally deficient they know what causes pregnancy AND how to prevent it from happening! I am tired of being forced to pay for other peoples stupidity and/or laziness! If someone is collecting welfare/food stamps/medicaid/section 8 housing or any other government assistance, they should have to agree to be medically prevented from becoming pregnant until such time as they are no longer collecting any government assistance. This would drastically reduce the generational welfare that too many people seem to believe is a valid career choice.

Agreed Dmac.....back before I joined the service or attended college, I lived on around $15k with 2 kids and a wife. Comfortably. So don't give me the "Woe is me" speech from the "poverty" line. Why don't you ask someone from Uganda or Rwanda if they think $22k a year is "poverty". Like I said, this is also not including welfare, foodstamps, medical care, housing. All together, that's more like $42k a year. Us poor Americans think "poverty" is only having basic cable, slower internet, a slower computer, an older phone, and a car over 2 years old.

PS - If you lived in the "real world" Feisty, you wouldn't be so hip on using the government as a crutch. I wonder what the total cost is for someone on welfare. There's checks to cut, welfare reps to meet with, entire departments to enlist people. Adding government to ANYTHING = waste and fraud.

Yea and back in the 60's my parents had a home custom built for only $35,000!

Gas used to be a dime a gallon too, bread was 4 loaves for a dollar fresh out of the oven! Yes life was good in the 60's and 70's

GUESS WHAT! YOU NEED TO FLIP YOUR CALENDARS TO 2011!

Homes cost @80,000 and up, gas is between $3 and $4 a gallon, Bread is over a dollar for one loaf!

There is no way that anyone could have a wife and 2 kids and own a home today on $15,000! That's only 1250 a month, 312.50 every week. figure $5 for food daily= $140 a week, $20 a day to get to work and back= another $100, that alone leaves 72.50 a week for the rent so you can spend no more than $290 a month! Where can a family of 4 rent or own any place to live for $290 a month??

That counts nothing towards upkeep of the home, utilities to cook and lighting. God forbid if one of the kids falls down and needs a stitch or 2 at the doctors!

I bet that either one you, Gharms or Dmac225, can not show me how a family of 4 can live on 15,000 a year today with no assistance! Even if you live in one of the cheapest areas of the country you can't make it on that much! Try it in New York or any other major city, where everything costs more! I know don't go there if you can't afford it.... so where can they go? They are Americans so you can't just ship off all the people that need assistance to another country!

LOL the liberal mindset at work with Sammy here. "You can't raise two kids and have a wife and OWN A HOUSE on 15k a year!". You're right. I couldn't. This was also only 8 years ago. But keep screaming to yourself that everyone is entitled to a house no matter what, and that people can't survive on less than $50k a year if you'd like. Those of us that have roll our eyes everytime you liberals break into that part of your class war sermon.

PS - that house part that you scream so wildly about is the big reason we're in the mess we're in. "Give everyone homes! Who cares if they can pay?!". Thanks for proving how out of touch you are with the real "real world".

Why don't they put a moratorium on the EPA, delete obamacare, reinstate Glass Stegall, delete dodd frank and business will hire again. Otherwise, why should business hire when they don't know what other laws are coming down the pike???

Because they don't want to reach the point where it's a struggle to breathe, with cancer-causing contaminants in the water, and species after species being wiped out.

Because they don't want to remove the incentives for healthcare to increase efficiency, allow health insurance to reject patients b/c of pre-existing conditions, watch ER continue to treat non-emergencies of patients without insurance and increase the deficit by almost 500 billion dollars over the next ten years.

Because they don't want to face another financial meltdown before we've recovered from the last one,

Congress chaired by Grover Norquist VS The People with Obama Presiding. This is a very defined fight.

A lot of people are itching for a fight, republicans just picked it, to a man, they picked themselves a fight.

Pen-24: I like your comment about how Congress is chaired by Grover Norquist. Nothing will ever get done in Congress if members do not stop signing extraneous pledges and pandering so special interests.

I see this as a broader bipartisan message: That our representatives no longer represent us anymore. Maybe we should be calling them resentatives because they sure resent us.

Bustem Hard is exactly what is wrong with this country. They do not understand.

.

cantakenomore: Please reread the headline, and then, read the entire article.

How is it that so many Republicans continue to grovel at the feet of an unelected lobbyist such as Grover and to even pledge to his moronic wishes? Whatever happened to their oath of office to serve the people who put them in office? Oh, never mind, I just answered my own question. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!

actually roy the jobs bill would not increase the deficit. with the raise in taxes going along with it the deficit would decrease by 30 billion +. you might want to read up on it some more instead of listening to rush limbaugh or glen beck.

Roy, as usual you forgot WHO initiated the Stimulous...and released the first $350(+) billion.
Your facts are completely off the charts. You are just as bad as the Senate, blocking anything that might give Obama credit, just because he's a Democrat.
I'm not even an Obama supporter.

Forrest Grump---you should have ended by saying "Let's Roll!"

@ForrestGrump 2.0

I'd like your commentary 100 times over if I could. No truer words...

The revolution is building and it has spread to other nations.

Just think, if the police can keep attacking veterans the military will be joining on the side of the protestors too, some already have.

Time for the Democrats to "step up to the plate" and explain to Mr. Obama (as he has directed) and on National TV the "reasons" they VOTED NO !!! Waiting....waiting....waiting.

Nah, it is all the oppositions fault. LOL.

Or are the Democrats who opposed this legislation just going to go into hiding or hang out in Maryland to skirt the issue ?? Maybe the latter would be appropriate (just take after the Wisconsin Democrats who made a quick Exodus out of State).

jpalonso....."They have sold the American worker out to the lowest bidder. ( CHINA )"

Does "they" include GE ?? Maybe you should direct this to the CEO GE (Mr. Obama's Jobs Czar) who has shipped more jobs to China than any other company. And he continues to ship out jobs. Nah, don't want to upset the apple cart in this Administration. Are you going to boycott GE with the "Occupy" folks since they paid no taxes last year and made BILLIONS IN PROFIT. Nah, nah, nah.

The Republicans simply added more wood to the fire.

Result of the poll: When asked simply if Congress should pass the legislation or not, 30 percent of respondents answer yes, while 22 percent say no; 44 percent have no opinion.

But when the legislation's details are included in a follow-up question -- that it would cut payroll taxes, fund new road construction, extend unemployment benefits, and that it would be paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy -- 63 percent say they favor the bill and 32 percent oppose it.

The no opinion when given more info. jumped to the YES.

A surtax on the rich needs working, the original bill had a repayment with only tax increases on those making over $1m (among several options). Those unemployed need help NOW! POW followers will love the Teapublicans no vote. That will clearly show what party is behind the 1% and which one is behind the 99%.

This is getting interesting the POW will soon be marching to Congress in the 100,000s.

Who did NBC poll their news room? Random cell phones were called. Where did he get his list, from his phone? I don't know about you but 30% isn't popular! You want to balance the budget, STOP SPENDING!!!! Create jobs, lower the tax rates to get all those companys that went to Mexico, China, India, etc back.

Is anyone surprised that these idiots once again proved that they have absolutely no intent of serving the interests of the American people. This is all about power and control and making sure that Obama doesn't see another four years. Do they think that the rest of us are blind? When it comes time to vote, I am certainly going to make certain that my vote is not cast for any of these self serving do nothings.

They are bringing this country to the brink of revolution with their stupidity, and because of our system, we the people are rendered powerless. We elect and send these people to Washington to look after our interests and this is what we get, a bunch of little boys pouting and refusing to come to the table and make decisions that will get our country back on track. VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE. It doesn't matter who is elected for President...nothing will happen unless there are big changes in congress.

You got that right Grump. Ever since Obama gave his Republican jobs speech, I saw the set up and the GOP didn't disappoint. Sooner or later there will be a tax increase. There is no way around it. I have be saying that it should happen for everyone and I do mean everyone, but for now I will watch the show, because regular folks will still have to get up, go to work and take care of their family no matter what the politricktions do.

Roy: Thanks for the link to the CBO report. The bottom line is it reduces the deficit over 10 years or am I reading this wrong. What do you like about the plan?

hhmmmmm cut payroll tax, then raise taxes on corporations. so lets give the Croporations a break by cutting payroll tax, then tax them again? and aren't the Croporations own buy the rich? what a lot of BS.

Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes. The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from employees wages, also known as withholding tax, pay-as-you-earn tax (PAYE), or pay-as-you-go tax (PAYG). The second kind is a tax that is paid from the employer's own funds and that is directly related to employing a worker, which can consist of a fixed charge or be proportionally linked to an employee's pay. it does not say which payroll tax they are wanting to cut does it?

The only ones that are against this bill are the Republicans. They continually keep showing us what kind of people they really are. Their UNPOPULARITY is growing by the minute.

eric1964 "actually roy the jobs bill would not increase the deficit. with the raise in taxes going along with it the deficit would decrease by 30 billion +."

The CBO says that the Deficit would increase by $417 Billion over the next 2 years, but it would end up costing only $3 Billion over 10 years -'assuming that things go as planned over the last 8 years'.

Even the CBO admits that their 'projections' are not reliable beyond the first few years because too many things change over time.

I gave you the link to verify the increase in Deficits over the first 2 years, just click it and read.

Republicans will not pass this jobs bill because it will creat jobs and make President Obama look good . the Republicans want to drag this out till after the election then come up with the same jobs bill with one or two small changes and say they thought up this bill.Republicans stop playing games people need jobs.

Military Man-1740371 "Roy, as usual you forgot WHO initiated the Stimulous...and released the first $350(+) billion."

You're confused.

The TARP was initiated by Bush, who authorized the first $350 Billion +-, but that money has been essentially repaid (with interest).

You are confusing this with the $862 Billion 'Stimulus' bill, which was totally Obama's baby.

Interesting

It was the Democratic Senate that defeated the President's own Jobs Bill. Gee who can Obama and the Democrats blame on this failure? Themselves, Nah, must be the Republicans.

So, will Obama fight for a bill the people want, or cave in to the Republicans? I can't wait to see.

To IDO- The democrats left WI in Feb because the Repugs put in legislation which had NOTHING to do with the budget bill. It included stripping away the collective bargain even tho the unions agreed to pay more. They did that to prevent the bill passing so the public would know exactly what was in it and how corrupt Walkerfitz is. The FBI is conducting a "John Doe" investigations around the GOP practices and will prove how the Koch $ bought our state. I applaud the Dems for bring out the corrupted bill. At least they did their job opening the eyes of WI residents. We are now in the process of recalling Walker and we will succeed, unless he legislates that recall are illegal which he already is in the process of doing. If you do not think that is not dictatorship style government, look at the history of Russia.

Eric -- Do you think if say 10 Republicans would have jumped on the board the bill at least would have went forward for debate? Is that asking too much? This bill has a lot of bipartisan support. It also has the support of the Chamber of Commerce a powerful lobbying firm for business. Apparently they didn't spend enough money eh? It takes two sides in all things. BTW It needed 60 votes to go forward so it had to have Republican support to go forward. They chose not to move it for debate.

we need jobs that will last not jobs that are here Monday and gone Friday, we need jobs we can count on. repairing roads,and giving jobs to union controlled companies does not help ,how much of the money would go to union dues? money that could be spend to pay bills, why don't the unions cut their dues and give its member a break? they want to tax the rich does that count union leaders?

the easy answer it to have a nation wide lottery , we have 311 million people in the USA if we had a nation wide lottery open not just to the USA but other countries as well ,think of all the money they could take in . 100's of millions a day times 365

Why blame it on one or the other? It is clear that our govt. is no longer interested in serving the people--on either side of the aisle. They have their own agendas and their own special interests. They all have become store bought off the rack politicians. They aren't getting a damn thing done for the people of this country because of their deadlock and only the rich are getting richer. The middle class have become the peasants---The working poor. I have called every one of my reps and asked them to vote for this bill. They not only didn't vote for it...They haven't voted for anything. Congress should stop getting any paychecks until they actually do something other than bicker, throw tantrums, and make power plays. Defund Congress!!!! No more Pensions for Perverts!!! Not one incumbent in 2012. They can't even get our troops home with the threat of Iran hanging over our heads. What a bunch of incompetent losers--all three branches....

Top Tier Tax Rate (the wealthy) Historical Data for the last 100 Years:

Since everyone seems to think if we raise top tier tax rates our economy will crumble, please point to the last 100 years and show me which decades you think our nation was "heading over the cliff"...like, say, currently?

1912 - 7%

1916 - 15%

1917 - 66%

1918-1922 - 73%

1922-1923 - 55%

1924 - 45%

1924ish-1931 - 25% (stock market crash, great depression)

1932-1935 - 63%

1936-1940 - 79%

1940-1942 - 80%

1942/43 - 88%

1944-1946 - 94%

1946-1948 - 86%

1948/49 - 82%

1950-1963 - 91%

1964 - 76%

1965-1967 - 70%

1969/1970- 76%

1970 - 72%

1971-1982 - 70%

1982-1986 - 50%

1987 - 29%

1988-1990- 27%

1991-92 - 28%

1993 - 2001 - 40%

2001-2002 - 38%

2002- current @ 35%

Perhaps, just a thought...that too low taxes on top tier, are just as bad as way too high?

Perhaps, maybe the good sweet spot, might be somewhere around 60-70%?

Unless everyone thinks the years from 1936 to 1980 were the worst years our nations existence?

The GOP / Tea Party are not listening to what the majority of public wants because they are not telling the GOP / Tea Party want they want to hear. But a small minority are telling the GOP / Tea Party what they want to to hear and that is who the GOP / Tea Party listening to.

It is strange to me that anyone would think raising taxes on the rich is a good idea. High taxes on the rich make the rich believe that they have every right to own government anyway--this is why they curry favor and why they will continue to do so. As far as they are concerned, they are paying for the vast majority of government in the first place, so why shouldn't they buy off politicians to have them do exactly as best benefits them (and they all do it, no matter the color of the flag they wave). Taxing them more (which some of them want--consider why, please) in order to pay for extended benefits and short-term job projects for the poor doesn't actually hurt them and doesn't actually help the poor--it merely silences them, because they believe they have been given something better, when really they have just been handed license to remain exactly where they are.

JOBS, real jobs is the key. This means real people with real ideas being willing to put forth real time, energy and money (either their own or borrowed, thereby taking on the financial risk) to create businesses with real products and/or real services real people will buy, employing those real people (preferably at liveable wages), and bringing back productivity.

Think about it, people.

(Though I am all for reinstating Glass-Steagall.)

"But when the legislation's details are included in a follow-up question -- Plant a money tree in everyone's backyard, put multiple chickens in every pot, provide free circus tickets to all, install a Dom Perignon fountain in every household, complimentary HBO to registered Democrats, deliver a full humidor of Montecristo Cigars with free lifetime refills to each male head of household, exempt the first $100,000 of annual income from any type of taxation, cut payroll taxes, fund new road construction, extend unemployment benefits, and that it would be paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy -- 63 percent say they favor the bill and 32 percent oppose it."

This is just more of the same 'big spending' policies as 'Stimulus 1' which was supposed to 'keep unemployment under 8%' but was a huge flop. Here is the link to the government's CBO site to verify – See Table 1;

was watching some show the other day and barry was saying that the last batch of shovel ready jobs " just weren't shovel ready" then had the biggest laugh, like it was funny that he had just spent 500-700B of our money on crap.if barry can't fix it with money he has no clue.

from what i've read even if they would have debated the bill it had no chance as their would have been more dims to jump ship.

When are people going to figure out that this "popularity", as was the case with Obamacare as well, is false. The way the questions are posed details the proposed action, the optimistic result and makes no mention of cost or realistic expectations. I really get tired of hearing this "the wealthy need to pay their 'fair share'" crap too. The "wealthy" already pay the majority of tax revenue in this country, nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax because they "don't make enough" so who's really not paying their "fair share" and who created this misleading and distorted buzz word "fair share"? And no, I don't come anywhere close to the "wealthy" group, I'm a mid 20's college graduate making less than $50k/year but if we're going to have a legitimate discussion of the issues then we have to at least properly define the language we're using and "fair share" is being incredibly distorted. Additionally, all of the items being discussed are like prizes on "The Price Is Right", if someone asked you if you'd like to win a car of course you'd say "Yes" but then when they go to hand you the keys and you find out you owe them thousands of dollars to pay the taxes on that "free" prize many people say "No thanks" which is why TPIR has warehouses full of unclaimed prizes. When are Americans going to wise up to these political games and realize you can't decrease revenue (cut payroll taxes) and increase expenditures (new roads, more benefits) in perpetuity? And no, raising taxes on the "wealthy" and corporations isn't going to make up for the additional spending, it never will, because more and more money is simply going to be moved offshore, diverted to more tax-averse ventures, etc.

You don't even have to go to Russia, about Castro less than 90 miles away, Haiti with the Duvalier Papa&baby doc, you don't need to cross the ocean.

Well at least forest got part of his rant correct. He is a knucklehead.

Don't you people realize what Obama and Reid just done! Reid voted no on the bill just so he can bring it back up-other democrats voted no because they know it won't work.Everyone hollering about the rich not paying their share-Well folks who do you think Washington is getting the money that Obama keeps giving away-billions down the tube on companies his own people told him no on-305 billion to the state of NEVADA-2billion plus to a Mexican company that is trouble already and yet Obama gives OUR money anyway.WHO DO YOU THINK IS FOOTING THIS. Well it is you and I! The people that you are telling me that Obama and the democrats are looking out for-well i want them to stop trying to take care of me- I can do a better job of it if they would give back some of my money.

Please Please let new blood in come november on both sides.

tj, the majority of this country's citizens didn't feel any pain from the original stimulus spending bill and don't expect to feel the pain of another one. The bill calls for raising taxes on a select group of people. As long as the Dems and the Prez call for raising taxes on someone else, so that the majority can keep their personal earnings in their pockets, it will be easy to get the support of the people. That is class warfare and nothing but. I am not rich and will not be affected by the left stealing dispraportionally from the rich, but that policy bares no resemblance to the principles that this country was founded upon.

If the polling question was, "Do you want the government to raise taxes on tj, or do you want to raise taxes on yourself?", I'll bet my life savings the masses will say make tj pay.

Roy,
I'm not confusing anything.
Bush initiated the $800 billion for "economic" recovery, with NO controls on how or what the money was used for, the money was thrown out there for companies like AIG and Merryl Lynch to use as bonus checks, and perks to the boneheads who caused the financial issues in the first place.
You remember all the fiascos that were pointed out when AIG and others submitted to investigations because of multi-million dollar seminars to Vegas and other places.
Obama held the second half of the money, calling it the "Stimulous Bill" and placed controls on it to make SURE it got paid back. THAT is the money you are referring to.

You are making up a completely separate $800 billion that never happened!

What a bunch of frauds on here blasting the republicans! Hey, if you can't count then I understand the two reasons you don't know what happened in the US Senate. The second reason is you're simply a fool that supports the democrats... Okay let's do the math... 51 Dems and 2 Independents who caucus with the dems and 47 Republicans... The Bill was defeated 50 to 49 ... 1 Dem and 1 independent sided with the Republicans and one abstained... (courage there)...

Oh and even though the "polls" say the "majority" of Americans liked this bill, I am sure that's been twisted from the idea that Americans want to see something from the government ... But this bill wasn't designed to do anything except waste more borrowed money... msnbc and the other polsters can spin it whatever way they want. I think more people are relieved that Obama, the worst president ever has been put down. And we are looking forward to the US Supreme court shooting down this unconstitutional health insurance mandate... and the bell tolls for thee Obama! Good riddence.

What's more, 64 percent of respondents agree with the statement that it is a "good idea" to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations, because they should pay their fair share and can afford to pay more to help fund programs and government operations.

Funny...50% of these people pay no federal income taxes at all. No wonder they want the rich to pay more. Very transparent, indeed!

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy: Thanks for the link to the CBO report. The bottom line is it reduces the deficit over 10 years or am I reading this wrong. What do you like about the plan?"

According to the CBO estimate, it will result in an increased Deficit of $288.3 Billion in 2012 and an increase in the Deficit by an additional $129.1 Billion in 2013 but a gradual reduction in the net Deficit would result in a 'reduction' in the Deficit of about $3 Billion over 10 years (assuming everything goes as Obama plans), but that excludes the interest cost on the increased debt, which I estimate would cost about $87 Billion, for a net actual INCREASE in the Deficit of about $84 Billion.

It is essentially 'Stimulus 2' but about half the size. Since the CBO said the average cost of a job 'created or saved' from 'Stimulus 1' cost the taxpayer about $862,000 for each job, I don't support anything about this so-called 'Jobs Bill'.

We need to do two things to stimulate the economy and encourage jobs - neither of which will cost the taxpayers a dime;

1 - Remove the moratoriums on our fossil fuel reserves - the largest in the World - (a)
2 - Reduce many of the restrictive but valueless regulations on business.

(a) - The link to our World leading fossil fuel reserves is at the following link;

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34233

Why does Herman Cain keep LYING about employees paying 15.3% payroll tax?

EmployEE's pay 7.65% payroll taxes! The employER pays an additional 7.65%.

Now there will be a 9% national sales tax?

A family of 4, making $50k does NOT pay $10,000 in federal income taxes. Right now, they would pay $2,995 in Federal income taxes and $3,825 ($50k x 7.65%) in social security tax, for a total of $6,820.

Under Cain's tax, the family of 4, making $50k would pay $4,500 in federal income tax and $4,095 in sales tax ($50k - $4,500 fed tax paid = $45,500 x 9% = $4,095) - yes, they would spend all of the $45,500 just to live. That totals ($4,500 + $4,095) $8,595 under the Cain plan.

That means a family of 4, making $50k, would pay $1,775 MORE under the Cain 9/9/9 plan ($8,595- $6,820).

Also, what about income that is currently non-taxable? For example, life insurance proceeds, mini interest, inheritance proceeds (under $1.0 Million), social security income, Roth 401K/IRA proceeds, GIFTS (yes, even grandma's $10) are all currently non-taxable. Under Cain's plan, when those monies are spent, you'll be paying a 9% national sales tax on those purchases. That's a backdoor plan to end up taxing those proceeds and benefits. We were just given incentives to convert over regular 401K's to the Roth 401k's in recent years (and paid the tax on those conversions) so that all the earnings in those accounts would be non-taxable going forward. Now, under Cain's plan, those monies, when spent, will incur a 9% tax. Unbelievable.

Worse yet, think of a 85 year old retiree, living on social security alone (a large part of the 50% who don't pay any income tax). That retiree could first end up paying a 9% tax on the income (if it's considered income subject to income tax under Cain's plan), and then be subject to an additional 9% national sales tax when the social security (what's left) is spent. That would mean a total of 18% federal taxes paid on social security benefits!

I HAVE done the math Mr. Cain. Why doesn't someone bring these questions to Herman Cain?

ROY, you're correct and as usual, the left's only argument is Bush, Bush, Bush. Grow up and get a real position. Bush may have had his own stimulus, but Obama has far exceeded anything that Bush did. Of course, what they fail to realize is that 58% of taxes are paid by the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans. So how much is enough? How much would you like to tax these people? How about the poor start paying taxes too. I'm sorry you're poor, but you benefit from government run programs and policies so you too should be paying something.

Meanwhile are the protesters demanding the top 1% build new businesses so that lasting jobs might be created? That makes much more sense than handing money to a government that is corrupt at every level, incapable of making fiscally sound decisions, has to have regulators for their regulators, etc.

Why are the billionaires getting together and vowing to gift their money to charity after they a dead rather than getting together and vowing to create new businesses to employ people now? With new businesses they would still be creating money-making opportunities for themselves, so it's still invested. Why aren't they out there scouring the OWS for kids with great ideas to fund?

I'll tell you why: If it goes to the government, they still have ultimate control over it, because they own the government, because they paid for the government...

We want our cake and to eat it--we want to pay nothing, but to have a voice.

Military Man-1740371 "Roy, I'm not confusing anything. Bush initiated the $800 billion for "economic" recovery"

You are TOTALLY CONFUSED.

The original $700+ Billion TARP bill was passed by the Democratic Congress, but only about $350 Billion was ever released because the balance was not needed for the financial rescue. The vast majority of that money has been repaid with interest (except for the money Obama gave GM & Chrysler, which will probably never be repaid). That was largely Bush's involvement in the financial crisis.

About 1 month after Obama took office, he insisted on the $862 Billion 'Stimulus' bill (to keep unemployment under 8% - lol), which was passed by the Democratic Congress in February of 2009. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with this.

Try doing some research - it's pretty easy using google.

Lu "It is strange to me that anyone would think raising taxes on the rich is a good idea. High taxes on the rich make the rich believe that they have every right to own government anyway--this is why they curry favor and why they will continue to do so. As far as they are concerned, they are paying for the vast majority of government in the first place, so why shouldn't they buy off politicians to have them do exactly as best benefits them (and they all do it, no matter the color of the flag they wave)."

First, since they already live this reality with low taxes, I dont see how raising the taxes changes this equation at all.

Second, thats why WE THE PEOPLE need to elect officials who represent us and our will, not the wealthy - campaign finance reform, wouldnt hurt either.

"Taxing them more (which some of them want--consider why, please) in order to pay for extended benefits and short-term job projects for the poor doesn't actually hurt them and doesn't actually help the poor--it merely silences them, because they believe they have been given something better, when really they have just been handed license to remain exactly where they are."

Taxing them more would help to pay off our debt - not pay for more welfare babies. Employers dont hire because they got a tax break, they hire because they have more customers than their current staff can handle - and most companies sales arent growing, because too few american have enough disposable income to spend. You take some of that increase in taxation, put people to work fixing roads, bridges, water/sewer lines, ect...and suddenly you've pulled people off of unemployment, off of welfare and put them back to work, they become taxpayers (not takers) and become a contribution to our economy.

"JOBS, real jobs is the key. This means real people with real ideas being willing to put forth real time, energy and money (either their own or borrowed, thereby taking on the financial risk) to create businesses with real products and/or real services real people will buy, employing those real people (preferably at liveable wages), and bringing back productivity."

Which is what I refer to above - those people will have money to spend, thereby encouraging private businesses to grow, expand and innovate to meet the needs of a society that once again has money to spend.

"Think about it, people."

I did, and my idea's are supported by history as working. When the top tier tax rate is above 60%...our nation isnt teetering on the edge of economic collapse, because the Uber Wealthy arent gambling their money on wall street in hopes of fast returns with little effort. Instead, they go the sound and logical route, they create actual businesses..real ones...and sell products, thereby earning their money.

(Though I am all for reinstating Glass-Steagall.)

That would be an amazing start...there's a few more regulations that need to get put back in place too, but this is the big one. The place you put your money (bank) shouldnt be dealing in default swaps or anything of the like. It is as simple as that...the seperation worked quite well for quite a few decades.

Once that was removed, the gap from rich/poor went through the roof...wanna talk about wealth redistribution? that is what is so dangerous to our economy...Robber Barrons.

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

"Gary-302710

Well I gues the Democrats that voted against this bill are in trouble with voting with their head. BTW, Does Fiesty Redhead work for MSNBC or the DNC? Got to work for one or the other , or both, to be first in line so often."

And that's the problem. Our representatives are supposed to vote with their constituents and not with their own heads.

When over 60% of the American people favor raising taxes on the rich, why are our representatives not passing legislation to that effect.

Wow, what this poll tells me is when people have the truth explained instead of sound bites the difference is markedly better.

Like Bob Marley said...

You can fool some people sometimes,
But you can't fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (What you gonna do?),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (Yeah, yeah, yeah!)

Get Up Stand Up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuMlHdxiIZ8

I wonder if the Republicans will ever learn to think for themselves, tell Grover Norquist and his "Americans for Tax Reform" to put their little no-tax-increase-of-any-kind-under-any-circumstances policy where the sun don't shine and get to really doing what the American people want. John Boehner's constant rhetoric that the GOP is doing what Americans want is getting really old, because poll after poll after poll says they're not. But it will come back to bite them next November, because Obama -- and hopefully a majority of Democrats -- will run on the "do-nothing Congress" platform and aim their campaigns squarely between the Republicans' eyes. It's an easy platform to run on, because the Republicans aren't doing what the U.S. population wants, they're doing what one man -- Grover Norquist -- wants, and it's being done to the detriment of the things the majority wants.

I guess the GOP has changed the definition of "majority rules", because in this instance they don't...

Jessica, why don't you pay more taxes to pay off this nation's debt? You are so quick to support our government in taking money from the pockets of others. Your stance on this issue is very transparent. Raise taxes, but not mine.

Question,

Obama can get out and bust his hump to make backroom deals to get the Healthcare CRAP passed...

Why was he not aggressive on this? Why did he go golfing? I think he did not care if this passed or not..he could play partisan and blame it on the Repubs.

2012 will not be here soon enough

Ron Paul 2012

Forest-Grump, you put tears in my eyes. What you stated, was the hope of the people. We're all ready for the "parking lot". We're too tired to continue bickering, but ready for a fight! If we are going down, it's better to go down swinging. The Republicans think we're a bunch of pussies. No, we just don't like their style and you can only take so much bullying, before you either run away, or put up fight. Most of us can't afford to run away. The president should hire you my friend.

What a waste of money! Polling to find out the obvious? The middle class needs for the wealthy to pony up their fair share of taxes.

The wealthy are not investing in America, they are putting their money in the Caymans. I so tired of this nonsense.

If the Republicans were in the White House, they would have supported this bill and denounced any Democrat who voted "nay". They should be ashamed. Keep protecting the ones that have it all. In November, the middle class will be voting. Hopefully, Republicans will be voted out of office.

Polls are only as good as the person writing it. You can design them to support any Stance by how you phrase the questions. Does it surprise you that any poll by NBC supports President Obama's view?

It is not right Chuck, you got to stand up for yourself and the man next to you, that is what being an American is supposed to be about, it's about guys like you that have my back. Thank You Chuck.

@ Cantakenomore: That's because of that 47% (It's actually 47% not 50%), 74% of them either make less than 20K a year, or are elderly.

Bruce-308647

Nobody has ever suggested 100%. We do however suggest 50% for those making $1 billion dollars a year or more. I know they will find it very dificult to tighten their belts and make it by on %500 million a year, but I will gladly trade them places and pay 60% wth their income.

We call our country The United States of America. It is about all of our citizens. It is not just about the rights of a few people. The tax policies enacted by Bush are destroying our economy and our country. It is only common sense that if the tax rate has been put too low, it needs to be raised back to where it was.

Even Republican Presidents in the past have recognized that simple fact. The problem today is that the Republican Congressmen are not in control of the Republican party. They are controlled by a few greedy billionaires. The top tax bracket in Republican President Isenhower's days was 91%. Do you really think anybody will go out and kill themselves if the top rate is moved to 50%. Get Real.

You are either getting paid to post your comments, or you are a greedy billionaire, or you are so stupid you do not know the difference of right or wrong.

Last I checked, the Senate still has a majority of Democrats. So I doubt that it was just the Republithugs or Teabaggers that stopped this. I guess no one will care though because when you introduce logic to a Democrat, they usually won't listen.

Just a small glimpse of what is just waiting to happen - lost my poster Hmmmmm - ok

Here the real news that mediums don't want you to see (the link still going on in cites across the nation you'll never see it) - I agree and know of the SEVEN TRILLION WITH NO RESERVE REQUIREMENT A WORLD WIDE CATASTROPHE WORST CASE BUT THE WORSE CASE IS HAPPENING WHO IS PAYING THE PRICE FOR 2008 - "IF WE LOSE AMERICA THERE IS NO WERE ELSE TO RUN" (for the poster I lost track of) - I do not endorse Ron Paul (I agree on some points) but the video speaks truth the future is inflation a direct cut in your pay. Forget Paul - the perils of the "Wall Street Gone Wild" - the making of more Billionaires than the same time period in the history of mankind, the history of the world - on whose back will this fall on? who has profited from these wars? More Billionaires than in anytime in history? Who payed to bail them all out" The American Taxpayer CHARGES SO LOW tariffs so loss of jobs but you never notice you now buy slave labor products from the likes of China one of the worlds richest corporations (Wall Mart and all the rest) you think they cannot buy power from flunkies that enter public service to get rich? Your agent with a fiduciary duty to you? Are you kidding? They owe you no duty can you not see this? If I pay one thousand to buy your vote and I make 100 million who made out and suckered the money slob? Who had a duty to look out for the 99%?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6mlOzEMd5g&feature=youtu.be

Just a taste of what happens if and when the seven trillion shadow "Credit Default Swap Market" crashes you will reduced to a bail out to eat. Here thanks to the Internet and digital cameras the world is watching what you are blacked out (Wall Street sees you as children you may not see what the rest of the world sees)- and who owns the mediums the national mediums? The papers, radio you name it the "Brave New Society" -

Please follow the link the fringe statements I assign a low probability the rest partially had already under way as the to will pay the cost of the first bail out and the second one or "bail out two" is heading your way. Remember the "Super Committee"? they will address who shall pay for 2008? Whose backs will the burden (Bail Out) be placed? The Fed just keeps printing more and more money, twenty four seven just to pay the interest on the national interest debt? When will the, you're not going to escape this, unless your part of the 1% - the 99% who will the bill as inflation is a dollar for dollar trade off will be asked to suffer a dollar for dollar cut?

Have a great day and Good Luck?

THE 99% MUST ORGANIZE COME TOGETHER THE PREJUDICES OF THE PAST MUST BE RELICS OF OUR PAST AMERICA THERE IS NO GOING BACK WE THE 99% FASHION OUR FUTURES WE CANNOT LET THE FINANCIAL/MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX RULE THE WOLRLD AND REDUCE US TO SLAVES EVEN CUTTING MY MEDICARE, MY OWN MONEY PAID FOR RETIREMENT WHICH YOU MISMANAGED. ENOUGH MONEY WAS THERE ENOUGH 99% WE ARE NOT YOUR SLAVES 99% FOR THE BENEFIT OF 1% THE 99% HAS HAD ENOUGH - THE 99% HAS HAD ENOUGH

This comment has been deleted by MSNBC for leaking credible evidence that is contrary to the interest of our Government Officials namely the President.

Jessica-1170252....(#2.54)..

"Perhaps, maybe the good sweet spot, might be somewhere around 60-70%?"

Sweet for the takers.....not so sweet for the makers....

Let the congressional fools continue to ignore the will of the people. Ben Nelson and John Tester will go down in defeat anyway. Only fools attempt to govern against the will of those governed. They will pay for such hollow based hubris.

Hey Kalua... you guys always want the cream... the easy money taken from the easy mark. The problem is that Obama says "YOU"RE RICH" if you make over 200,000 a year (household/combined) .. and he wants to make life harder for those that work hard already and easy for those that don't work at all! Forget the billionaires. Jeff Immelt, ceo and chairman of GE got away with robbery on the taxation issue and now he is selling our state technology secrets to the Chinese.. so hooray for No One!

Aww Roy -- Yes I know you like the energy industry. As with any bill implemented by Congress or scored by the CBO, they are all subject to the whims of the current Congress or a future one. Never any certainty in policy, taxes or regulations when elections are held every 2 and four years. Ever. You know that too! lol ; ) I'll look over your take on the numbers later I'm hungry right now. Till next time.

2 Democrats signed Obama's fate - not the Republicans... 2 Democrats

Kyot Post # 2.92 -

The real numbers on paper and not trial balloons is:

$250,000 TAXABLE INCOME - means after all standard deductions, exemptions and itemiezed deductions

$500,000 TAXABLE INcOME - for a joint return normally husband, wife and children

The numbers proposed are in a major speech and/or the numbers we all have been speaking of your not your numbers are part of a program and I can pull up old posts all the talk was of these numbers not conjured up fuzzy numbers of "what if" case scenarios.

Now a surcharge for those above one million which would be an extra $5,000 per year all thing equal and you had the same deductions.

Read any number of posts and you will understand the question if on whom will the last bail out cost be liad upon - as in the old saying "on whose back" - read my own of the super committee - you are asking the wrong questions with all respect the burden will fall on the miiddle class the 99% that did not become millionaires or more.

This just proves the the TPGOP does not care what the American people want.

CLEARLY the majority want the wealthy taxed and agree with Obama's bill.

They are so going to loose the election. I am so sick of the hypocrisy, lies and one-sided simple minded path of the TPGOP.

The only thing popular with the obama jobs bill is that it keeps getting voted down!!!! Even with his own party!!!! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!

Funny MSNBC has had zero headlines on Obama for weeks until this... and sure America would think favorably for some one else paying the bill for their benefits... duh... Come on!!!

Preserve... out of this prsidents own mouth, he told a citizen he was "lucky" and he wants to "spread the wealth" ... how does Obama intend to do that? We know the answer and your details today weren't the details of his plan yesterday and they wont be tomorrow either .... so save it for some dope. All of these dems want to hit anyone making over 200K period... and guess what? If you didn't know, that's not rich here in America... that's doing just okay. Consider some figures for you buddy: Health care rates since Obama passed the AHCA have gone up an average of 9% this year ... most people I know have gone up 15%.

Seriously, keep your latest tax propaganda and go down to occupy wall street and see if they will chant the statistics with you.

Here's a thought....Why doesn't Obama go back to Washington and talk TO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL OR WILL NOT BE VOTING ON THE BILL instead of going around the country (cough, cough reelection campaigning) telling the people to pass his bill? How about he sit down and discuss each item with the ones who will actually BE passing or not passing it, or parts of it? Makes sense to me...

The PEOPLE don't get a vote...we sure as hell didn't on his HCR.

Really disappointing, this Poll, like Newsvine based on "Popularity" and not substance.

1. Jessica-1170252, how about this do the real research instead of copying and pasting (plagiarizing) from Wikipedia (or another source). Did you ever bother to consider the Depressions, Recessions, and Great Depression, that was prolonged or made worse by "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share" (you think these ideas are brand new?). With the "Rich" Investors back then and even now fleeing the US. This is just like England's "Taxing the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share" with the result being that the Rich fled England for Ireland or any other Nation. This left the "Upper Middle Class", "Middle Class", and "Poor" to pay for all of England's Social Programs and all those "on the Dole".

So sure, just like everytime President Obama says "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share" resulted in the Businesses (small, medium, large, corporations) NOT hiring anyone (no "Rich" Investment Money, that YOU the "Middle Class", "Poor" do not even have, when was the last time YOU risked Millions of YOUR money investing in a US Business? (just buying their product does not count).), then even leaving the US and Investing their money elsewhere, and many Businesses started to "Hoard" (Save) their OWN money as a Contingency Fund (Rainy Day, Bailout Fund) since President Obama created so much uncertainty in the US.

How many of you know or bothered to research, when this "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share", "Seize the Wealth from the Rich", etc. was Infamously used? Can you say "Tax the Rich Jews", "Rich Jews Pay Their Fair Share", "Seize the Wealth from the Rich Jews", "The Jews Own everything", etc. the Poltical Labor Union Party Platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party, aka the NAZIs.

2. "Tax the Corporations", again, with the nonsense. How about putting a FACE on the "Corporations", as to how many US Jobs each Corporation is. Most of the uninformed (majority) Americans never bother to even do the BASIC RESEARCH; but, enjoy spouting off (with no consequences) popular sound bites. Who do you think they will pass these taxes on to? Can you say "down sizing" workers, or passed on to consumers.

ASK YOURSELVES, How is not taking the money earned, the same as giving them money?

http://www.greyfuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obama_tax_money1.jpg

http://flipflopbarack.com/daily_pages/files_091221/flipflop_091221.jpg

The Basic Reality of the Situations are:

a. The US is repeating the mistakes of England. Why do you think Apple Inc. products are Made In China? GM, Ford, Chrysler Parts made at Toluca Mexico, Machau China, Shanghai China (go to the Dealership Parts Department and Read the Made In Labels if you do not believe me)?

The new tax havens
American companies are finding new overseas tax havens to legally protect some of their profits from the U.S. tax rate of 35* percent, among the highest in the world. Lesley Stahl reports.

This 35% does not include the Local, City, State Taxes, Business Licenses and Property Taxes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7376848n&tag=mncol;lst;1

b. "Tax Incentives", "Tax Breaks", etc.. Are like telling a starving person that we will give you food at the end of the year (after you file a return). So if a US Business fails before Filing and Receiving a Tax Return how does a "Tax Incentive", "Tax Break" help that Business NOW (hence the Businesses "Hoarding Money", to Bail themselves out).

c. US Unions are 6-7% of US Government, and 6-7% of the US Work Force. What about the other 86% of US Citizens getting or having Jobs? As previously stated the US Labor Union Construction Jobs were already taken over by the over 23 Million Illegal Aliens at the US, as seen here:

While it's not clear how many of an estimated 185,000 Hispanic people in the state have fled, one estimate figured as much one-fourth of the commercial building work force had left since the law was upheld last week, said Bill Caton, president of Associated General Contractors of Alabama. Commercial construction is a more than $7 billion-a-year industry in Alabama.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44793726/

d. Basically, President Obama's Jobs Bill, indicated "Infrastructure" Projects and Programs and NOT only Roads (a Local, City, State Responsibility, meaning you can give them the US Taxpayer money and they can reappropriate these US Taxpayer Dollars to whatever they feel like, not necessarily to rebuild their Infrastructure, example: the intent of the Tobacco Product Liability Class Action Lawsuit was to Fund the Treatment of those that used the Product, not for the Politicians to fund everything and anything else including their own pay raises.).

e. Many of the "Infrastructure" Projects and Programs within the US are the responsibility of the US Department of Defense, specifically the US Army Corps of Engineers; so with the previous US Defense Budget Cuts, these were basically cut by the Congressional Appropriations Committees. examples: A Previous Defense Budget Cut, eliminated the US Army Corps of Engineers Funds to upgrade, retrofit, modify, etc. the Levees at New Orleans, resulting in the flooding during Katrina. Another previous example, is the elimination of the funding for the dredging of US Waterways (streams, rivers, etc.) resulting in Flooding Nationwide. Large scale Irrigation, water reservoirs, etc. (building new waterways) is also a responsibility of the US Department of Defense, US Army Corps of Engineers, funding cuts results in droughts.

f. China given "Most Favored Trade Nation Status".

g. Currently by US Laws (US Code) only 1% of the entire US Population are required to "Buy US Only Products, Goods, and Services". This is keeping the US Manufacturing, US Raw Materials Processing, Farming and Food Processing, etc. going and in Business; instead of leaving the US. This 1% is the US Military. The expensive non sparking non magnetic hammers (to work on High Explosives) and toilet seats (used on USAF Aircraft to keep the sh!t in the sh!tter even upside down) paying the wages of US Citizens "Fair and Living Wage", as these identical products (actually higher quality) could be purchased from the Chinese Military or Russian Federation Military for a couple of Dollars instead of hundreds to thousands of Dollars each.

3. Most of you refuse to research who President Obama's Buddy "Mr. Corporate America" is. Most Americans like being uninformed or are too lazy to do the research, and instead love to believe that their Political Party can do no wrong. I would find it really amusing if "Occupy" started a sit in at "Mr. Corporate America's" Residence (they would be hauled away and detained indefinitely). Ask yourselves where President Obama got his $1 Billion USDs of Campaign Contributions from.

Even funnier are the posts above and below, "Tea Baggers", "Tea Party", etc. this or that, without realizing that the Tea Party are Freshmen Congressmen. This means they get the non influential Congressional Committees like Congressional Janitorial Committee (who empties out the trashcans at Congress). The Power of Congress, comes not from just being Present but on what Committees they are on, the most powerful that only go to long term Congressional Representatives are those that are on the Congressional Appropriations Committees. As without the Congressional Appropriations it does not matter what US Laws, US Codes, Regulations, etc. are Legislated.

Which brings up a means to immediately stop the Budget Deficit, do not fund the $1.7 Billion to $2.1 Billion President Obama Health Care Reform Act, and only keep the "Preexisting Conditions".

4. How many of you know the US Laws that enabled the current $60-100 Trillion USD "Global Economic Crisis" consisting of the "Mortgage Crisis", "Wall Street Crisis", "Financial Crisis", "Banking Crisis", "Credit Crisis", etc.. Ask yourselves why President Obama did not do anything about this as his FIRST Priority.

The really pathetic thing is that US Congress is a mirror of the US Citizens that voted for them. As the majority of US Citizens refuse to take Responsibility for their Actions or lack of Actions, it is either "No Fault" or someone else's fault. example: "Cyber Bullying" with most on the internet not taking responsiblity (accepting the consequences) for the uninformed things they put on the internet, resulting in many critizing them and or "Cyber Bullying" them (I copy and paste the really stup!d posts with the posters name to note pad and save them on my computer so that I can post their own previous posts to show everyone how stup!d they are, stup!d not ignorant as they have already been told the researched facts, so they are no longer ignorant (uninformed)). Like how smart is it to sexting (sex text).

Most of you kiddies, do not know how close it came, to the President and US Congress taking away your toys (internet) with US Laws, H.R.1955 and S.1959. As it is President Obama's January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (plural) made legal the Censorship and Monitoring of All US Communications (previously Illegal under President Bush's Patriot Act (singular)). example: After the Termination of Osama Bin Laden a teenager posted a warning to President Obama that the Islamic Terrorists would attack using bombs, the "No Such Agency" computers keyed in on President Obama and Bombs, and the Secret Service showed up the next day and detained and questioned the teenager without his parents or legal representation present. So sure demand a US Law pertaining to "Cyber Bullying" and see what happens, instead of taking personal responsibility for what you post, and how you use the internet.

Kyot #2.29 -

Besides not know the difference from a proposal and beltway trail baloons I can show I saved and all posters agreed with the numbers I posted and not with the numbers you just throw out there. What the Dem's want and what the President proposed are different you must get that in your head - first.

Second it may come as a mental (I use the word generously) shock to you but The President of The United States does not set private corporate Health Care Premiums you refer too. The AHCA does not even kick in for some time you really need new talking points as you are way off on just about...no you are off on all of your statistics and I can bring you down easily with real numbers not this rubbish you carry around. But, I rather find it a giant bore as you are to look up the numbers the 99% agree with the CBO, GAO plus the Census Bureau and Labor Department I suppose you don't like those numbers neither - only your make believe fantasy numbers rational people are supposed to make mature rational decisions on make believe numbers - Sheesh

Do you know how foolish and mentally challenged your are in this?

David - Post #2.101 -

Thank you for your work and of course the said post -

Take Care and Good Luck...............

Correction to post#2.101.

ERRATA:

Which brings up a means to immediately stop the Budget Deficit, do not fund the $1.7 Billion to $2.1 Billion President Obama Health Care Reform Act, and only keep the "Preexisting Conditions".

It is Trillion not Billion, so correction to:

Which brings up a means to immediately stop the Budget Deficit, do not fund the $1.7 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion President Obama Health Care Reform Act, and only keep the "Preexisting Conditions".

The outrage of the US Citizens should be that the $1.7 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion of US Taxpayer Money to pay for President Obama's Health Care Reform Act goes to the Insurance Industry ($67 Billion USDs), Medical Device Industry ($20 Billion USDs), Pharmaceuticals Industry ($23 Billion USDs). of course most of you did not even bother to read the whole thing or you would already know.

Hey Barry....real leaders lead by example....you get :

For you and your family, including Mother-in-law.....

Free Housing

Free World Class Chefs

Free better than 1st.Class transportation

Free Maid Service

Free Healthcare like no one else on the Planet....Dr's and Trauma Center on stand-by 24/7/365

Free legions of staffers, to do your thinking, speech-writing, etc, etc.

Free teams of top-notch security .....

Pension and Benefits for life.

Get up there with the teleprompter and say that you're donating your entire salary to go towards jobs or debt reduction or something ????

But NOooooooo.......you get your taxes done and pay to the last penny the absolute minimum required by the tax code.....

I am still waiting to see just how many new jobs the wealthy ,with the full backing of the tea party , are really going to create. So far, the tax breaks that Bush put through have not done anything for new job creation....so just what is going to come from the re[ublicans push now...most likely..more of the same, which is nothing but more cash in the pockets of the wealthy and their republican backers.

Persevere - Take Care and Good Luck...............

Thank you very much. And same for you and yours.

ivan, NC,

How about reading post#2.103 so that you will know why the wealthy will not create jobs in the US based on what President Obama keeps saying. I also told you how much real influence the Tea Party does not have.

Maybe if you listen to this and get President Obama to listen to this video also you might get a clue:

BET founder to Congress: Sacrifice politics for America

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7382567n&tag=mncol;lst;3

Dont_carry_it_all "Aww Roy -- Yes I know you like the energy industry."

I am disgusted with the 'energy industry' every time I fill up my car, but what I really hate is the fact that we refuse to tap our huge energy reserves while sending hundreds of $Billions each year to our enemies to pay THEM to tap THEIR reserves. That's about the dumbest idea I've ever heard about, and yet that is exactly what we are doing. Unfortunately, Obama's policies and moratoriums make it worse.

ivan, NC "I am still waiting to see just how many new jobs the wealthy ,with the full backing of the tea party , are really going to create."

Every job that Obama claims to have 'created or saved' has actually been 'created or saved' by the 'wealthy' that you seem to hate.

There has been a net loss of government jobs over the last 3 years, so those nasty 'wealthy' people are obviously responsible for all growth in the private sector, since I don't know of anybody being hired by the 'poor'.

So funny...Jobs bill still popular? 44% is undecided and 30% likes it? really MSNBC....Really?

Roy -- Let's forget about politics for the sake of conversation. BTW..Like how you added the interest and because turn about is fair play...add it up for everything passed in the past decade and all roads lead to todays debts and deficits. I'll say no more here.

We discussed the energy issue a while back. You know my position but let me say for the record again everything we do in this area must use best practices, the least polluting technology available and safety/human life above all else. Money spent on preventative measures is money well spent. Remember cost/benefit is abstract not reality in my world. While we need to gain more independence in energy we also have to plan for 100 or 200 years from now. And in my opinion until we have reliable infinite sources we should be a little prudent in tapping our remaining sources. Think the worse case scenario. Tap some here but not all in other words. Why not take what we can from those friendly countries too. And yes use and develop green technology. I like it!!! Think Tesla! And I like Joule Unlimited and new innovations that preserve more resources and in Joule's case extend them.

To give you another perspective in energy issues, a few weeks back, while on vacation, I happened to stop in a little town in Nebraska to see the first Pony Express cabin and the town museum. I had a great conversation with the lady running the place and she started talking about a pipeline going through their town. Oddly enough I had just finished reading about that pipeline in WSJ or USA News. So I asked her how she and the towns people felt about the issue. Keep in mind it was a conservative town. That were adamantly opposed so much so they were in a pretty tough fight over issues of pollution reaching their water source. (Historic area, long history along the Platte.) Property right issues involved as well. In other words a mess. A week or so later another article reported the politicians were involved, all conservatives, who have joined in the opposition to the Canadian pipeline running through Nebraska. The other States were for it. So sometimes things appear easier said than done and it isn't always a Rep or Dem issue.

Does your civil engineering background drive your interest in energy?

For the record...I like the jobs act.. at least most of it and because nothing is perfect I support it. We shall see what happens. However I appreciate your perspective and ability to discuss an issue. Till next time.

Don't_carry_it_all Post # 2.112 - the jobs bill failed

I am with you somewhat baffled as to why in such dire straits the lower payroll small business tax, the hiring credits and so many other really sound ideas to help spur and carry the small businessman through these hard times went down to defeat today. Astonishing -

Again - HOW LONG - HOW LONG - HOW MUCH - HOW MUCH are we expected to take? The NOoooo Party, the Tea Baggers and of course the DINO's killed the whole bill with no alternative to offer up as relief for an up and down vote - there is no doubt if there ever was the Plutocrats, Corporatism, Wall Street want the economy to tank just to get Obama out of office everyone of the 99% can just die off they are on some mission? The question transparent when you see the H.R.'s to roll back the safe guards for a decent society as food protection and clean drinking water (they want you to buy water) for the middle class (all Americans) plus the lower upper and middle upper classes are in the cross hairs now. It is open season on 99% of America.

Good Luck............

So subsequent to your post my reading of the evening news the jobs bill failed - hard to believe it but there you have it........

Perservere -- You are correct that small business and the infrastructure industry, not to mention anyone looking for work, had a set back when the bill failed to even get to the floor for debate. It appears it will be broken up and voted on in a piecemeal fashion. Pay attention and hope there are some people willing to get past political pettiness. Personally I feel most of these measures will pass but I won't hold my breath with this Congress. People first, politics last is my motto. When people can take politics out of the discussion we will find common ground and work through these troubled times. We have many tough years ahead just to get back to where we were 10 years ago and before the financial crisis destroyed life as we knew it. Anything at this point is better than nothing. Keep your fingers crossed something gets passed. : )

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy -- Let's forget about politics for the sake of conversation. BTW..Like how you added the interest and because turn about is fair play...add it up for everything passed in the past decade and all roads lead to todays debts and deficits. I'll say no more here."

I think that any new bill or regulation should require a cost/benefit analysis, and net interest expense for 10 years should be part of the cost analysis, so people can gauge the true cost which can be balanced against the perceived benefit.

As for 'conserving' our energy reserves, I have to respectfully disagree with that idea, since we are currently in the 'transition' phase to alternative energy sources, which could take decades to make significant progress. In the meantime, those fossil fuel reserves will become less valuable over time. I believe that we should be using our own reserves as a 'bridge' to the transition to alternative sources instead of effectively wasting our own reserves while sending perhaps $5 Trillion of our hard earned capital to less than friendly nations over the next 10 years.

With my civil engineering background and an MBA in Finance from one of California's largest universities, I'm sure I have a slightly different perspective than many people, but I tend to look at things from a practical standpoint rather than an emotional one. Some might consider that a 'weakness', but I guess I'm stuck with it.

Roy -- Engineering and an MBA! Quite impressive and does explain your perspective. (I'm guessing you attended USC or UCLA, unless private, then there's only one school I consider great in that area! ) As a woman I bring a different perspective perhaps! ; ) While your logic is practical some things require less rigid analysis to allow for the uniqueness of humanness.

A few thoughts.....you said:

In the meantime, those fossil fuel reserves will become less valuable over time.

Explain your reasoning....through degradation or monetary value?

I believe that we should be using our own reserves as a 'bridge' to the transition to alternative sources instead of effectively wasting our own reserves while sending perhaps $5 Trillion of our hard earned capital to less than friendly nations over the next 10 years.

Well I can certainly agree to part of your reasoning here. To some extent we are doing both of these things now. If I understand, you would just like to ramp it up to full speed ahead, correct? Where do we store these reserves and will these mulltis agree to leave it in our reserves or would they/are they under an obligation to bring it to the world markets? Or are you more for using natural gas in more areas such as fuel for cars? Such as what Westport is doing?

My position is until we have permanent solutions to replace fossils we have no choice but to use these resources. Where we part on this issue is most likely stringent safety measures and effective controls over pollutions. Cost when it comes to these two factors should not even have a seat at the table. Instead best practice least polluting methods/technology available trumps all else. Including profits. Quit throwing money at the lobbyists and use it toward better healthier extracting methods for instance. Heck, I would even advocate for tax dollars towards paying for mandates in this area. A far better use of tax payer dollars in my book. What say you?

BTW -- Not a weakness when you understand the problem!

steer

horns

's eye

sh!t...

(sic) sheviks

pen

winkle

moose

emia

oney!

Obviously the red head and Clara aren't very bright if the don't know the difference between a Bull and a steer. Just like the two of them a steer has no balls.

dozer

ir12 beat me to it!

Excellent idea, ever wonder why neither party is interested in doing that?

Sounds good, but that would mean less profits (even if it helps America gets its manufacturing base back and JOBS), thus that would be against capitalism and in the eyes of many tea party folks, completely unAmerican.

Interesting that business wants a fair playing field for capitalism, yet still wants government intervention to eliminate regulations. What is it? Can't be both ways.

Eliminate all deductions for those making more than $200,000 a year except for charitable donations; eliminate EIC and other payments to those who don't pay taxes (though they would get a full refund of all taxes paid if they had enough deductions) and eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes that now exists.

What loopholes would you like to close? I keep hearing about these supposed "loopholes" but no one ever wants to specify what they are talking about.

What would that flat tax rate be? If it's less than 35%, I'm thinking most corporations would support it.

Would you also increase the taxes on foreign companies (who obviously have a high percentage of overseas workers) who build factories here in the US? Companies like BMW, Nissan, and Honda? Wouldn't that penalize them for bringing jobs to the US?

How would you distinguish between a domestic company who outsources jobs overseas and a foreign company that brings jobs to the US? (Assuming one should be treated favorably and the other punished).

Finally, how do you identify a company that is creating jobs in the US? If I lay off all my workers, and then hire them back, am I creating jobs? If yes, then won't all companies just lay off all their workers to get your new tax break? If no, then there's no reason for businesses that have already laid off their workers to bring them back.

@Too Funny - That's a terrific idea that the corporate lobbyists and many corrupted people in Congress will fight to death.

wlee-950886

Excellent idea, ever wonder why neither party is interested in doing that?

actually back in Sept of 2010, the Senate voted on voting for closing tax loopholes that reward outsourcing (offshoring) of jobs. Guess which party voted against the vote - all 100% of them. The Republicans did not even allow the Senate to vote on this bill.

During the GOP debate last night, Cain said something like, "We will get it passed because it's what the American people WANT."

Yeah. Right.

Spokanian that would mean a vast majority of the population (35-40%), specifically unwed mothers with children could kiss that $5-6K IRS check goodbye. Considering most of the folks that get the EIC put that money right back into the economy, and the facty that we are a consumer based economy, do we really want to shoot the economy in the foot (its a trade-off)?

I beleive we should LIMIT deductions for folks grossing over $1M/year. The rich and super-rich are buying properties (yachts, second homes, vacation homes, vacation properties...) and taking the interest deductions. I do not believe we should touch anyone grossing below $500K / year as they usually really are the job creators. Folks grossing more than a million / year do not create jobs, but are the executives of companies that give fat bonuses. DO NOT TAX CORPORATIONS...they will simply pas those costs onto the consumer, but tax the wealthy SOBs that work for them.

Ron,

and taking the interest deductions

because flying a private jet costs money - more money than most people earn in their lifetime.

Too Funny - You are right on point.

FL Act - "How would you distinguish between a domestic company who outsources jobs overseas and a foreign company that brings jobs to the US? (Assuming one should be treated favorably and the other punished)."

Documentation for newly created jobs and newly hired workers would be not be hard. Documentation similar to a W-4 for new hires work just fine. When a worker is laid off or terminated it is always documented. Also you must be careful about hiring a new worker. We had a worker terminated for certain reasons and we had to be "mindful" of the job title of a new hire. I cannot say much more about it. But a documentation systems could certainly be worked out.

bayllie, could you please provide the H R # to that bill you're referring to? I can do my own research and reading, I just need the bill #... I don't think the Republicans, in the Senate, bring bills to the floor and haven't since 2006 when the Democrats to over majority!!

Rustyboy, are you that clueless. It is the govt. that slaps those regulations on business in the first place. Of course you have to have the govt. loosen up the regulations, or your breaking the law. Or maybe you can just get Obama to go around Congress, as he seems to do often, and just not enforce the regulations. Maybe you should knock some of that rust off of your nogen and actually use it sometime.

Ron in Seattle- my husband's company is headed by a man who put himself through college and graduate school NIGHTS, while working full-time.

He started working for the company at ten cents above minimum wage- although he was married with two children. Somehow, they managed.

After years of hard work, he was promoted up through the ranks, and made president. He gets a low base salary- his compensation is heavily tilted to company performance. So, if the company does well, so does he. If not. . .

In 2009, there were to be no Christmas bonuses. He fought the board, and got them to agree that they would be paid as usual. He remembered what it was like when that bonus WAS all the money his family had for Christmas presents.

There were several part time workers who, in prior years, had been included in the bonus plan because things were going well, even though the company literature pretty much spelled out that they would not receive those bonuses. He took the funds from his own bank account, put them in the petty cash account, and had company checks cut for those people. Why do it that way? He did want want to embarrass those employees.

I guess that's one of the "rich SOBs" you despise so much.

Envy is an ugly emotion. You should work on it.

Too Funny,
I agree 100%!

You know the government has a tax on overseas production, they are called terriffs.
The problem is; China and Japan charge them on US goods, but we DON'T charge either country or the US businesses that use far east labor. How much revenue are we missing out on there?

The Republicans who fight for the corporations get twice as much money in donations; but the Democrats still get donations from the same companies, even if they vote against the interests of the corporations.

The Republicans are completely sold-out bastards; the Democrats are just bastards.

Military Man-1740371-

The last figures I saw was China charges us 25% to import goods to China; we charge China 2.5% to import goods to the U.S.

It's called Most Favored Nation trading status, and was conferred by Bill Clinton.

The reason behind it was pretty simple- we let them sell goods to us- mostnof which are "disposable" goods, and the threat of removing that status becomes a pretty effective weapon to use should the, say, threaten to invade Taiwan.

There is absolutely no excuse for Defense contractor manufacturing in China. None. It is also against the law, and an abrogation of their contracts, for them to do so- with appropriate penalties.

Unfortunately, despite a recent GAO report outlining shoddy Defense department goods, which included computer components for F15 fighters, coming from China- no defense contractor have been charged, no contracts nullified, no civil suits brought against these contractors.

One wonders why. . .

Not exactly "Fair Trade" is it, Chris?

Thanks for the assist.

I'm all for revamping the tax system but people are going to pay more regardless unless wasteful spending gets cut. I might think $25 dollar muffins for FBI meetings is wasteful spending while another thinks giving welfare to a crack mom with 5 kids is wasteful spending. So how do we prioritize it?

As for taxes, I think we've gone too far in the country where Corporations and Businesses are more important than the citizens. I don't remember reading in the constitution that IBM or Exxon has more rights less responsibilities than normal citizens. As for people's income taxes, they should be reset and almost all deductions eliminated. I can't think of one to keep but maybe there is a benefit to one or two. Second, everyone pays taxes. You make $5 in 2011, you'll pay 5%. You pay your quarter. I'm for a graduated scale, meaning the more money you make, a higher tax gets put on the additional money you make. I'm not sure now is the right time to make everything flat, everyone pays the same tax rate.

As for Business rates, I think we should charge them based on Gross revenue, not this bottom line bull crap. if you buy a tv or jet for yourself, do you get to take that off your income taxes as an expense? Nooo. so why should a corporation? Like GE making a billion dollar profit and paying no federal tax? Who isn't paying their fair share? I know they have stockholders who again get taxed but those are at even lesser amounts (and how many people you know own stock outright?)

NJNB: my husband's company...

NJNB, what this man did is exactly what liberals are advocating. Share the success, look out for your fellow man, work together to help society and the country progress.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

People with low IQ sould not talk.

All right listen up people. Bloomberg ran thenumbers on Cain's plan 2 days ago. The most interestingthing is that under Cain's plan coporation payeven less with the loopholesclosed than they do now. How canthat be you ask-after all closing off the tax expeidture shoud actually RAISE mor money. Corporate taxes are $191.1 Billion this year. Under Cain's plan theyare $127 billion. So where's does a ll the money go for closing loopholes?

The first thing you have to realize is the under Cain's plan business don't pay federal sales taxes on what they sell to other buinesses. That's a huge loophole bloomberg points out in thefine fine print. But not in the upper parts of the story.

But that could be turned around. Declare like Romney says every person being a corporation and no one would pay sates tax onanything. and that's the achilles heel of the Cain plan which not many realize.

Cain has also made other mistakes. His web site touts the tax deduction formedical expenses for both employers and employees. But that hasn'tbeen added to Cain's plan. Cainalso touts Medical Saving Accounts which are also tax deductable. Niether of those appear in Cain's plan.

But he still promises them in his speeches.

But the real thing is the disappearing money from closing tax loopholes.

Another pointno one has hit on-particularly Rep[ublicans who like to talk about "saving social security" Cain'splan eliiminates the socialsecuritypayroll tax. Thats an $854.4 tax transfer. The question is what funds social saecirty down the road. Caind oesn't say-and his Republican firends are too dumb to ask.To dayteCainhasn't said if the National Sales tax will fund social securty-andif so willit be ""lock boxed" to prevent it being used to pay for other things.

Technically closing doen the payroll tax zeroes out social securty money enterily. If fact it says there willbe not socail security.

So far no one-Demcrat or Republican has graped this fact. A fast onhis feet Rick Perryc ould nave nailed Cain on this-and reedeemed himself ons ocial security. Pet rock that he is, didn' catch on t.

"business don't pay federal sales taxes on what they sell to other buinesses. That's a huge loophole"

That's not a loophole. That's the way all sales taxes are, so that you don't have double taxation.

Think about it ... if I go to buy a candy bar at the drug store. The drug store bought the candy from their local distributor. The local distributor bought it from the regional distributor. The regional distributor bought it from the candy manufacturer. If businesses had to charge other businesses the sales tax, then tax would be charged 4 times!

While I greatly appreciate that you are one of the few who actually stated what one of these supposed "loopholes" is, get real. A true loophole is an unintended and overlooked opportunity for abuse, not the exact intention of the law.

And who do you think is actually going to pay the sales tax? I'll give you a hint ... it won't be Hershey. Whether the tax is added to the price on the sticker, or the sticker now just says $2 .... the consumer is who pays the sales tax.

actually back in Sept of 2010, the Senate voted on voting for closing tax loopholes that reward outsourcing (offshoring) of jobs. Guess which party voted against the vote - all 100% of them. The Republicans did not even allow the Senate to vote on this bill.

Hmmmmmmmm and where did you find out this information? Do you have the HR# of this bill? I too would like to read up on it.

Ellie, no problem. Bill #S. 3816 from Sept. 28, 2010.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00242

Bayllie, yes but did they support a flat tax, I don't think so.

wlee-950886

the entire tax system needs to be thrown out because it starts at 35% but has so many loopholes, deductions, deferrals, shelters, etc that mot companies end up paying zero.

why not start with ending the rewarding of companies that outsource? what is wrong with rewarding the companies THAT BRING JOBS HOME?

The Republicans are against it because it would mean -not raising taxes - but forcing companies to start creating jobs here. Now they get the best of both worlds. They get the loopholes AND they get to use cheap labor.

@no jo, no bo, nj

Not all wealthy people are greedy - there are many wealthy democrats willing to take the hit it's the PUBS that don't want to part with a penny. If your friend is a PUB then he is an enigma.

Most of my friends are upper executives in corporations - I should say were. Many of them worked their way thru college as well.

You should count your husband lucky and the guy running his company lucky - they have jobs. So sorry his bonus was all he had to buy his kids presents - what if he had no job at all and couldn't buy ANY presents. How would you like to go from $200K to $1,000 a month after being laid off. There are many people in this category. I feel sorry for these folks. I count my blessings everyday that I make good money and am gainfully employed, what I know is that it could end at any time. My company has been laying people off and they are starting with the execs and upper management so I could be next. We have saved and we are not over leveraged but I can tell you that I were to loose my job we would blast through that money in a matter of no time. We have a nice home that we HAD lots of equity in but no longer. So your story does not bring a tear to my eye.

@Rustyboy-FL It was the government that imposed the regulations to begin with. To eliminate regulations (usually called deregulation), it has to go back through the government to get it undone. See how simple that is?

More and more and more regulation. Soon big government will be regulating what we eat, what we drink, when we eat and drink, how much we eat and drink, etc, etc ad nauseum.

SouthernBelle,
I think you are a little paranoid about the government controlling your eating and drinking - that will never happen. I do like the fact that when I get on the plane, I kknow that is was inspected because the government says that it has to. I like the fact that when I go to work every day, I know that there are Labor Laws that will protect me. When I drop off my kids at school, I know the teachers had a background check done.

You are so against the gov. regulation? Give up your overtime and your breaks because I know you would not want to benefit from any bad gov. regulation.

http:/ /my.barackobama.com/President-on-Jobs

@ southern

I appreciate your thoughts. Yet, we got here because of the failings of business.

We can go back, and find we need to reinstate these regulations.

They were placed here for a reason. Bring us back to wherever, but these laws will reemerge.

There was a reason why they happened.

I could be wrong, but I thought the vote was to continue debate as opposed to doing a pass/fail vote.

This has not been happening for three years. The Democrats had a super majority for
two years and ignored the jobs problems to pass Health Care reform that may or
may not be found constitutional.

Jody - " It is important for voters to understand what has been happening for nearly 3 years."

We do understand, that is why nearly every election Since this administration came to power has been in favor of their opposition.

P.S.

"When asked simply if Congress should pass the legislation or not, 30 percent of respondents answer yes"

NBC found out that congress did exactly what it should have done. Only by "detailing" the points they felt would get the answer they wanted did the results become skewed.

Eric, that is bull pucky!! There was a stimulus bill. It created between 1 and 2 million jobs, and prevented many of our municipalities, from going bankrupt. The right, apparently you included, denigrate it, on a regular basis. There was also the TARP bail out of the auto industry which was a huge success.

Jody if I'm not mistaken the jobs bill failed to pass the Senate with 2 democrats and one independent/Democrat as well as the Repubs? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Even Harry Reid voted no.

Eric, Georgia

The Democrats had a super majority for two years...

Fox News says you're wrong.

Democrats' Senate Supermajority Not as Strong as Advertised

Published July 01, 2009

| FOXNews.com

Like an oasis in the desert, the 60-vote Democratic supermajority is a mirage.

Yes, former comedian Al Franken is now Minnesota's senator-elect -- thanks to the state Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday -- giving Democrats enough members in the Senate to hit a filibuster-proof majority. This is no laughing matter.

But that's on a really, really good day. For all intents and purposes, Democrats don't truly have 60 votes in the Senate.

With the addition of Franken, they technically have 58. Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., caucus with Democrats but don't define themselves that way.

Sanders, a socialist, is arguably the most liberal member of the Senate, so he's more than willing to buck the Democratic leadership when he doesn't feel the liberal wing gets a fair shake. Lieberman, by contrast, is a moderate who's plenty willing to challenge the Democratic leadership when he believes it veers too far to the left.

But the Democrats aren't even at 58 votes on most days.

Two of the most revered members of the chamber suffer from poor health. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., has rarely visited the Senate for more than a year because of a struggle with brain cancer. Sen. Robert Byrd, 91, of West Virginia who has been slowing down in the past few years, recently suffered a staph infection and spent several weeks in the hospital before his release Tuesday. Depending on the day, the Democratic "supermajority" could be as scant as 56.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/democrats-senate-supermajority-strong-advertised/#ixzz1aaixRRB2

Ron, you are right. It was only a vote to continue talking about it. It wasn't about voting 'for or against' the bill itself.

They had a super majority for a couple days, we had to keep trying to pick off a couple Republican Senators to get anything done.

The nickname "The Party of No" evolved from the Republican Senators saying no to everything with the fake filibuster during those two years.

Yea, we had majorities in the House and Senate for those two years but with the moronic filibuster rules nothing was able to get done.

More so today with "The Party of No" in control of the House.

Quit talking like everyone that is not a millionare is part of this "99%" BS. How did the banks get that money? FEDS Who made the banks make all those failed home loans? FEDS. How come no signs about Barney Frank and his boyfriend at Money Tree? No signs about Obama and his auto bailout???? No signs about Obama and the $30 billion he gave the small banks ????? Nothing but BUSH and Wall St. I call BS.

Ahetch: under the Senate rules, they can't even get to a vote until they talk about it for 3 months.

WTF do these guys do that they deserve $174,000 a year, plus perks.

I find it amazing that you liberal folks still believe in this Guy; He has failed miserably,

Has no solutions, and is either incompetent or so immersed in liberal ideology

That he will never see how much damage his poorly thought out ideas have damaged

the US economy. Thank god for elections, moderate swing-voters, and holding Obama

responsible for his results. 9.1% average unemployment????? Massive spending bills that will and

have wasted trillions??? Stopping new production of our own natural gas, oil, coal ect... In favor

of Green technologies that bear no fruit. Sad and ridiculous :(

wlee-950886

Jody if I'm not mistaken the jobs bill failed to pass the Senate with 2 democrats and one independent/Democrat as well as the Repubs? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Even Harry Reid voted no.

I like your selective reading..or understanding...or whatever you call it. Reid changed his vote FOR A REASON. Read the article as many times as it will take you to understand what it means.

Also, just because 2 Democrats voted against it does not mean that they will be worry free when it's time for their reelection. Hopefully their constituates look at their vote history before they re-elect them. And this goes for ANY politician regardless of what's after their name: (D) or (R).

Democrats never had a supermajority. The right wing loves to throw this lie out hoping it will stick. At their height, the Dem party had 58 votes. 2 short of a democratic party supermajority, and that's assuming that all 58 members were there to vote. It still required two independents or two republicans to vote with them.

I know some folks find math challenging, but if I recall, 58 is still less than 60.

between so called campaign contributions and lobbyist gifts they actually make serveral million a year for most of them.

Jody you're full of S**t. The tea party didnot even exist when the Dems rammed that piece of crap called obamacare down the American publics throat. The statement that the rich don't pay their fair share is a false assumption based on lies told by obuma. If we really want fairness, take away the credits for the do nothings that sit on their fat as**s and wait for a check (and a refund on their taxes). Stop fostering a environment of generational do nothings and do away with the tax laws we now have. create a use tax for everyone in this country, including the Illegals, then everyone will be paying their fair share.!!!!!

VaBooth

Quit talking like everyone that is not a millionare is part of this "99%" BS. How did the banks get that money? FEDS Who made the banks make all those failed home loans?

do some research and you will find out that banks were not forced to do anything - they enjoyed the huge amounts of money they made by selling these loans. When I bought my house in 2006, the banks were willing to give me anything I wanted for the mortgage - more than I needed. I respectfully said "no thank you." They had no interest in what I was making and what I owed. You could put anything on paper and the banks did not verify any of it. Many people I know experienced the same thing.

Let me ask you then why did we need a huge bank bailout in the 80s that involved the Bush family? You gonna blame Dodd and Frank for that one too?

wlee-950886

Jody if I'm not mistaken the jobs bill failed to pass the Senate with 2 democrats and one independent/Democrat as well as the Repubs? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Even Harry Reid voted no.

@wlee - Who among the 3 democrats who voted against the jobs bill is an independent? Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders are the only registered independent senators. Ben Nelson is not an independent, he is an opportunistic and a corrupted blue dog. Jon Testo is the same. Harry Reid switched his vote for the reason given in the article that it is clear, you did not read. I can't believe that you are allowed to vote.

DJ-422465

Democrats never had a supermajority. The right wing loves to throw this lie out hoping it will stick. At their height, the Dem party had 58 votes.

I know some folks find math challenging, but if I recall, 58 is still less than 60

it's because they count the 2(I) as Democrats which is incorrect. They also forget that Kennedy was dying of cancer and Franken was battling the mandatory statewide manual recount for about 8 months.

Rorschach-558483 I love how you use the Fox Ad to debunk there myth lol most of these people on the right have been reduced to name calling and sound bite Conspiracy Politics..BUT THEY WILL IGNORE THE FACTS AND KEEP SAYING IT UNTIL THEY BRAINWASH THEMSELVES BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD TO BE REPUBLICAN...IF YOU ASK THEM HOW THEY FEEL TO BE A REPUBLICAN THEY WILL SAY GREAT THEN NEXT QUESTION IS WELL WHY DO YOU FEEL GREAT THEN LET THEM ANSWER? usually a pause then some crazy answer about Taxes then you say Prove anything the republicans have done for this country that has Benefited the America People..The said Part there is Nothing...But debt and war and forcing another President to spend more money to clean the hell whole these guys seem to want to think is irrelevant...

Eric of Georgia I believe you may be somewhat misinformed. A super majority would mean the Democrats had 67 party members in the Senate, but instead Democrats had 57 seats (3) less than it would take to end the debate and have an up or down vote. So even though Democrats had the majority of seats in the Senate during the 111th Congress, there was not enough votes (60 required) to overcome an unprecedented use of the filibuster by the Republican minority.

Guess what we are about to repeat this cycle with the shoe on the other foot if Americans can't pull their head out of their proverbial (arses) and understand it doesn;t matter who is in the WH iof you have a Congress whose #1 objective is to cut your throat and watch you slowly bleed to death.

The US is on a downward spiral and a path of self-destruction unless its citizens take back its legislative process from wealthy corporations and lobbyist.

This has not been happening for three years. The Democrats had a super majority for
two years and ignored the jobs problems to pass Health Care reform that may or
may not be found constitutional.

Republican wanted to still the vote in MN. Republican claim voter fraud, 3 vote where fraud 2 for Republican and 1 for democrate. Republican try everything to win the people said no to them and not by much though.

Heep big trouble !

nearly every election Since this administration came to power has been in favor of their opposition.

Republican Administrations, Senators and Representatives (especially Gramm, Leach & Bliley) have espoused Supply-Side Free Market economics since Ronald Reagan (1980), now the Free Market has failed once again to correct itself and has required government intervention and is today engaged in Capacity/Supply dumping (bulldozing homes, bulldozing warehouses, shuttering plants and selling the stock they owned in their suppliers).

We already know what American citizens would gain from continued deregulation, and Supply-Side Economics has proven to be a pathological science. Just because it seems easy to understand (like a "9-9-9 Plan") does not mean it will bring value to the American economy.

The opposition to President Obama knows that he cannot be beat in this next election, that is why the Republican Party is running REJECTS like they did when they ran Bob Dole. The Religious-Right wing of the Republican party wants Mormons out, but the Republican Party wants that Mormon money in.

Tom, if what you say is true that the Dems. did not have a super majority then how did Obama care pass?

Mobdaro, It's clear you have problems with reading comprehension, Nelson is a Democrat, voted for healthcare Testo is a Democrat, Lieberman is indeed an Independent who votes Democrat, same goes for Sanders, and yes Harry Reid did vote against it after changing his mind, did he or did he not as far as voting goes don't worry about me I'm doing fine, but thanks for your concern.

Jody if I'm not mistaken the jobs bill failed to pass the Senate with 2 democrats and one independent/Democrat as well as the Repubs? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Even Harry Reid voted no.

Not defending Testor or Nelson, but they are from states that tend to be conservative. I'm sure Reid knew he didn't have enough votes to get past the filibuster. So Nelson and Testor didn't have to vote yes on it-- a vote that might be held against them -- until they get the votes to beat the filibuster. No need to stick their necks out for nothing.

This vote was merely to let the Republicans put up the rope with which they will hang themselves when it comes up for a vote next time.

Jody--#6

The vote was to STOP the Debate nor START the debate. Did you see the word "Filibuster" ANYWHERE in the article??? It was a PROCEDURAL vote nothing more nothing less.

And the bill will, in two short years, be another unfunded mandate for states. This is a crap bill.

"When asked simply if Congress should pass the legislation or not, 30 percent of respondents answer yes"

The fact that only 30% supported it shows that people know that "jobs bill" is an inaccurate/misleading label.

@ Pjam: No, it means that 30% actually took the time to understand the legislation, with the followup questions garnering 63% favorable views, it simply means the electorate needs to read more.

Proudamericanveteran, did you even bother to look for yourself? I went and looked at the summary and text of S.1660 and I didn't see anything in it about teacher unions. It looked like the education part of it was about hiring teachers and repairing schools, with an emphasis on poorer school districts.

Go to thomas dot loc dot gov and search for S.1660 yourself instead of spreading lies as facts.

Proudamericanvet- Get yourself a job and QUIT thinking you are smart. You are the dumest smartass, who has to come from the deepest south marshes. GO BACK!

@ Dave-2550157: Lies are all these Koch-suckers spew. They know the GOP scum in the Congress and Senate don't give a crap about America or it's citizens, they know their party is full of treasonous politicians whose only goal for the last three years has been to "get that black man out of the white house". All they can do is throw lies at the wall and hope some of them stick because they are the party of obstructionism, racism, traitors who make pledges to dirtbags like Norquist but ignore their pledge to the American people. The GOP/Teanuts on this site are either paid trolls, stupid, ignorant, racist, a combination of all the above or worse.

What is misleading about the "explanation" that the 63% liked is that it made it look like the $1.3 Trillion tax on the rich was going to pay for everything. The payroll tax deduction is a reduction in the Social Security contribution. Will that be replaced? How? When? That is not in the bill.

The Infrastructure Improvements are going to be paid by an Infrastructure Bank. This bank will sell bonds to the public, and these bonds will be guaranteed by the government. This is the FannyMae model. How will the bonds be repaid? The way things are now, we VOTE in our school districts to allow them to sell bonds for school construction. We do this knowing that our property tax (or the part of our rent that pays the property tax) will be increased to pay off the debt. If we can't afford it, we can vote NO. With this, we don't have a choice. The only assumption is that if these bonds default, we will all pay for not only our schools, but other schools, too.

Bond supported roads are generally toll roads. Are they going to charge tolls or are they going to wait until those default, and increase taxes again?

Taking $1.3 Trillion out of the economy is not good, no matter who it comes from. If the money is spent on private planes, there are pilots, maintenance personnel, parts manufactures, air port employees, and other non-millionaires making a living in private aviation. If they don't spend, but invest the money, then there is capital available for business to grow and hire. The jobs that are created or maintained this way won't end when the bridge is finished!

The bill allows small businesses tax credits for hiring new employees, especially veterans and those currently unemployed. While that sounds good, nobody is going to take a one time tax credit to hire someone they don't need. Taking $1.3 Trillion out of the economy will assure that less companies will need people, because that money will be doled out by the government, not in the economy buying goods and services.

The real answer is government spending cuts. Unfortunately, when you tell that to a Democrat or Republican, they fight over which necessary government function will be cut. They don't go back and look at all the waste and duplication of responsibility in the government that can be cut. Any other business that was running out of money would not cut customer service, but would cut "fat" so that they could keep their customers. Too bad the government doesn't operate that way.

Anyway, one can spin this bill so that 63% think it sounds good... like we are getting something for nothing. If one looked at the truth, I doubt it would look be popular.

eric in oregon

You nailed it brother. :-)

Roger

I believe what you are smoking is only legal for medical purposes.

God, you really don't get - the teachers and their Unions are not the enemy, they are us and we need to defend our rights to earn a decent living. Keep watching that reality TV and sitting on your sofa with the fried chicken.

The man on the street in this country would barely be able to pose an answer to those questions. Many studies have been done that show the average man on the street does not know the name of the nation's sitting vice president...this has been true for years. The average man on the street is unable to name one of two of his own state's US Senators. The average man on the street cannot name two Supreme Court Justices.

And the average man on the street can vote ! Hence, our problems !

I agree it's pretty pathetic and even more pathetic is the average college student/graduate does not know either. Being informed is up to the individual and many people just go through life on a wish and a prayer.

But what do you suggest? Do you want to test these people before they vote? Test them on what? The lies the politicians perpetrate? Let's just let the 1% run everything. They are hell bent on making it difficult for public teachers to do their jobs - they would love to dumb up our country further while their kids are in private schools.

Tony, we can't force people to be smart to vote, they outlawed that a while ago.

Less money for employers and "tighter" rules... so you want to destroy jobs, not create them?

Yeah, I want tighter rules. I don't want the banks and Wall Street to run the economy into the ground AGAIN and send us the bill -- again.

Less money for employers? Are you aware of the record profits being enjoyed by a large number of major corporations in the last two years?

Wall Street doesn't create jobs - it creates dividends.

to true funny but you wont see that as long as corporate campaign funding and lobbying by them are allowed. that needs to be changed before you will see anything get done for the common man in this country.

Although, last time I checked, every company listed on the stock exchanged had some employees. Some of them, actually have a lot of employees.

Whether you like them or not, you have to admit that corporations create jobs. Can you also admit that stock exchanges create, build, and expand corporations? If businesses can't raise money by selling stock on the exchanges, they can't expand and continue to create jobs.

If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C. Do you see where I'm going with this?

pjam09

Less money for employers and "tighter" rules... so you want to destroy jobs, not create them?

over 66% of corporations don't pay taxes already. Where are these jobs? According to your theory, they should be hiring like crazy. Any thoughts on that?

I've worked for a lot of companies and I've done a lot of tax returns, and I have never worked for or done a tax return for a corporation that didn't pay taxes.

They paid payroll taxes, excise taxes, activity taxes, permit taxes, registration taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and my personal favorite priviledge taxes ... a tax on the priviledge of being taxed!

Oh, you only meant Federal Income Taxes.

Of course many of them lost money, especially during downturns and recessions, and when you don't have any income, you don't have any income tax. Still, even when a company is losing money, and struggling to hang on, they pay taxes.

Also, did you know that 87.6% of statistics quoted statistics are made up on the spot, and 97.3% of all statistics are intentionally misleading? Further did you know that 12% of corporations are non-profits, and not subject to income tax? How about the 40% of corporations that elect a subchapter S status (mostly small businesses) and the taxes are paid by the owner rather than the corporation. So ... if 12% are non-profit, and 40% S-corps, you are really saying that 14% of corporations lost money?

And what difference does that make?

AMEN! Great post! The party of do nothing is going down! Can't wait to see if these right wingers are still on this site when that happens lol!!!!!!

WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE MAJORITY - YOU THE PARTY OF DO NOTHING IS THE MINORITY! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN OBAMA 2012!

FL Acct...are you saying that increased stock sales actually are the reason corporations create jobs? Why would they spend their increased revenues on jobs, when there is no demand for the corporations' goods or services? Last I checked, no business with any sense at all would do that. What needs to happen is for the demand to go up FIRST. And selling stocks doesn't do that. Putting cash in employees' hands does that (through pay increases)! Giving John Q. Public a cash infusion does that (through tax breaks or stimulus). Anybody who believes giving corporations tax breaks equals jobs is drinking from the TP kool-aid trough!

You can't put the cart in front of the horse....you can't expect corporations to just create jobs out of the goodness of their....uhhh...."hearts", and expect the demand to just happen. Business owners just won't make that leap of faith. Business owners don't do ANYTHING unless it lines their pockets to do it! Not even if their small sacrifice of profits means putting more people to work.

Devil's ... I am certainly not saying that stock sales are the reason corporations create jobs, and they definitely won't spend money when there is no demand.

But you can't put the cart before the horse either! Customers are heartless ba$terds, and they won't make a leap of faith either unless it lines their wallets.

Customers will not just buy products out of the goodness of their "hearts", and they won't pay more for a product if there is a cheaper alternative. "Public cash infusions" won't create any new production or jobs, and will only create a greater demand for Chinese imports. That's what the "stimuli" have done so far, and while we are drowning in debt without making a dent in unemployment, Chinese business is booming.

How's that working for ya so far?

Super...

Rah ! Rah ! and Rah !...."Four More Years" with Mr. Obama in charge !

I am simply giddy with anticipation.

Fawn...

If "Wall Street doesn't create jobs"...as you wrote...then why were there stories all over the news yesterday that "Wall Street" is expecting to lay off 10,000 employees within the next 12 months.

Were they lying just so they didn't have to see or smell the "Occupy" protesters ???

Absolutely! And make sure that their pay or compensation or whatever they want to call it is fully defined and includes all the shares of stock they receive, their bonuses, and their expense accounts.

The top 1% have many of the American people bamboozled into thinking that the only way for an American corporation to grow and prosper is for the CEO to be paid MEGA-mega-bucks. (Interestingly enough, they get paid mega-mega bucks even if they run the company into the ground, thanks to their lucrative golden parachutes!) Americans who have bought into this fallacy need to look at all the successful corporations in the rest of the world that are growing and thriving and providing a great return to shareholders-- and doing so with a CEO whose compensation is based on the compensation of the lowest paid person in the company.

There's only one problem, and although rather small, it can be difficult to overcome. It's an obscure set of rules, commonly misunderstood by Republicans and generally unheard of to Democrats. The technical term for it is the Constitution.

The government does not have the authority to limit what a corporation can pay its employees. It is a private contract, between the corporation's board of directors and the employee. The government has no power or authority to dictate the terms. They can't legally set a limit on a CEO's pay any more than they can set a limit on how much you pay your son to mow the lawn.

Then take a look at how many CEO's actually started or built the companies they work for. Even if that measly Constitution wasn't in the way, would you be trying to set a limit on what you can pay yourself? Look at the list of the billionaires from Forbes. Walton, Gates, Buffet, Branson, Brin ... these guys started and built the companies that paid them their fortunes. How can you set a limit on what they pay themselves?

hate to burst your bubble but most of them nowadays just inherited their companies. why do you think they have no idea how to run them. also as far as the constitution goes where does it say in it that the govt needs to bail out business that start to fail because of bad decisions and fraudulant practices.

Eric ... no bubble to burst.

As far as inheriting, please name a couple, especially billionaires. What billionaire CEO's inherited their companies? Further, if you just go down the list of the highest paid CEO's, I think you have to go a long way before you find one who inherited rather than built their fortune.

On the bail out, however, you are exactly right. It never says the government should or needs to bail out any business. To be fair though, at least it doesn't say the government can't bail them out. Maybe not a great idea, but at least it's not illegal.

AMEN!

FL Acct:

Hmmmm... inheriting business? The first to come to mind are the Koch Brothers.

F L: Absolute nonsense. Public owned corporations do not belong to the CEO or the board of directors. They can be legally regulated and should be. Germany requires that labor be represented on the board.

We need to force our public owned corporations to pay our minimum wages wherever they go. When the CEO of Disney made 600 million in salary and God knows what in bonuses, he had children working in Haiti for 12 cents an hour. This is the coldblooded evil that is destroying America.

Frank

When did the jerk from Disney give the Haitian kids the 2 cent raise? If the other Republicans knew that, they would shun him for extravagant treatment of the working class.

Koch industries is a privately held company. Since the original proposal was "Limit Public Company's Officer and Board of Director's Pay to a ratio " they really don't apply.

Further, as a privately held company, they don't have to disclose how much they paid. Therefore, you don't really know if they even received a salary or options last year.

Really, any salary was likely small. As shareholders, however, they could declare whatever dividends they wanted as walking around money.

Frank

The board of directors is elected by and to represent the interests of the owners of a corporation. They are often large holders of stock themselves, particularly in closely held businesses. In salary negotiations with officers, the board represents the owners.

There can be regulations. You can have "labor" present if you want, and even give them a position on the board. We already have tons of required proceedures, disclosures, and other mandates to regulate how the board sets the compensation levels. All of that is legal. You cannot, however, tell them what they are allowed to pay. The government does not have that authority.

The shareowners of public corporations have the power to force changes, but in most cases, more than half the shares are owned by institutions. Your mutual fund and hedge fund managers are not going against high paid executives because it would put their own compensation in the spotlight.

That really is Too Funny. Where do you get the right to tell the owners of a company how much they can pay their employee. If you want to dictate how much a CEO can make invest your money and start a corporation. Although I am almost positive it would fail because you would not pay enough to attract the best and brightest.

Dave, regardess if the shareholders are institutions, they are shareholders, and the majority gets to set the pay levels.

You are right ... it sucks. Just like our government is made up of a bunch of lawyers, they still get to make laws. Congress even gets to vote on their own pay raises ... how's that for a conflict of interest?

What can you do? Don't buy stock in a company that pays their executives more than you like. It's your right. Me, I'm going to buy stocks where I think the CEO is going to maximize my investment, regardless of how he does it or how much he gets paid. As long as I can get more rather than buying a different stock, I'm in.

Did I mention I sold all of my Apple stock? Jobs was worth more than double anything they ever paid him, and I am sure they would have paid double again to keep him around. Don't believe he was worth it? Watch what happens to Apple stock over the next couple of years.

The GOP would block any legislation by the President---even if it magically erased the national debt. "Just say NO!" Dicks