E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
President Barack Obama suggested Monday that congressional Republicans were acting hypocritically by opposing an extension and expansion of a payroll tax cut set to expire at the end of this year.
The president assailed the GOP in a statement at the White House, accusing them of reneging on a pledge to not raise taxes by voting against a Democratic proposal that would cut extend the tax cut in 2012, and pay for it by a surtax on the wealthy.
"Now, some Republicans who have pushed back against the idea of extending this payroll tax cut have said you’ve got to pay for this tax cut. I'd just like to point out they haven't always felt that way," Obama said.
"Over the last decade, they didn't feel the need to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans ... Indeed, when the Republicans took over the House at the beginning of this year, they explicitly changed the rules to say that tax cuts don't have to be paid for. So forgive me a little bit of confusion when I hear folks insisting on tax cuts being paid for."
Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are feuding over whether to extend and expand the one-year payroll tax cut authorized last year by Congress as part of a year-end package to extend the expiring Bush tax cuts, as well.
Obama called for cutting the payroll tax even deeper in 2012 as part of his American Jobs Act, and extending it to employers as well. The Senate voted on a version of that proposal last week, but fell short of the 60 votes needed to proceed when a handful of Democrats joined Republicans in opposition to the plan.
But there isn't even Republican unanimity on extending the tax cut. A GOP proposal to extend the tax cut -- financed by cuts to the federal workforce, a freeze in pay, and means-testing certain benefits -- failed 20 to 78 when a number of Republicans joined Democrats in opposition to the plan. Some Republicans worry that continuing the payroll tax cut, which funds Social Security, would worsen the entitlement program's already troubled finances.
The fight now revolves around how to finance the extended tax cut in a way that can win support in both parties. Obama said he's willing to work with Republicans to extend the tax cut in a "responsible" way.
"What I'm not willing to do is pay for the extension in a way that actually hurts the economy," he said.
Senate Democrats unveiled a new proposal Monday that scales back the scope of the tax cut extension, but still largely relies on a surtax on high earners to pay for the cuts. Republicans reject this surtax as a "poison pill," though it may indicate that both sides of the aisle are moving toward a compromise, especially as they work to finish up legislative business for the year.
"If the president wants to make progress, he should insist that Senate Democrats remove the job-killing small business tax hike from their partisan proposal," snapped Michael Steele, spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner in a statement following the president's address.
Electoral politics compose part of the backdrop for the fight, too. The White House has pummeled Republicans throughout the fall for opposing different elements of the president's jobs plan, from infrastructure investments to the tax fight currently before lawmakers. Each vote on these components, Democrats are betting, puts Republicans in a tough spot heading into an election year that's focused squarely on economic issues.
"I know many Republicans have sworn an oath to never raise taxes as long as they live," Obama said Monday. "How could it be that the only time there's a catch is when it comes to raising taxes on middle class families? How can you fight tooth and nail to protect high-end tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and yet barely lift a finger to prevent taxes going up for 160 million Americans who really need the help?"
The president also urged lawmakers to extend expired unemployment benefits. Failing to do that "would to extraordinary harm to the economy," Obama warned.
This item was last updated at 2:38 p.m.
President Obama says Congress needs to extend a payroll tax cut, saying the economic recovery is "still fragile" and middle class families need the money. Watch his entire statement.
Leave a Comment:
Of course Republicans are hypocrites! They detest you President Obama. Anyone saying different has closed their eyes for the last three years. You are a reminder of how they turned the South into a Republican stronghold. It was Civil Rights. You are a very positive role model for the effects of civil rights. An "in your face" reminder of how everyone can succeed, regardless of the color of their skin, if given equal access. Something Republicans ran against in order to take away the Southern States from the Democrats. And now it is all coming to a head! That is all it is. They won't work with you. Ever! They are a product of Southern Republican Culture.
Simply calling Republicans hypocrites is playing nice.
In reality, the Republicans are lying hypocrites!
On another note. Keep up the fight for us working folks! We appreciate it very much.
Give em hell Mr. President!
The political winds are blowing in your direction!
The way you boxed the GNOP into a corner is nothing short of brilliant!
Let's see if they'll put the $$$ where their mouths are...?
Tea Party, thy very name is hypocrisy!!
Just look at who they want to nominate: Newt is one of the most corrupt, big government, non-family oriented politicians of our times. Just because he's got good debatin skillz. Geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!
Hypocrisy? The GOP??
Aww.......Pishawwww.
Have the Dumocrats performed any better? Both parties are a joke but some people only see one side of it.
Yep, the Bush tax cuts didn't have to be paid for, but the payroll tax cuts do.......get 'em Obama.
Unless you are a black ..... conservative.
Sure would have been fun for "black" America to see Cain and Obama standing on the stage and comparing their "black" stories, right?
Nice example of liberal racial snot though, Ana.
DBO,
Whatever befell GOP is not ordinary. They've redefined the word, hypocrisy.
What the heck! Why on earth did your post get collapsed, Fiesty? By anyone's standards, it was pretty moderate.
Only thing worse than a hypocritical Republican is a lying thieving Democrat. The Con-Man currently running our nation is running out of excuses. 2012 should be a hoot.
The GOP is merely driving another nail into its political coffin. They can lie about what they do but they can't hide from it, and this nonsense will haunt them right into next November's election.
The Bummer needs to stop his snivelling and review the bill he signed into law on presidents' weekend 2010. He said that all programs needed to be a "pay as you go" system. You have to find the money in the budget. Need more money in one area - take it from another. He talks about the others being hypocrites when he does the same thing. It's that selective memory.
I have an idea let's vote all the republicans out of office, that way we can get this country on track in a balanced even way.
They are just a bunch of corrupt liars, being led around by their noses by Grover Norquist. Is this who we want running our country?
About those Bush tax cuts that weren't paid for .....
Clinton’s best year, 2000, generated revenue of $2.025 trillion.
(After Bush’s tax cuts in 2003 had time to take effect:)
Bush’s revenue in 2005 was $2.153 trillion. 6% above Clinton’s best.
Bush’s revenue in 2006 was $2.406 trillion. 16% above Clinton’s best.
Bush’s revenue in 2007 was $2.568 trillion. 21% above Clinton’s best.
Bush’s revenue in 2008 was $2.524 trillion. 20% above Clinton’s best.
So how again, does that tax cut stuff “cost” trillions in revenue?
[Source was OMB, Historical Tables, Table 1.3, 25-MAR-11]
Besides blocking the creation of millions of jobs in the American Jobs Act 3 times and preventing it from coming up for debate, GOP congessionals are protecting the pockets of millionaires & billionaires at any cost, and refuse to negotiate.
Grover Norquist told Republican Senators that increasing taxes on millions of middle-class working people, doesn't count as raising taxes.
This disagrees proufoundly with what Norquist says repeatedly with an iron fist and displays via his Pledge signed by 99.9% of GOP at all levels, about the high-end of the Bush tax cuts.
Oh Bob, Oh Bob...And what were the EXPENDITURES???????? Or don't you understand the concept of "CASH FLOW." Source: High School ECON 101.
bob
Two wars and a very dumb prescription drug bill made a lot of difference, huh? In addition, when you adjust for inflation the revenue was not higher during the Bush years (inflation is another Econ 101 concept).
Way to only watch ONE SIDE of the balance sheet bob.
Say, were the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan IN the budgets, or OUT?
(pssst, the answer is OUT, W happily played games with VERY expensive wars and their budgets!!)
And I LOVE that 3 people have already 'thumbs up'ed your post of unmeasurable ignorance. You 3 can count yourselves as blind sheep as well!
--Continued from #1.16:
Now THAT is what you call Hypocrisy - from NorquistKochGOP and Co.
In triplicate.
Times n to the power of 8 gazillion.
With knobs on.
Plus the number you just thought of.
Minimum.
The difference is Obama has a brain and no brain Cain does what his masters tell him....get it.
Clinton mandated banks give home loans to unqualified buyers and started the housing fiasco. The giveaways and democratic ways have led to Detroit and California's debt. It's nice to give money away for votes, but you have to pay sometime. Bad mouth repubs all you want, but who is being responsible? Obama says one thing and does another. He is in bed with bankers. It's amazing.
Paul F,
Unless you've been on the street a little, you wouldn't know this, but the old adage is, "You can work with a thief, but you can't work with a liar." People with street smarts know that. No, a thief is not worse than a liar.
The GOP is in a no win situation. If they play ball according to Obama's rules (that he keeps changing to suit his needs by the way and in case his sheep haven't caught on yet) then they go back on their promise to lower government spending. As yet, neither the Senate Majority Liar, Harry Reid, nor the Liar In Chief, Obama have said how they plan to pay to fund these wonderful payroll tax cut extension. Speaking of which, what business person in their right mind is going to hire someone full-time (even for minimum wages,) that is going to cost them between $15 and $20K per year (when you factor in all the costs of having a full-time employee such as matching Social Security and Medicare and worker's comp insurance, just to save $2,000 a year? Does that make sense to anyone other than Reid and Obama? Obama thinks that American business people are STUPID and that they are going to jump at the crumbs he is offering and suddenly end the recession by hiring massive amounts of people, or at least this is what he wants his sheep to believe. People accuse the GOP of playing dirty politics? Well fact is they do and so does the anointed one, Obama. People accuse the Republicans of lying? Well they do! But how easy it is for them to ignore the many, many lies Obama has told and is telling. People need to get real. Obama, being a typical Washington politician, lies nearly every time he speaks. He can't help it and one point or another because people in different parts of this country want to hear different things on the same subject. ESPECIALLY during election year(s) they do this and if you don't believe it simply watch what Obama does more than what he says. His actions betray his words. Speaking of which, Obama loves to play with words. If people listened carefully, he said our "Combat" troops would be removed from Iraq by 12/31/2011. What he neglected to explain is that somewhere between 1500 and 5000 support troops and "advisers" would be left in the country. He also neglected to tell us that in many cases this amounted to nothing more than a group of combat soldiers changing the patches on their shirt sleeves and jackets to designate them as support or advisory troops. Folks this is but a small example of how Obama lies to us and the media helps him. They make a big deal over showing how U.S. bases in Iraq are being closed down and troops leaving, while failing to tell the whole picture about the bases being left open and the troops left in Iraq. Both the media and Obama are trying to paint the picture that Obama has fulfilled his campaign promise of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq when in fact that (a) was not his original idea (it was GW Bush idea and signed into law by Bush not Obama,(b) is a down right lie in light of the fact that not "ALL" U.S. troops are being withdrawn as Obama promised and would have us believe.
Fact is ALL of our Washington politicians (Democrat or Republican) ,Congress of the White House are liars. it is a way of life for them and found to be necessary to at least some degree to get re-elected (IE tell the people what they want to hear.) So essentially Obama calling the GOP hypocrites and liars is very much the pot calling the kettle black. At this point it is the GOP that is at least attempting to keep the 2010 campaign promise to reduce government spending and the size of the Federal Government. This is a threat to the Obama Agenda and he has already demonstrated that he will stop and nothing to prevent it from happening.
Jack;
Channeling my inner Jack Nicholson - THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! lol
obama does not want to raise taxes now ?
wow, theres a 180 for ya.
"What the heck! Why on earth did your post get collapsed, Fiesty? By anyone's standards, it was pretty moderate."
I wondered that, too, Jack- until I saw the number of votes it garnered. Can't have that, now can we?
Because revenues would have been that much higher, of course. Taxes have only gone down from there, so where are the jobs?
So if you're against the Bush tax cuts because they cost revenue and are not paid for how can you be for a payroll tax that is draining money from SS, the very program that alleviates poverty of the retired poor.
It's the same like the argument I am pro-life AND pro capital punishment or pro choice AND against capital punishment.
In truth it's Democrats for tax cuts proposed by Democrats and Republicans for tax cuts proposed by Republicans.
At the end of the day all politicians are hypocrites and if you want evidence look at the debt ceiling fight where all politicians were for/against raising the debt ceiling except when its the other party that want to raise it.
dbo,
Right. I hadn't thought of it that way. Sheesh! Bunch of cry-babies!
Who is in bet with the bankers MAW?
This was the Republicans under Bush in 2008 that gave TRILLIONS TO FOREIGN BANKS AND WALL STREET, and have never been held accountable for their actions (although they have become very wealthy from them.)
2008 REPUBLICANS and BUSH gave away three times the amount of our national budget without worrying about paying for it!!
Read the report. Goes a long way in explaining our current ecconomic condition - you know, the one you attempt to blame on Obama when, in FACT, Bush and the Republicans clearly did it
And now you want us to give you another chance in the White House??? I don't think so! In fact, I say throw you ALL out in 2012; allow President Obama to fix your mess.
Feisty,
Can we talk a lot more about why you got collapsed?
We could do that for a couple of years and not be spected to prove or disprove the giant Whoppers getting posted @ us.........
..........from the Beyoooooond.
TO: AnaBanana-1782128 who wrote:
In reading your post, it suggests that they hate President Obama because he's part black, which would follow that Republicans hate all blacks AND the progress blacks have made over the years.
I could only add that Republicans hate all Democrats because Republican Leaders have trained their followers that way.
I pretty much agree with your entire post.
Here is the link to the GAO report if you want to check it out for yourselves:
http:/ /www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
Meh - I'm used to it by now!
It's always better to have a bulls-eye on your back than a boot on your neck! ;o)
I sure wish Newsvine would disable to collapse feature altogether - all it does it turn a thread into a *collapse* pissing match!
Everyone is entitled to have their say, regardless of whether or not I agree with it!
Uh, American Girl, how about you tell us all what progress blacks have made under Obama...and please be specific!
bob-1805084 - Bottom line is it all went to the wealthy 1% of the population. You guys just don't get it do you.
We can talk about yer canary then.
Anything but the no-fact whopper pooperscooper plane of persistence.
I have a blue canary called Petal. She is the other half of blue Petie who is considered Gone. She is extremely loud. Ok. Better.
Former Congressman Alan Grayson - who has read this report in depth - suggests you pay particular attention to the following pages:
Here is the link to the GAO report if you want to check it out for yourselves:
http:/ /www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
And here you have it. Last year everyone was wanting to allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire, and now they have "flip flopped" because one of their own does not want his tax cuts to expire. Oh how we have changed in just over a year.
Anyone know what a "fair share" is around here? Just would like to know what a 1%er's fair share should be. Because at this time, those 1%ers pay about 36% of all federal income tax dollars taken in by the federal government.
Please someone, tell me what their "fair share" is?
Jack -- I always vote for FR friends, especially when the post has been collapsed for no good reason. My hope is a post or thread can be restored if it is voted back up? The right-wing posts that really bug me are off-topic, or when it's apparent they do not read other posts first, because they repeat something already debunked (I report these as No Value).
Back on topic... The LIE that tax cuts pay for themselves is really key here. Tax cuts for the richest 1% (or even richest 2%), A.K.A. "job creators" have been in place for over a decade with no stimulus to the economy and NO job creation. Tax cuts like the payroll cuts for the working class and small business are far better at stimulating the economy, albeit a small boost.
The loss in revenue from tax breaks for those earning $250,000 and above is huge, and in reality the Teapublicans have tried to off-set this on the backs of the middle class. Whether it is laying off first responders and teachers, or now wanting to lay-off more federal employees and/or freeze already stagnant wages is despicable. How can demand increase if people don't have decent jobs and disposable income?
Truth be told, Teapublicans don't want the economy to improve, and worse it is because of hatred for our president. I always ask why Teapublicans hate America so much, and I'm not being facetious. It's the GOP and 1% against the 99%, it's high time to throw the Teapublicans out.
I agree that Social Security must continue to be funded (well, I don't believe tax cuts pay for themselves or that the market corrects itself via the "invisible hand" and other voodoo economics superstitions held by the right-wing). But real stimulus cannot be off-set from additional job loss or disposable income loss as proposed by the Teapublicans.
And unemployment is one of the best economic stimulators too. We need to do some things right now to continue to recover. And we can do it in many ways, for example:
I was listening to this the other day on the news, how so much money for building roads has been stolen by Afghan contractors, who have since moved to Europe. Go Claire McCaskill! You can't help those who won't help their own country--you can't change their culture of corruption. Heck, good luck trying to change our culture of corruption...Go OWS!
Which reminds me, both Parties have negatives, but both Parties are NOT equally to blame for our woes. This is a cop-out fallacious argumentation made by conservatives -- Not unlike "if other kids can do it, why can't I?" There is always a lesser of two evils, and two wrongs don't make a right. Conservatives--just own up to the fact that Republicans suck the most!
True Patriot,
I keep answering Big B on the **'fairshare' hotsbuttons topic** and other issues that he will not face up or down to (either way).
e.g. At the Fair, everyone gets to chuck things at plastic ducks and the dude running the game rips everyone off equally, unless he is biased or sorely tempted to do right for some reason.
Now we know Norquist is neverever biased, and so I am at loss to explain it to him.
Typical!
BTW - I left you a note over @ the Dew Drop Inn! ;o)
TorpedoYourself,
Obama's words from above ....
The revenue chart I gave showed the tax cuts INCREASED REVENUE even above Clinton's best year, even revenue above the level before the dot.com bubble bust and recession.
Sorry if it went over your econ 101 head. It shouldn't have.
don,
Not to revenue, dummy. Spending made the difference, the rise in debt - not above average revenue.
Bush's revenue in 2007 was 18.5% of GDP with spending at 19.6% GDP for a deficit of $160.7 billion.
Obama's deficit was TEN TIMES that $1,645.1 billion in 2011!
Same source, btw.
Way ahead of the other libs, don for even thinking it.
You are correct for 2005 by a slim margin in constant 2005 dollars - Bush's 2006, 2007 and 2008 still beat Clinton's best when adjusted to 2005 dollars.
However you are not taking into account where Bush started. The revenue 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 dropped way below Clinton's best in 2000 due to the dot.com bust and recession. Revenue in 2003 with the Clinton tax rate was $1,782.3 billion compared to $2,025.2 in 2000.
Bottom line is that the Bush tax cuts worked in raising revenue.
BTW - Same chart has the adjustment.
How stupid can some be?
Libs literally collapsed the facts from the Office of Management and Budget.
I understand libs not having the mental facility or facts to debate the issue. I understand the libs collapsing opposing viewpoints. But .....
The Office of Management and Budget?
No wonder libs are so utterly ignorant.
Feisty,
Thanks for letting me know. Very nice. Posted a wee message to him/her.
They made it to the presidency for one.
Bib Bear:
I answered your question in an earlier post. The answer to your question - how much is a fair tax? - is purely subjective. Your question is also a straw man, and you know it. All you wish to do is prompt a pissing match.
The correct question(s) is - Do we want to balance our government budgets and pay off our debt? After we have decided what we want to do on that score, then we decide how we raise revenues.
Once again, no answer to BBs question. Taxing "millionaires and billionaires", even at exorbitant rates, doesn't solve the countries deficit/debt problem. You either have to grow the base of increased taxes to include taxing the middle class, or cut spending. Seeing we continue to run deficits of $1.5 trillion a year, we're still waiting for the first cuts.
You liberals are so quick to jump on the bandwagon of "Raise taxes", but you never say specifically on who or by how much. BB brings up a valid point, the top 1% pay 40% of the federal income tax. Somehow that's not enough? What would be enough and how much tax revenue would it bring in?
Come on Libs, back up your rhetoric with some real numbers.
"They"? No. Obama made it. Blacks still have the highest overall unemployment rate at 17% or so. Black youths unemployment is over 25%. Black youth in the DC area are unemployed at a 50% rate. Poverty, food stamps, and unemployment benefits have all increased for blacks, and everyone else, under Obama.
That's the real "they" culheath.
Culheath, Mr/Ms Pleasantry's logic:
is that President Obama is the 'Only One from Mars'.
Gosh, there's Michelle, two children and their grandmom -
See now, that makes FIVE of them/they already.
not as stupid as you think
You are one uneducated person. You spew all that crap about the Republicans and Bush giving out all that money in 2008. Who the hell controlled Congress in 2008? I'll give you a hint, they won the election in 2006 and started their spending spree in January 2007. Yup, the DEMOCRATS. They wrote TARP, they passed TARP, President Bush signed TARP. So please get an education before you say that Republicans spent all that money on the banks. Your lengthy posts wouldn't even make good TP. They are already BS.
Backhouse,
From earlier posts, I have answered your question, you on the other hand have cut and pasted articles about millionaires, you have said there is plenty of articles about "fair share". Yet you yourself have no opinions, no answers. So as long as we tax those who have earned more money, then you are okay with it.
David Walker,
You put all kinds of cute little stories on the blog, but what are your solutions, do you really think that taxing those people more is going to solve our problems. REALLY, do you believe the stuff that you say.
None of you can sit here and quote a percentage that a person who makes a million dollars should be taxed. You are no better than any politician in Washington DC. Always have to beat around the bush, or blame someone for your downfalls. It would be nice to see a number/percentage, that you think the 1%ers should have to pay.
I know you are scared, because if you put a number with your complaining and it doesn't work, then you can't ask for more.
I will send out a number for discussion--9% income tax for all people, NO deductions, NO loopholes! Would you like to discuss those numbers.
POT....meet KETTLE
Big Bear:
Let's have at it. The last time I proposed a solution, you sniveled because one of my answers was to remove exemptions for children. Oh hell no, we couldn't do that, because it would hit YOUR wallet.
Don't give me your holier-than-thou crap. Your 9% solution is utterly absurd.
As I asked earlier, when you first threw out this garbage, what are your plans for government budgets? Do you plan to have them balanced, and if so, when? Do you plan to repay debt and bring unfunded liabilities into the black, and if so, when? Do you plan to keep Social Security intact? Do you plan to retain Medicare?
Save your simplistic BS for Teabaggers. Lay out some honest expectations. We'll take it from there.
Finally, YES - most emphatically YES, I definitely believe what I say. Even better, as opposed to the drivel you post, I KNOW what I'm saying
You can compose a summation of some kind about me based on yourself, but that is all it can be.
Happy decoding the possible meanings of homo sapiens sapiens!
Go for it and good luck!
Can anybody from either side of the aisle explain to me why you want an extension of this cut?
- You are further defunding Social Security and medicare, which are already hurting.
- Obama claims that offsetting revenue will come from the so called "millionares tax" which he hasn't even passed yet. The language of the bill does not specify that the revenue would go towards FICA, which is where the cuts come from
-Another fact everyone is glossing over is that a large portion of the cuts come from employers matching contributions. While we only recieve a small amount as individuals, employers keep that same amount for each employee on thier staff. This is a HUGE bonus to businesses at the expense of the SS fund and medicare
Given these three facts, why does anyone think this is a good bill?????
I personally will give up the 25$ a week to preserve my SS in the future.
So Obama lovers and haters alike. What's to like about this bill?
calling someone a hypocrite about political matters is like calling them "air breathers." Just consider the words of the immortal Gary Condit, "Hypocrisy is better than having no values at all."
Funny, Obama blaming again. Blame, blame. blame!
The article even stated "...a handful of Democrats joined Republicans in opposition to the plan." This was a bipartisan effort to kill the bill but Obama points blame at the Republicans. Priceless.
Alil -- Social Security and Medicare are already being paid from the general fund so it just contributes to the general deficit. Cutting the payments from employers makes some sense because it is business, small and large, which creates jobs; individual millionaires create hardly anything, except, perhaps, jobs for domestic servants.
Very rarely Madame, do you tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
For those of you who can't grasp why Democrats are okay with this tax break, but not with the Bush cuts, it's really very simple. This increases taxes on the middle class, taking around $1500 out of their pockets per year (I think). Creating a tax on income greater than (and only the portion that's above) $1 million dollars would easily pay for an extension of the tax holiday, and would effect mostly hedge funds, law partnerships, and private equity firms. Now, seeing as those were some of the people most directly responsible for the financial meltdown, and are also the people who've seen their wealth and earnings shoot through the roof over the past 30 years (while, I might add, everyone else's ceased growing in 1973), I say DO IT. When you're that rich, the amount being taken from an increase would be pocket change. When you're average, however, $1500's a sh(% load of money.
So please, explain to me the logic of increasing the tax burden on those hurting the most, when you could get more money from those who wouldn't even miss it?
Sarah, thank you for some sanity. Wierd how your post ends and nothing more is spoken about it. Thanks!
Thanks, King!!!
Sarah darling, there is one basic flaw in your logic. When this special payroll tax "reduction" was enacted about 1 year ago, it was intended to be a ONE-YEAR TAX BREAK, hopefully, to give taxpayers a TEMPORARY break and stimulate some spending.
Now, one year later, you and many others seem to be commenting from a sense of "entitlement" that NOT EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY BREAK is now magically considered "raising taxes" ... which it is not.
If someone gives you a "gift" one year, does that mean you are entitled to one every year ?
This is merely Obama trying to look "good", passing out the candy ..... while, at the same time, endangering the long-term viability of the social security trust fund. Some of you fell for the "free stuff" concept, when Obama is merely trying to buy votes.
Jim,
And here is where you miss the logic train...
And the Bush tax cuts were meant to be permanent? Wasn't the reasoning given that we couldn't repeal those because that would be considered a tax hike??? So if we have to repeal the tax holiday, that too would be a tax hike, correct??? But we have to raise taxes in some way, correct? So our choices would be...
So, Jim (or should I call you darling)... which should we choose???
P.S. And do you mean free like Bush's two wars and his Medicare Perscription Plan? Or free like, I profit the most from this country, but will lobby politicians to block everything in order to maintain a tax rate lower than my secretaries? Free like, I'll cry like a baby Norquist, anytime a tax hike is proposed, while profiting the most, while paying a lower rate then those who work for me, unless of course that tax hike applies to the middle class??? That kind of free???
Sarah darling,
If the pretty girl in the picture is indeed you, then please go ahead and call me "darling".
The article is not about the Bush Tax cuts, which was enacted for a period of 10 years and which, check it if you don't believe it, reduced PERSONAL income taxes for ALL levels of taxation. So, if you reject the Bush tax cuts, then you would have to raise taxes on everyone who actually pays tax. Unless, of course, you are Obama and desire to use this issue to divide the country for political purposes.
The payroll tax "one year holiday" involves the Social Security program, which many leading economists foresee in financial trouble with trust fund assets eventually running DRY .... and some believe this will be sooner than others. Not renewing this one-year tax gift will merely return it to a normal status, and will better fund Social Security for future recipients.
As far as funding the wars, which is really changing the subject entirely, the Bush wars were voted on and APPROVED by Congress ..... including votes in favor from John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Are you saying they were not smart enough to recognize that wars are expensive ?
Obama attacked Libya, without approval from Congress and where our national security risks were not threatened. The cost ? Estimates now range about $1 billion .... and growing, although we have no knowledge of who or what will be running the country.
This is the same Obama who promised the most open and transparent administration ever, who said he would not accept outside funds during the election and then did the exact opposite, who said he was going to close Gitmo and it's still there in perpetuity, who said he was going to cut the deficit in half and has now spent more money than all previous administrations combined, who complained about the Republican unemployment rate and then increases the rate by three full percentage points, who derides Republicans for giving to their supporters but wants no mention of the trillion dollars in special favors for Solyndra,George Soros, and ALL the labor Unions, who complained about Republican wars and torture, but is OK with expanding wars into Africa and random murder by drones, THAT is the Obama We are talking about Right? Obama calling anyone hypocritical is like him calling Herman Cain black,his audacious hypocrisy is the ONLY thing that has been totally transparent about the man.
hope everyone had a great weekend, how about them Denver Broncos!!!
I think everyone should have to pay more taxes, get rid of the Bush tax cuts AND cut spending.
Funny how we want to cut the payroll tax for employees and employers, do this not fund SS????? Are we saying it is ok to lower SS funding ((I did not realize we has a surplus) or do we think this "plan" will create "shovel ready" jobs and we can pay for it "later"?
I pray that things do get better before Nov '12, unemployment HAS to continue to go down. It will also help Obama if he gets our troops home (wonder if this will help our hurt the unemployment #s if many get out of the service??).
A great leader should be able to rally both parties, have we seen this or are we at a point this is not an expectation of a leader?
Both Dem and Rep have prove to be a disappointment........
Have a good week.
Jim Darlin',
I'm well aware of the differences between the payroll holiday and the Bush tax cuts. And yes, I know they lowered them for everyone. The point here is the hypocrisy. Last year, at this time, we heard from the Republican party that repealing any tax cut or closing any loophole was a tax hike, and that they had all pledged not to, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Ergo, they went on to fillibuster every, single, thing, until Obama agreed to EXTEND those tax cuts on the highest 2%. Now, if that is true, and they under no circumstances will accept a raise in taxes, why are they fighting Obama on this??? By their own definition, to not extend the holiday would be a tax hike.
They fought like hell when the "tax hike" was going to effect the upper class. Why aren't they fighting for us?
Sarah Darling,
I will give you credit for one thing, you are much better at debating (and not hateful) than many I have sparred with.
However, about this time last year, Barack Obama wanted to raise taxes on single individuals making over $200k/year, and marrieds making over $250k/year. Now, possibly, this is the 2% you refer to that Obama had proclaimed previously to be "the rich". He backed off, and stated that now was not the time to be raising taxes on ANYONE during the current recession. Less than a year later, he has reversed course and is pursuing his "class warfare" approach on virtually a daily basis !
Obama doing the opposite of what Obama says, less than a year later is the height of hypocrisy ! Of course, there are other examples of Obama contradicting Obama, but I am sure you do not want to hear about that.
Leave Social Security alone ! It has a purpose and does not need to be played around with by a political opportunist. The one-year break was nice, but it did not help turn the economy around and should not be extended ad infinitum.
(Since you called me darlin', I assume the pretty girl in the picture is, indeed, you). Give my congratulations to your parents.
Maybe you idiot Demowits don't remember who started the destruction of Social Security, but it was the Demowits in the sixties that decided to make the secure SS trust fund part of the general fund so they could spend it. Now all that is left is some IOUs. And you morons want to extend and expand this SS payroll taxcut? There should have never have been a SS payroll taxcut. I'm sure senior citizens will be thankful to Obuttwad and the Demowits when their SS checks are cut or stopped a whole lot earlier. I however, think this is just part of Obuttwad's destruction of America that he has been doing for the last 3 years. I guess you idiots don't remember when he said he would cut the deficit in half by his first term. Well, just incase you are completely oblivious as usual, he has tripled it.
Help save the country - Tea Party - Paul/Bachmann 2012!!!
Jim Darlin,
Thank you for the compliments, but you forgot the part about why Obama backed off. That would be because of the Republican fillibuster's in the Senate. Indeed, sometime around Dec 10, every senate Republican signed a pledge vowing to fillibuster every single piece of Democratic backed legislation until Obama agreed not to repeal them. After watching them fillibuster such things as healthcare for 9/11 workers, the repeal of DADT, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the Dream Act, out of pure exhaustion and desperation, Obama caved. Am I okay with this cave??? Not sure, but returning to his original position on tax hikes, after being forced through fillibusters and political game playing to support them, isn't hypocritical, seeing as his original position was to repeal them.
And, are you saying the Republicans aren't being hypocritical about this? They're original position was NO TAX HIKES. And that included repealing tax cuts/closing loopholes. End of story. So, again, by their definition this would be a tax hike. Yet they're not only okay with it, but actively working to make it happen.
We have what were supposed to be two different, temporary, tax cuts (Bush's and the Payroll ones). Republicans claimed not extending Bush's for the highest 2% would be a tax hike, and signed a pledge vowing to block everything until Obama extended them. Republicans, one year later, are actively working to repeal the payroll holiday, ergo by their own definition raising taxes. Letting Bush's expire last year would've effected wealthy people, letting the payroll expire will effect the middle class. Ergo, they're for tax hikes in this instance, but blocked them to the point of shutting down the nation when they would've effected the wealthy. How is this not hypocrisy???
Where do I start ? You covered a lot of ground .... sometimes going somewhat off-subject.... "where no man has gone before".
The Dream Act was Obama's attempt at amnesty for illegals. Obama back-doored certain "non-enforcement" issues through "executive order" thereby ignoring those parts of the existing law he did not like. DADT was a social issue. I saw nothing really monstrous with that law, but I am okay with its repeal so long as our military leaders agreed.
Saying that Republicans vowed not to raise taxes is pretty much on target. Our country has a huge SPENDING problem, and our President wants absolutely no cuts, even though we are spending about $1.6 trillion over our income and the Democrats have avoided a "BUDGET" like the plague during Obama's first 2 years +.
I do not agree that closing tax loopholes has been shunned by Republicans because I have seen way too much conversation amongst Republicans for closing "LOOPHOLES". That being said, no one, and I repeat NO ONE seems to be able to specify, with much clarity, about what defines a loophole and which ones have support for being cut. I once saw a poster on this website refer to a graduated tax rate as a loophole .... which seems to be an argument in the other direction. However, some "loopholes" such as accelerated depreciation have been around for years, are widely accepted, and have been promoted for a specific purpose ... to encourage investment. Certainly, laws that more narrowly benefit a few, or maybe one as with Nancy Pelosi's husband, could be more likely deemed "loopholes".
The Bush Tax Cuts were originally intended for what ... 10 years ? Furthermore, they dealt with INCOME TAX and with ESTATE TAX and a few other things. I am not sure, however, if you can extend part of a bill without extending ALL of the bill. True, Obama wanted to extend the benefits to some taxpayers, but not to those making over $200k/$250k per year, which he later revised. The original Bush bill's tax reductions were pretty much long-term and they affected INCOME TAX.
Now, Obama is trying to back-door the issue through payroll taxes which affect the viability of the Social Security Trust Fund. Republicans are not "working actively" as you say, they do not, however, see a long-run benefit to our economy by extending the candy that was passed out in the prior year AND the tax increase that Obama wants to invoke as a means of "paying for it". Republicans are seeking to limit automatic increses in the pay of govenment employees and to limit the further growth of government. Republicans want to pay for the resulting drop in revenue by reducing expenses.
This is virtually the same battle that has occurred all year long. Meanwhile, if you will go back and check, I think you will see that Obama gave huge raises to some of his staff during the past year.
I apologize if I rambled a little .... all over the place, but the basic difference is phiosophical, HOW DO YOU "PAY" FOR EXTENDING A TEMPORARY, 1 YEAR BENEFIT ?? Fairness in taxation can be debated for years.
The President is just playing politics and campaigning , before he switches to his most important work-golfing for 17 days in Hawaii.
Playing politics pretty well to, Republicans are falling into their own trap
Bob you must be rich and don't give a dam for what you stand for. I thought you were against tax increases? Based on your statement you are for them.
The working class will see a tax increase if the tax cuts are not extended, the question is: Is that what you stand for Politics. Sure do seem like it.
Your statement is a disgrace and not in the best interest of this country. MOFO
You would begrudge the President and his family a vacation playing golf? Have you taken a look at John Boehner's tan, doesn't look like he has missed any time on the golf course or at the tanning salon.
Don't be so petty Bob, if you didn't complain about Bush heading to Crawford Tx every other weekend, don't start on the current Pres.
Bush in Crawford, Texas every other weekend? Try, he spent more time in Texas than in the white house during his presidency. The man never worked. As evidenced by the state he left our economy in when Obama took over. That's why Cheney was able to rob you of your tax dollars for the benefit of his industrialized war machine friends and also rob your 401K for the benefit of his banker buddies, just before leaving office. Never again! Obama 2012.
If you think the POTUS will not work during his time in Hawaii, then it's time for you to turn off Faux News, take off the tin foil hat, and smell the coffee.
In 2012: Party of NO has to GO!
Obviously the Republicans will eventually vote to extend the tax holiday. It is such bad "optics" and gives the democrats the opportunity to steal the oppositions clothing so to speak, that they can't really afford not to.
The President is enjoying talking this up, as he knows that there is real dissension in the republican ranks on this tax issue and it's more of a headache for Speaker Boehner than it is for him, for a change.
He might be playing politics, but he tried compromising even bending backwards to no avail. All he got was obstruction, now he is doing what he should have done from the start. He has been brilliant boxing in the republicans, they were just too dumb to see it coming.
Bush golfed while young Americans were dying in Iraq.
So did Obama Bush Hater, and in fact Obama sent even MORE troops over than Bush did. Oh, and also, Bush actually owned his ranch while Obama vacations on the public dime... in a time of deficits and public employees getting laid of.
Hate to burst your bubble folks, but when President Obama vacations here in Hawaii, there is very little time left for work. His motorcades block our streets going back and forth to golf courses, fundraisers, the beach, and for shaved ice. And Bush Hater, our current President also golfed while our troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan and still plans to on this trip while our troops are dying in Afghanistan today. I don't hold a vacation against any President, not even Obama who I voted for but now think he is one of the very worst Presidents this country has ever had. Bush Hater is the perfect example of a hypocrite. I bet you are also for taxing others so you can keep yours in your pocket. You share that example hypocrisy with our President.
At a bare minimum, for the flights alone, Bush’s 77 vacation trips to Crawford cost us $226,072 per trip. That’s $17,407,544 so he could ride his bicycle in the woods and clear brush for the cameras.
@Steve, And Obama is getting everyone out of where we shouldn't be in Iraq, And got Bin laden, An got more of the real bad guys that Bush in 8 years. While Bush ate up all Pakistans garbage. Obama did not and goes after bad guys even in Pakistan cause he knows thats where they were and go to hide, and is keeping a close eye on them. So Obama ended the wrong war and has been winning the one brought to us. Something that could have ended 10 years ago is Bush concentrated on the enemy and not Iraq
@Ron, If you think the president does not work when he vacations your nuts. Its when he will talk to people. And with todays technology they are in constant contact. Do you forget him not golfing the day before he ripped Trump a new one and completely clowned him while making one of the decisions that took massive ballls to make with having ordered sending SF in to get Bin Laden in pakistan, Something McCain said he would not do on the camain trail and go into Pakistan if their was a chance to get OBK and Obama said he would and got flack for it. Instead he did. He played golf, He made fun of trum, Showed his stupid Birth Certificate all in 4 days of each other. But he gets nothing done when vacationing right? For some reason some people have this vision the president sits at a desk all day feilding incoming calls from the leader of kazikstan to see how his day was
And Bush took off a ton more time. Even as asked about the war and kids dying he said i was all under control and"Now watch this drive" to a cameraman while playing golf. Amazing how the hypocrisy points are proven
You better pull your head out of your a** and take a look at what is happening in this country to the middle class. Unless you want a return to the Victorian Age which is what the Republicans are after. I am tired of people like you condemning Obama when it is pretty obvious that Grover Norquist (who should be tried for treason) and some of the others are getting away with the murder of the middle class.
Bob-1887910
The President is just playing politics and campaigning , before he switches to his most important work-golfing for 17 days in Hawaii.
Just another idiot who doesn't know that president Obama has taken less time for vacation than the vast majority of the house and senate members AND the last 3 presidents. Sorry, bud, try another news source or look it up yourself. Stop regurgitating faux news crap.
Hypocrisy? From the king of hypocrisy? So Obama promises to give more to those that don't produce and pay for it from those that do produce. That is called "redistribution". Top 1% of income earners already pay 40% of all income taxes and the bottom 46% don't pay ANY income taxes. Fairness? You want fairness? Then a flat across the board tax of fixed percent. How about EVERYBODY'S taxes go up, say, 3%. Isn't that fair? Shouldn't EVERYBODY pay their "fair share"? Wait a minute!?!? Social Security is collapsing because not enough money is going into it and Obama last year decided to tell everyone they can pay less into Social Security? Raise the taxes back to where it was. Actually, since liberals are so fond of tax increases why don't we raise Social Security taxes another 5% and have everybody pay an additional flat 3% tax on their income? No wait - we will need more than that so let's have Social Security taxes go up another 10% and everybody pay an additional flat 5% of their income!! That way EVERYBODY pays their fair share.
What? You don't like that? You think government should be able to run this government with what they currently have? George Bush for 7 years was able to run this government on $2.8 Trillion a year (and THAT was too much!!) but for some reason Obama needs $3.6 Trillion? Since you liberals are all for increased spending, and you are correct that taxes MUST be raised in order to pay for it, so let's raise SS taxes 10% and EVERYBODY pays an additional 5% flat tax on income. Funny thing is our economy will collapse because increased taxes hinder economic growth.
One final comment: The great economist Milton Freidman once said "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". How right he was. How right he was.
But these taxcuts are totally different, They benefit,,,,,,,,The workingclass
Are they BO? We might stop to consider that it's those of us in the working class that will most need the benifits of the Social Security funds that these cuts are reducing!
These are Social Security Taxes. The money is suppose to be used to build equity for retirement benifits. I suppose that if the related taxes are reduced so should the expected benifits. If we eliminate the payroll tax entirely then Social Security can be phased out entirely. I think that this is really an ultra conservative idea. Is our President really an ultra conservative in liberal clothing?
Wrong. Craw,Point is the cuts do not cut social security. The GOP wants it to be paid for with funds from SS or not extend it and raise the taxes on the middle class. The whole point of this article is when the GOP wants to lower taxes they never say where they will pay for it. When Obama wants to not raise taxes on the middle class the GOP suddenly is saying it needs to be paid for and it will use SS money. Why suddenly does this one need to be paid for and come from SS and not anything they passed or any tax cuts the GOP wants for trillion dollar corporations and billion dollar companies, or the richest 1% of America. Because they and their sudden responsible ways of wanting to pay for tax cuts dont want it to be payed for by the people at the top paying less and making more from these tax cuts then anyone else. They want it paid for by the middle class, which is evaporating to a rich and poor society because the rich are recording record profits and the "middle class" have to give up their SS funds to get a tax break that will help them while the rich also get tax breaks that cost the middle class. Love the GOP, great people. Get the facts strait
The IDIOCRACY is alive and well.
Our country is DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Twisted - John Kyle, A REPUBLICAN says no deal. If you cut tax, the money must be replace in the fund by spending cuts or closing tax loopholes elsewhere in the Budget FOR the two years of the extensions. What the Democrats are offering is raising taxes on the Rich ( the entrepreneurs ) or budget cuts in future years. I've been around some 49 years and politically alert for about 33 of those years. I have yet to see any of such future cuts ever take place - except in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Military.
Also, any time taxes were raised on the rich (entrereneurs) they cut back on investing in new adventures or stop expansion of existing business.
The Robinhood mentality is in it's origins about Jealousy. Nobody ever built something in jealous spirit - usually they destroy whatever they desire, in the resulting rage - just so the person that has what they want doesn't get to enjoy what they are attempting to obtain - without working for it!
American Girl-724855
I have never heard a single Liberal say any such thing. I do hear FOX news making the accusation every day but it is simply a lie.
Obama wants to extend the payroll tax cut and raise taxes to pay for it.
The Republicans want to extend the payroll tax cut and cut other spending to pay for it.
We currently spend 52% more than we earn in revenues, and our National Debt is over $15 Trillion.
So which side is the 'Hypocrite'?
The side that starts wars, but keeps the budgets off the books. THEN cuts taxes in the middle of a time of war, and need for revenue!
The GOP Created the huge debt (for the MOST part) And you happily back them up! Do you like having the wool pulled over your eyes, or do you just prefer it so you can't see what the GOP is doing to you AND our country?
It's not so much that you're WRONG, but that you are COMPLETELY WRONG.
tw1sted
Just what do you think pays for Social Security if it isn't Payroll Taxes(FICA on your check stub)??
The LIE that tax cuts pay for themselves is really key here. Tax cuts for the richest 1% (or even richest 2%), A.K.A. "job creators" have been in place for over a decade with no stimulus to the economy and NO job creation. Tax cuts like the payroll cuts for the working class and small business are far better at stimulating the economy, albeit a small boost.
The loss in revenue from tax breaks for those earning $250,000 and above is huge, and in reality the Teapublicans have tried to off-set this on the backs of the middle class. Whether it is laying off first responders and teachers, or now wanting to lay-off more federal employees and/or freeze already stagnant wages is despicable. How can demand increase if people don't have decent jobs and disposable income?
Truth be told, Teapublicans don't want the economy to improve, and worse it is because of hatred for our president. I always ask why Teapublicans hate America so much, and I'm not being facetious. It's the GOP and 1% against the 99%, it's high time to throw the Teapublicans out.
I agree that Social Security must continue to be funded (well, I don't believe tax cuts pay for themselves or that the market corrects itself via the "invisible hand" and other voodoo economics superstitions held by the right-wing). But real stimulus cannot be off-set from additional job loss or disposable income loss as proposed by the Teapublicans.
And unemployment is one of the best economic stimulators too. We need to do some things right now to continue to recover. And we can do it in many ways, for example:
I was listening to this the other day on the news, how so much money for building roads has been stolen by Afghan contractors, who have since moved to Europe. Go Claire McCaskill! You can't help those who won't help their own country--you can't change their culture of corruption. Heck, good luck trying to change our culture of corruption (Gingrich)...Go OWS!
Which reminds me, both Parties have negatives, but both Parties are NOT equally to blame for our woes. This is a cop-out fallacious argumentation made by conservatives -- Not unlike "if other kids can do it, why can't I?" There is always a lesser of two evils, and two wrongs don't make a right. Conservatives--just own up to the fact that Republicans suck the most!
The loss of tax revenues for those earning $250000 and above is huge??!! Only 800B over 10 years went to these while almost 3T went to the others. Only someone from the left would think 800B is huge compared to almost 3T just because the 800B went to the "wealthy".
TruePatriot
I suggest you look up the Income per Year of the Federal Gov't from 2003 to 2007. You will notice that the REVENUE INCREASED EACH ONE OF THOSE YEARS. But how can that be?? We had TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!! And before you say well look at 2008. Let me remind you that the Democrats controlled BOTH Houses of Congress starting with 2007.
Republican and Democrat politicians, 2 pea's in the same pod. Between inflation, our nations debt, and the idea that increasing taxes will help us will keep us down the path of destruction we are already on.
I'm voting for Ron Paul as he is the only candidate on either side in decades that wants to slash taxes, audit and hopefully abolish the federal reserve (to slow down inflation which is another form of taxation), and eliminate our national debt (oh and also restore and protect our liberties that have been attacked since 9/11.
Where I come from we call them hypocrites. Not because we're mean, because that is what they obviously are. Bet that 99% of the republican people posting on this site earn less than $100,000.00 a year and still vote republican. So...allow me to use another name that describes the hypocrites; stupid.
First taxes are bad and the GOP pledges against them, now taxes are good and to h with the pledge? No way no how will the GOP tax the rich by letting the Bush tax cuts expire - that would be class warfare, but suddenly it is okay to let the payroll tax cut expire? Why of course, that's not class warfare, that's just those pesky 99%ers having to pay for those entitlements that are so bad - that's okay. How long will the 99% put up with this 'Let 'em eat cake' attitude? This blind allegiance, or stupidity, of any GOP backer making less than $100K is mind-boggling and mind-numbing. How does anyone in the GOP justify this as being OK now in their mind? Fool me once.................................
Fred Evil "The side that starts wars, but keeps the budgets off the books."
Can you name a single verifiable expenditure that was 'off the books' under Bush?
I didn't think so.
Yours is an example of the Nazi policy of "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it".
All expenditures by the Federal Government have to be authorized by Congress (Budgeted) and included in the final accounting of spending - no exceptions.
TruePatriot-445959 "The LIE that tax cuts pay for themselves is really key here."
While it's hard to prove one way or the other, let's look at some evidence;
In the 4 years before the Bush Tax cuts took effect (2003), the GDP averaged $10.058 Trillion per year, and Government Revenues (taxes) averaged $1.924 Trillion per year. This included Clinton's last 2 years.
In the 4 years after the Bush tax cuts took effect, the GDP averaged $12.992 Trillion per year - an increase of 29.2%, and Government Revenues averaged $2.252 Trillion per year, an increase of 17.0%.
Perhaps the tax cuts actually DID do what they were intended to do - Stimulate economic growth, which led to higher Federal tax receipts.
It's easy to make statements, but it's helpful to back them up with reliable information from actual GOVERNMENT sources.
Taxes are NOT the problem. Spending is the problem. Debt is the problem. Endless wars, nation building and building new prisons and embassies all over the world are the problem.
Takers vs. Makers:
In other words, the Democrat party is throwing in the towel on economic growth and prosperity, because even Obama's people recognize they cannot credibly sell themselves as delivering on that.
What they are going to sell in 2012 is taxes and redistribution from those that have more to buy the votes of those they think will sell their vote for government handouts. That marries perfectly Marxist philosophy with Chicago political machine politics.
But if they think the American people are going to abandon the American Dream for Castro/Chavez style equality, reality has some ugly surprises in store for them.
While they are dumping the white working class recognizing they can't appeal to independent people who believe in supporting themselves through their own hard work, they are wrong to think they can hold on to the Hispanic working class, or even to their previous majorities among the African-American working class.
Sincerus, "... building new prisons and embassies all over the world are the problem."
Actually the problem is they ("our" government) are taking bids for "camps" right here in and across America that will hold 1000 people, barbed wire included. Haliburton is helping our government get the bids. They broke our nation into 5 or 6 major holding areas, and these bids are for as we are collected to be held and fed. It is time to fire, and arrest those domestic enemies within our government.
Stay safe and "detention" free all! (take out spaces) Warn those you love
'This concerns the opening of what may be a FEMA detention facility in conjunction with S 1867 The “detention bill”. God help us and our republic.
I am getting the word out to all the military/law enforcement and others I can.'
planet.com/exclusive-government-activating-fema-camps-across-u-s.html
If they remove the link go to you tube and government activating fema camps across the USA.
CUT taxes for uber rich and RAISE taxes on the rest of us.........
this oath to NEVER raise taxes that the GOP signed for Mr. Norquist (who is this guy anyway that he has so much power over the entire GOP party....that he supercedes the needs of the 99%?) obviously must be a bit vague as to what NEVER RAISING TAXES really means.............
it would seem it means NEVER RAISE TAXES ON THE UBER RICH but
GO AHEAD AND RAISE TAXES ON THE REST OF AMERICANS..............yeah, guess they think there must be a divide somewhere...1% with TAX CUTS and 99% WITH RAISED TAXES....
yup, 1 + 99 still equals 100.......wow, these GOP guys are smart!........guess as long as it comes out to 100% it seems fair to the GOP........
if only I could buy into the bull sh**.....it would be so much easier to just be a sheeple...........no worries, just nod your head and don't think and keep working and paying while the 1% don't do anything but rake in the cash and watch from mount Olympus as we all toil our whole lives for the privilege of dying exhausted and penniless.
Good grief, can't believe that the GOP has been able to keep this daily blatant public lying and stealing going for so long without any repercussions...........
would be an American dream to see this party go down in flames....a blaze of their own doing....in my lifetime. Would be nice to know that my children and grandchildren would not have to live under the lying and thievery that has for so many years systematically worked to destroy the middle class, and in so doing, this once great nation we call home.....all for a buck....greed......
if there is a hell I hope there is a special place for these no goods..........the harm they have caused the American people, our American nation and so many innocent people around the world is unforgivable.............they won't even make a smallest attempt to help our nation....our 99%....
we should stop paying their salaries until they start helping us and our nation..........
time to make these do nothings pay for their wicked ways.
The republican message in this fight is consistent. It says, "Mr. President we are spending too much money that we do not have!" George H.W. Bush said "read my lips, no new taxes," but once reality set in he signed a huge tax increase. Republicans today are using some of the same tactics. Before we increase taxes, spending and government must be brought in line. This is the stance that they have taken for the last two and one half years. Any credible economist will tell you that stimulus in the short term can be an effective tool to jump start an economy, but stimulus in the long term hurts an economy. We as a country must start living within our means, and it starts by eliminating inflated and unnecessary spending.
Critics point to cuts in state aid and education claiming that these items are important, especially when our education system is under stress. They blindly defend these items without looking at what the money is actually spent on. While the plight of teachers is a sad one, some areas are spending federal dollars for things that have little to do with teachers and more to do with status. California spent over a hundred million on one school building, not the teachers to teach in it, not the books and supplies, just the building. In other states comparable buildings are being done for under 20 million. Even given the difference in wage scale and cost of living, there is no justification for it.
Here is a proposed tax on the rich. Tax government treasuries and bonds. Do you think any politician, Democrat or Republican, will tax the income on their source of borrowed money they consume and we pay for ?
This pernicious narcissist Marxist has done more to destroy the country that he detest from within over the past three years, than any enemy has ever done or will ever do.
Knine - Scary stuff. Lines up quite nicely with the National Defense (War) Authorization Act that passed, allowing American citizens to be tortured, indefinitely detained and assassinated. How much further will we slip down the rabbit hole? I did see the FEMA camps mentioned on the Oath Keepers website, and it is also mentioned on the KBR website. I wish it was a conspiracy -- but truth, is often stranger than fiction. Remain vigilant.
For the first time since the 2000 election, GOP politicians want to pay for a spending bill. This time they want to pay for payroll tax cuts by killing Social Security.
Thanks for nothing, thieves!
GOP of hypocrisy is an understatement!
I want to see the President lose at any cost to the economy, the poor, the unemployed and the working class. To bad MOFO no tax breaks for you only the Rich should apply.
President Obama 2012
There shouldn't be any elderly, poor or disadvantaged, student over 18, anyone making under $100K, or any minorities - including women, voting Republican if they have any concept of reality in this country. Because the reality is the GOP doesn't give a hoot about you or your condition - you are irrelevant to them. The American Dream is not subject to GOP ideology. Take back this country for yourself and vote out or against any pledge-signing TPer Republican GOP candidate.
William McGurn summarized the publication in the November 29 Wall Street Journal as just "making official what everyone has known for some time: The Democrat Party is abandoning the white working class."
New York Times columnist Thomas B. Edsall similarly reported early last week, "preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class."
If obama was Pinocchio, how long would his nose be by now?
Why did Obama not champion the Bowles-Simpson fiscal plan ? He set the commission up. They proposed a $4 trillion reduction. According to Time magazine, Bill Clinton told Obama in private that he would have championed it. Why set up your own commission then not back a good plan ? Not that Obama is the only hypocrite. The next, of many, that comes to mind is Gingrich. The anti-philanderer philanderer, etc.
The only thing the president and Senate Democrats ought to be worried about ids how many ad buys they will make telling American voters that Republican lawmakers are dying to raise their taxes while demanding more tax cuts for billionaires and corporations. The GOP says they are against any tax hokes, period. They lie. They're party platform is one built on forcing working Americans and the middle-class to pay more; the GOP believes it is regular Joe's that aren't "paying their fair share," not corporate elitists with tax havens in Bermuda. Disgusting.. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
This GOP's platform is 'Let them eat cake'. The Democratic platform ought to be 'Off with their GOP heads'. The dems need to also take back their states to avoid this continual dealing with GOP obstructionism. And, don't be too quick to write off all the GOP prez candidates. It would be good for one of them to think they would have a chance as an Independent. Get to a GOP primary and give a loony-tune your 'support'.
That is all so stupid...Real republicans dont want to raise taxes on anyone....What is objectionable(other than the leftist lies) is that this administration pushes raising taxes for the purpose of an excuse to deplete the SS fund. It is an outright lie that increasing taxes has anything to do with the SS fund....But Obama faithful will apparently believe any lie...
The real honest answer is to get the economy and the country going and to quit spending double what was spent by the government five yrs ago.....But the Socialists will call that regressive....
Meanwhile this administration will continure to try to outlaw any production or expansion of the private enterprise system...One of their favorite sayings is to "Shut it down" and they have a whole book full of lame excuses for doing that...
It is not a lie that when Obama took office we were in the deepest recession since the depression. You probably didn't know that the deficit was 1.2 trillion a year and at the same time the country was in a serious decline with a severe job loss trend. If the government lays off workers and cuts back on spending the result is job losses we cannot afford. The answer at this stage is not to cut anything. Businesses expand and create jobs because of increased demand. There are a myriad of reasons why the country is struggling and it didn't happen overnight. All you have to do is look at trade deficits, loss of manufacturing, and the big one construction (15% of our economy was lost when the boom went bust). Capitalism does not always work in even flows and when the business cycle hits a downturn, the government must fill the void or create the uneven demand. No tax increases of any kind should be implemented at this time. The economy is too fragile. You have a point with the production expansion but Obama didn't create The EPA its been around a long time. I would suggest you get a more balanced information base and do some research. Try factcheck.org. Congress should extend the payroll taxes for one more year.
Randal....You seem to skip the actual facts...Throw in just a few small truths to make your socialism sound good....Yes, we did go into a recession before obama became president...but dont mention that it was the crazy dems policies on banking and Freddie and Fannie that burst that bubble....Obamas stimulus was not even aimed at any of the problem or solutions. It was nothing more than giving away our money to government entities and union associated situations and of course phony failed green jobs situations. Nothing has been developed that will support economic growth even on a basis of one year, and nothing will be there at all to show even a semi permanent return on all that money given away.... There are proven methods on how to invest to end a downturn..and Obama has killed every one of those possibilities. If Obama had pushed as hard on free enterprise production and investment, he could have overcome all of the economy killing rules against a growing production and job situation....He simply didnt want to make that effort....He wants to stick to growing government and the economic slide into socialism....Now, he is cutting the SS income collections about 20% in a time that is critical for SS and offering no solutions to bolster the SS trust....Obama and the socialists in our government are dangerous, regardless of their feelgood talk and support by the leftist media...
JA - thank you for being the voice of wisdom and your insightful posts. Let me add that in addition to the Clinton administration's bank policies, Bush had a constant fight with the Democratic congress to get anything done at all. That wasn't BO's problem for the first two years of his term but instead of doing a single thing to create a job, he forced a healthcare bill through congress via closed door meetings and promises, promises, promises - so much for transparency - that is stifling business growth and hiring practices throughout the country. The GOP wants to help pay for the tax cuts by freezing government hiring and salaries...fat chance that will happen because they all think they are going to be back in 2012. Wake up America and take a whiff - this administration stinks and BO's performance is worse than lacking, it's disgraceful. His stuttering answers on 60 Minutes last night, especially the one regarding appeasement and killing Bin Laden, were pitiful. Bin Laden's demise has done nothing to help create jobs in our country. It's too bad that Steve Croft's interview was so soft with no mention of the Solyndra joke, government waste and pensions, or possible solutions to the housing crisis. I think the reason is simple - BO has no answers to anything, and if the American voters are stupid enough to give him another 4 years in office, we will be even worse off than we are now. OMG - he's an empty suit with no long term vision or understanding of the financial structure of our government or country. He's gone in 2012!
They are hypocrites in all that they do, everything done and said in the past three years by these liars, has been a previous policy for them....only for them, now in these same three years, they have taken the opposite of what needs doing to help the American people or if President Obama is for it then they are against it, doesn't matter who is hurting.
Who in their right mind would want this collection of hypocrites and liars running the country.
Running the country, I don't want them in any government office. Some of them wouldn't even make a good dog catcher.
Are there still dog catchers out there? Could you catch a dog? Your analogy was old when I was young.
Think man think!
@Matt, umm... yeah, they're called Animal Patrol.
The GOP will let this country go into a full blown depression before they work with Obama on anything.
Obama has taken this country down all by himself, well, himself and his cronies. Tax and spend liberalism is coming to an end, and not soon enough. That's right, even YOU may have to take responsibility for your own life, don't spend more than you make, take care of yourself and your family and don't expect hard working people to pay your way through life.
IT would be good for the country, if we could out source republicans
Jim in Dallas
Obama has taken this country down all by himself, well, himself and his cronies. Tax and spend liberalism is coming to an end, and not soon enough. That's right, even YOU may have to take responsibility for your own life, don't spend more than you make, take care of yourself and your family and don't expect hard working people to pay your way through life.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really Jim??? Who was president in 2008? Who ran congress from 2001-2007, which is when the policies were put in place for the crash in 2008?
jim M...
Who has presided over the worst economy since the great depression....that would be Obama. Who has threatened economic doom on small business in America to the point of paralysis....that is Obama. Who can't seem to assume any personal responsibility for his own failed policy....again Obama....Who owned the house and the Senate from 2006 to 1011 with one failed policy after another followed by obstruction...that would be the Democrats...Who owned the policy machine from of 2009 and 2010 the Senate, House and Presidency with overbearing, overburdening policy spending for blinding personal gain...again the Democrats...
Better question who was, and had been in charge of BOTH houses of Congress for two years BEFORE the collapse! If as many of you want to believe the problems were already in place why, in two years did they do nothing about it?
What "brought this country down" was Wall St. speculators gambling with everyone's money and retirement without concern if they won or lost. If they lost, there goes your savings, the country, most of the world, but they are bailed out with the same money source they squandered (your money). Casino always wins. Don't try to pin this "recession" on Obama. It didn't happen on his watch. Just short-sighted of right wing wack-jobs to blame him for everything. Repubs say his policies didn't work - when did Congress put his policies in place?
Die hard, you are correct and that is so sad. This is not a game. We are talking about people lives here. Blows my mind.
Uhhh txmom, he HAD NO CHOICE but to preside over it, he was handed it by Bush.
txmom32
jim M...
Who has presided over the worst economy since the great depression....that would be Obama. Who has threatened economic doom on small business in America to the point of paralysis....that is Obama. Who can't seem to assume any personal responsibility for his own failed policy....again Obama....Who owned the house and the Senate from 2006 to 1011 with one failed policy after another followed by obstruction...that would be the Democrats...Who owned the policy machine from of 2009 and 2010 the Senate, House and Presidency with overbearing, overburdening policy spending for blinding personal gain...again the Democrats...
---------------------------
Really??? Obama was president in 2008????
Anyone who believes only one of the parties is responsible for this mess is sadly deluded.
The facts that it was Lyndon Johnson, in an attempt to hide the enormous costs of his "Great Society", took Social Security out of the trust fund and put it directly into the General Fund, and Jimmy Carter through The Community reinvestment Act forced financial institutes to loan money to people who had absolutely no chance to ever pay it back, Had Nothing to do with any of this I supose!
Jim...you might try and re-read what you are trying to refute.
Obama took office in 2009.
Maybe if we try hard enough we can pin the Kennedy assassination on Obama too.
@ JimM
democrats had control of congress LOL
nice try though
"IT would be good for the country, if we could out source republicans.."
Here's all you have to do: Outsource Evangelicals. The Republicans will follow 'em.
TO: Jim in Dallas who wrote:
Republicans took this country down all by themselves, before President Obama was even sworn in, and it was Republicans who lied to everybody in order to start and expensive and unnecessary war in an Oil Rich Country for their own personal benefit and at OUR expense.
Republicans lied to Congress, they lied to the American People, and they LIED to everyone in the entire world so that they could control the 2nd largest oil fields in the world, and they did EXACTLY that!
So don't give me that crap about any of this being President Obama's fault!
blah, blah, blah, blah ... that's all I hear coming out of the president's mouth...
Anyone with any sense should have seen this coming before the bubble burst. Credit Card Debts running high, out of reach housing cost yet giving everyone a loan, and stock holders demanding high returns or moving their money with the click of a mouse.
At this time the way they are wasting our taxes they should feel lucky we are paying them at all. Without cutting the waste, fraud, and streamlining like the private companies have had to do it like buying stock in Solyndria.
Jim M - from January 2, 2001 - January 2, 2003 The Senate shifted hands 4 times.
Democrat Jan 2 - Jan 20
Republican Jan 20 - June 6
Democrat from June 6, 2001 - November 13, 2002
Republican from November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003
The simplicity of Congress escapes people.
The House may be the originator of all spending bills (sort of), but anything they pass must then pass the senate with 60 Senators agreeing to close unlimited debate so the bill can go to the floor for a simple majority pass, then too the president must also agree assuming the house and senate didn't pass the bill in a veto proof number.
For Jan 2003 - Jan 2005 the Republicans had a 1 or 2 seat majority. That is not very strong seeing 3 or 4 of 14 Republicans could easily be bought off by the democrats on spending issues. Notice the budgets passed contained the 2 largest Deficit in history at that time.
For Jan 2005 - Jan 2007. Republicans got a 55-45 lead. That was enough to cut Deficits from over $500 Bln per year to $300 Bln. Three different Congresses, Same house - different Senates.
In 2006 Democrats succeeded in convincing the American voter that the Republicans were spending us into deficit oblivion. America responded by giving both the House and Senate to Democrat control. The response was amazing. Inquiries into increasing mortgage defaults and odd security behavior were stopped. Legislation to give more authority to regulators and investigators to probe suspicious activity were tabled permanently. Bush for fiscal 2008 submitted a budget with a Deficit of 247 Billion. The Democrats added about $200 Billion in additional spending. Bush successfully Vetoed an additional $20 Billion in Spending the Democrats passed, but the banking began to tighten on less credit worthy businesses as the housing glut began. Beginning to lose new revenues as new ventures began slowing causing the Deficit to for fiscal 2008 to balloon to 606 Billion. Fiscal 2009 was budgeted by Congress as a 646 billion deficit. Tarp and the Stimulus added 900 Billion. That is actually deceptive because TARP was given out and returned during fiscal 2009.
There you have it, change you can't believe in.
Bush hater-1426382 "Maybe if we try hard enough we can pin the Kennedy assassination on Obama too."
Too late for that. They already 'Blamed Bush' for that.
DB Akron "In 2006 Democrats succeeded in convincing the American voter that the Republicans were spending us into deficit oblivion. America responded by giving both the House and Senate to Democrat control."
Boy, talk about gullible.
For Bush's first 6 years with a split or Republican Congress, the average Deficit was $231 Billion per year.
For the next 4 years with Democrats in control of Congress, the average Deficit was $831 Billion per year. That's an extra increase in the Debt of $2.4 Trillion in just the last 4 years under Democrats.
As for the 2009 Budget, the Democratic Congress refused to even consider Bush's proposed Budget calling for a $410 Billion Deficit, and did not pass a Budget, so Bush only signed a 'Continuing Resolution' on September 30, 2008 calling for spending at the same level as in 2008 until March of 2009. When Obama was sworn in, he quickly signed the $860 Billion 'Stimulus Bill' and the 'Porkulus Bill' calling for a massive increase in spending, and only then did Obama sign a Budget for 2009 which ended up with a Deficit of $1,413 Billion.
Misguided people still try to 'Blame Bush' for the huge Deficit for 2009, when the reality is that it was all Obama's doing.
At any rate, you did a good job of researching - Thanks.
Really? So explain this to me. The budget for 2009 was written and approved during BUSH'S tenure, Obama had NOTHING to do with it. HOW can it be Obama's fault?
Frd
Did you fail "Reading Comprehension"?? Did you not see the words "Continuing Resolution" Do you know what that means?? Let me help you. A Continuing Resolution is used to fund the Gov't because there IS NO BUDGET IN PLACE! Now the LAST CONTINUING RESOLUTION that was signed by Bush was Sept. 2008. It funded the Gov't until March 2009. Now guess who signed the Continuing Resolution to fund Gov't until Sep. 30,2009. Give up??? AH. Come on you can do it. Think real hard. Who was President in 2009. RIGHT!!! Obama!!
Fred - you stuck your foot in your mouth. There really wasn't a budget, passed by congress - which that is a constitutionally mandated item to do.
They only passed continuing resolutions that fund only what congress wants to fund. Because congress doesn't pass a budget the President's budget is recorded as budget, even though the spending probably does not reflect the President's priorities.
Any financial counsellor will tell you the only way to control spending is to write a budget and stick to it. Politically writing a budget is suicide to those who want to spend. Without a congressionally passed budget, and the only thing on record as a budget is the president's proposal, the president gets blamed for what Congress does.
No President can spend one penny unless he is authorized to do so by congress.
There has been no budget passed by both houses of congress since 2007 - who took over? NONE have even been put on by the Floor of Senate since 2007 - who again took over in 2007? Who has passed a budget - the house did last year - Who runs it? Why didn't the house budget proposal even make the floor of the Senate - well who runs it?
If you want the smoke and mirrors game to stop - you must first catch who is throwing the smoke and setting up the mirrors.
Ok, I'll admit I flailed there, but the core of the issue I'm denying is the claim that Obama suddenly came in and blew the financial ship out of the water, which is patently untrue.
Though it is absolutely pathetic that the Dems couldn't pass a budget. No excuses. It's long past time for Pelosi and Reid to be tossed on their keisters.
Were the continuing resolutions VASTLY different than the previous year's budget? No. The budget has essentially been on auto-pilot, no radical new expenditures (but for a one-time stimulus package), and no major cuts since Bush.
That's the point, and yet the righties pounce on a slip of the tongue...and if that's all you've got, that's all you've got. If you can't face the real facts about spending v revenue, then go back to whining about the 57 states, since that's all you have.
Fred
Here are the Defiict by year.
2006----248,181,000,000
2007----160,701,000,000 First year of Democrat control of BOTH Houses of Congress
2008----458,553,000,000 Notice the 300,000,000 RISE in the Deficit. WHY?? What happened ???
2009--1,412,688,000,000 Notice the 1,000,000,000,000 RISE in the Deficit. WHY?? What happened??
2010--1,293,489,000,000 Notice the 200,000,000 DROP in the Deficit. WHY? What happened.
2011--1,645,119,000,000 Notice the RISE in the Deficit. WHY? What happened?
Now can you explain WHY?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
You will need EXCEL to view the chart
Let's get this straight! NOTHING is Obamas fault. Nothing. He hasn't done anything. The only people that can be blamed are those who have done something. That's not Obama.
Fred Evil "Ok, I'll admit I flailed there, but the core of the issue I'm denying is the claim that Obama suddenly came in and blew the financial ship out of the water, which is patently untrue."
We'll try one more time, Fred.
Bush only authorized spending for fiscal year 2009 AT THE SAME LEVEL AS IN 2008. He did this with a Continuing Resolution which Bush signed on September 30, 2008, the day before the 2009 fiscal year began. Any and all increases in spending after that date had to be authorized by Obama, so those huge increases in spending and the Budget Deficits for 2009, 2010 and 2011 had to be authorized by Obama.
People who claim that incoming Presidents are bound by the Budgets of the outgoing Presidents are just 'blowing smoke'. Every new President in recent history has changed the Budget as soon as they took office. This can be easily verified by checking the record.
People who claim that incoming Presidents are bound by the Budgets of the outgoing Presidents are just 'blowing smoke'. Every new President in recent history has changed the Budget as soon as they took office. This can be easily verified by checking the record.
That is true Roy, but what Pelosi and Reid did most masterfully with the HCL and continuing resolutions is weave bad stuff into acceptable spending so that if you cut one thing, you cut many good things too. To unload that spending they have to go line by line and word by word.
You can't cut spending of any kind during economic downturns. Don't raise anyone's taxes. Pass the payroll tax cuts for one more year.
Maybe we should get EVERYONE to pay taxes...now that would be a fair compromise. Can'f afford to pay more taxes, maybe you should have planned ahead instead of dropping out of high school and having 5 kids. What? Your welfare check won;t stretch far enough to pay some back in taxes? Maybe you should get off your a$$ and get a job, maybe you can track down one of your five baby daddies and make them pay child support, but then you would have to know who they are first, now wouldn't you? This class warfare from this administration is doing no good whatsoever. Make everyone pay taxes and then talk about raising taxes....that includes, corporations, businesses, rich, poor, middle class...EVERYONE. One other option is to stop sending our tax money to foreign countries, stop flying Mr O and his families all over the world for vacations pretending it's official business, deport 20 million deadbeat illegals, stop anchor babies...the list goes on and on.
Jim in Dallas,
Some advise to you stop watching FUX NEWS it's a known fact they lie.
And it's hypocrisy by you for wanting any taxes raised are you a GOP or NOT? Make up you mind flip floper.
Your GOP family is raising taxes on working family. NOT people on public assistance. These are payroll taxes, you know the ones were if you work they get deducted from your Pay Check. MOFO
First, get a freakin' dictionary..It's advice, not advise; it's known, not know; and I don't even know what that second part of your post is.
Yes, I'm a conservative, I pay my own way through life, I don't count on the government to do it for me. Yes, raise my atxes, when, and only when, EVERYONE pays taxes, including the some odd 47% now who don't.
Jim, there are a lot of people who HAVE been trying to get a job. And, though I doubt it makes any difference to you, some who are for reasons beyond their control, unable to work: children, for instance.
I know empathy for those less fortunate than we may be difficult, but, perhaps, if you lost your job you could acquire some.
I'm not hoping you do, but it would be nice if you could feel a little sympathy for others.
Jim with the most ignorant comment!!
So raise taxes on the poor to save the billionaires a few bucks?
HELL NO.
Grow up, sonny.
Jim in Dallas.....get off your high horse. there are more people in financial difficulties through no fault of their own, Not everyone has the good fortune to be able to have a good job, or get a good education or in some cases inherit the means to give them a good life.
You should be down on your knees thanking whomever for all the opportunities that have come your way, including living and I'm assuming born in this country. You just dont appreciate what it takes to be wealthy and healthy in this country. People like you make me ill, you are nothing but an ungrateful cretin.
@Jim: Solution's use of "advice" my be wrong or a typo, but Solution's use of logic surpasses yours by a mile.
Not only does the prime time Faux News camp make stuff up but a recent study indicated folks that get their news from Fox, are uneducated and are less informed than folks who don't weatch any news programs.
@ Solutions
Do you know what the Payroll Tax pays for?
Well Jimbo your post says it all...FYI everyone for most part does pay taxes...When you fill up your car you pay taxes..when you pay rent or your mortgage you pay taxes...When you buy food or clothing, you pay taxes..And guess what Jimbo, when you work, even at the minimum wage, you pay taxes (unless of course you are one of the those who like to pay his employees under the table). Then again you are characterizing your fellow Americans as deadbeats now aren't you. And of course we can blame everything on illegal immigration . Right Jimbo....
Please return to the bottom of the gene pool with the rest of the hicks.
Just like a conservative Texas...LOUDLY ignorant...but grammatically correct, ironically. You ARE exceptional...even amongst your own.
Jim in Dallas....do you suppose you were collapsed because you dared to suggest that more of the people in this great country should share the responsibility of taxes?
Personally I agree with you.. let's see those who can work do and pay their fair share for living in this great nation.
These Republicans are worthless, you defenders of them can cry and blame all you want he WILL be elected to a 2nd term because thank GOD there are more smart Americans out there who don't buy the BS! Not to mention there are way more of us then them! Only the people who can't or won't think for themselves will vote for the republicans.
Don't you dern libruls see, though?
It's perfectly OKAY for Jim there to take advantage of the benefits of society, like public education for him, his employees/coworkers/employers, the roads, the libraries, the databases, the federal guidelines for health researched with federal money, the federal research that goes into disease prevention and cure, the federal money that protects him and his family from enemies both foreign and domestic, and many of the countless other protections and advantages that society has offered him, whether he acknowledges them or not. And it's perfectly OKAY for those who get rich (or, more likely, were born rich) to take advantage of those, too.
And then it's pefectly OKAY for Jim and those like him to remove that funding, to defund public works that would improve this country (replacing old bridges, upgrading and expanding rail transport and travel capabilities, funding science research) on the grounds that they are all self-made, never had a handout, and don't associate with anyone who did. After all, they never had a problem, why should anyone? It's not like he bought a car that has federal safety standards, because Jim is so intelligent he built his own car, reading books only that he bought himself at true-market value. Or he cut down his own trees for the paper and wrote them, by hand, with a self-made pencil. Oh, and he taught himself to read. And he doesn't drive that car on roads built with public money. No, it's a flying car, so it doesn't need roads. And it doesn't use publicly subsidized gasoline, either. It only uses a special fuel that Jim figured out how to make in his back yard.
Oh, and his house isn't covered by 911 services (police, fire, ambulance). No, Jim pays for all those services directly out of his own pocket. But it's okay if his neighbor's house burns down, so long as it doesn't catch his house on fire, or his neighbor, making $8 an hour down at the convenience store, will be facing a lawsuit that will keep them in poverty for the next two decades.
Yessir, Jim and his ilk are all self-made men, never taking anything that could remotely be considered a government handout.
Yeah, I went a bit long with the rant. So sue me.
Jim you have gotta be one of the most brainwashed, ignorant, hypocritical scumbags that I've seen in a while. You think all the poor deserve it? What if they had a health issue? Should we just leave them to die? What a fine statement from the jesus party.
What about those who lost their savings on wall street? What about those who just got unlucky?
Even if we taxed the poor at 50% it would be far less revenue than we'd get by taxing the top 2% an extra 5%.
And yours, CapNChronic, is one of the most inflammatory statements here .... although you have some pretty strong company ! If a conservative was pouring out the "gas" like this, attacking another poster ... he would be banned for a week. You libs post the venom with little or no reprisal.
READ the article .... shortchanging the social security trust fund for political purposes is not wise. It is a current, band-aid solution, designed to get votes, which will make a long-term problem WORSE !!!
It's a disgrace to have any repuk in the house or senate vote to raise taxes on working families. And If I was President Obama i would call them out everyday.
Not once did they yell and scream to pay for the rich tax cuts or the two wars. But now they are kicking and screaming to raise working families taxes. disgraceful at best.
Such a distortion of reality by you ! The payroll tax holiday, passed just last year, was intended to be for one year only. Now, you feel entitled to it every year ! LOL !!
Meanwhile, the social security fund gets shortchanged and your future payout from that fund will be decreased. Try some glasses .... maybe then, you won't be so shortsighted.
This President is so shortsighted that he couldn't see that his forcing a huge healthcare bill through the congress during a financial meltdown would not only stifle business growth but cause huge layoffs to boot. Consumers have stopped spending because they are afraid of losing their jobs because of cutbacks by businesses impacted by his healthcare bill. Every businessman in the country is fearful of what the healthcare changes are gong to do to their costs...just ask them. No, payroll tax cuts will not create more jobs and I doubt very much that consumers will be spending that paltry additional money on anything more than the additional cost of goods and services, which has been brought about by the financial cost of being in business today. So thanks Obama - for nothing - your worse than worthless; you're disgraceful and incompetent. BO doesn't need any help by the GOP to damage his presidency - Obama is doing it all by himself. The GOP doesn't want to increase the tax bracket on the wealthy but they do want to close the tax loopholes. They don't want to just cut payroll taxes but actually pay for the cuts by freezing government salaries and hiring, permitting the pipeline to go through and create thousands of new jobs because we are now pushing a $15 trillion debt.
Wake up America - Obama is a failure and four more years of his policy making will do more than just prove that fact - it will take us to the deepest depression ever seen in this country.
The Republicans are much worse than hypocrites. They know that what the economy needs most is consumer spending, but they don't want a better economy. They believe a bad economy is their ticket to the White House and control of Congress. Their sabotage (and that's what it is) of the economy isn't new, they've been doing it since the election of 2008. If you think that stonewalling on these taxes are mean spirited, wait till the vote comes on extending long term unemployment. And I'll include their actions on first the "supercommittee" and then on reinstating cuts for defense spending. They agreed to those (tied to draconian cuts for other items) with the full intention of demanding that defense cuts be stopped. And anyone who disputes this will likely be called a traitor. Hypocrites? Nowhere near severe enough. Economic saboteurs, and if you think improving our economy is essential, will, maybe they're the ones who should be called traitors.
The Republican Party are the terrorists threatening our nation and should be dealt with as such.
This fight is hilarious I mean that in this way for those who scream and shout about this taking money from SS I ask you this whats the point of SS if this truly turns into a depression? This government will truly be broke with no way to help anybody. Its like being in a hot air ballon with low fuel, you can't just stop burning the fuel you'll fall out of the sky so you burn the fuel in short bursts enough to sustain the ballon until you land on your feet.
Don't believe the Grossly Overrated Party's assessment that we're so broke. It's mostly smoke and mirrors. Stop buying into the hate and fear. We can all work for a greater America, but only if we stop all the hyped-up partisan rancor.
Their screams and shouts would only have merit if the extra money collected for Social Security were not just dumped into the general fund.
@alex-623320,
I though you were against raising taxes are you a GOP or NOT? Now who is being a Hypocrite? Make up your mind - for the last 30 years - don't raise my taxes, as soon as a black man gets in the white house by way of studying hard and student loans, single mother on food stamps, then mother dying and grand parent raising him, he applies himself in school does everything right, which is an example to all American especially the black community. But to show that you can't do that, at all costs even if it brings down this economy he must not succeed because it would show others can do it as well. The American dream should only be for whites.
This is what everyone sees - how the hatred boils in their blood everyday.
They want to show even if you work hard be smart you still will fail because of the color of your skin and if you are white or not.
That is the hatred that must be defeated in this Country not President Obama.
HankE
If being 15.1 Trillion in debt isn't broke. What is your definition of BROKE??? Can you please explain why we aren't Broke??
Can you please explain why we had to clean up Georgie's Daddy's mess and pay for it with the AMERICAN PEOPLES TAXES? Or did the Republicans magically make the money appear?
Gun sales to cartels and money laundering for the cartels; plus protecting illegals is not hypocrisy?
Pro---Owning a firearm, putting NRA and American Flag stickers on your car DO NOT make you Pro-American or a patriot. Got it now?
"Now, some Republicans is how we're going to pay for these tax cuts. I'd just like to point out they haven't always felt that way," Obama said.
Is this some kind of misprint, or did the President say this? I don't understand what it means, and I wonder if a word is missing.
@ Clotho
Talk to MSNBC MOFO
Clotho Republicans have publicly cited on numerous occassions (10-15 times by different Republicans) that tax cuts SHOULD and DO NOT have to be paid for, so the President is doing a sound check. I believe that Republican logic is that tax cuts are monies paid into federal coffers and the tax cut is simply giving that money back to citizens hence no requirement to pay for them. Yet we as a country have done just that by borrowing the money.
So Republicans can without conscience create a vast debt for tax cuts for the wealthy, but now have religion by saying the very same for the middle-class must somehow be paid for in advance or through cuts.
Ron - I think they are seeing the reality of the day. There was a time when If you cut taxes in the right places the economy would spur new economic growth and the increase in revenue would surpass the status quo increase in about 2 years. This happened 1921-1923, 1961-1964, 1981-1984, 2001-2005.
One of those 4 periods is exactly where we are right now, with the exception that we have borrowed and promised ourselves into a much deeper hole than ever.
61 - 64 was the response to an extended mild recession started about 1957 or 1958.
1981 was the response to a deep recession brought on by a lethal combination of spending increases + in kind tax increases + the largest regulatory expansion in history.
Just so you know regulation is a increase in expenses of a product or service without useful improvement to a product or service, that increases the cost of the product or service to the point people turn to a less expensive product or service.
The results were double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates. Well, that's not us!
2001 isn't us either. The recession we were in then was brought about by the dot com bubble bursting AND taxes being increased annually - again.
Then comes 1921. From 1916 to 1919 the fed increased spending from $713 Million to $18.5 BILLION. It wasn't all the war, it was spending everywhere! Taxes increased from $761 Million in 1916 to 6.5 Billion in 1920. In 1920, the budget was cut from 18.5 Billion to 6.6 Billion. Some would say unemployment occured because the Government cut spending, and that COULD be said to be true - except for the following.
1920 was the final installment of taxes. Keep in mind over half of the decrease in spending was cutting spending oversees on Wilsons' vision of the League of Nations and WW I.
The lethal trigger to the 1920 collapse was cutting spending AND increasing taxes at the same time. Because I understand this, I cringe when people say compromise by a little cutting a litte increasing taxes - IT DOES NOT WORK AT ALL! Business not only was going to face reduced orders from government, but increased taxes on income. Those two combined caused business to pull back quickly and many just simply shutter the factories.
The Harding administration took to cutting taxes and spending until budgets were about 3.1 Billion and revenues jsut a little above. From the beginning of 1920 to the Beginning of 1921 unemployment jumped from 5% to 9-12% depending upon source. From the Beginning of 1921 to the end of 1923 Unemployment dropped to just below 5%. And then was the era known as "the roaring 20's" Don't let republicans fool you, it was years later before the correlation of cutting unreasonble spending and unreasonable taxes would stimulate growth.
1921 is what we have got to do or cease to exist as a free nation. We must cut the spending & cut the taxes IF we can cut enough spending.
Mr. Obama:
I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.
You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America . You are responsible to the citizens of the United States . You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.
I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe ? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?
Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States ? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?
Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia .... You didn't show Great Britain , our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia .. How dare you, sir! How dare you!
You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey ...... You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter with you? I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.
You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.
What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't!
Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now?
I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.
I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.
As a staunch Conservative, I resent your traitorous comments against our president! We were not the greatest generation by a long shot, we came up with the A-Bomb! What kind of patriot are you???
I'm voting with my heart!
Still Alive at age 85!!!
Obama/Biden 2012 "We Got It Straight In 2008!!"
The Atomic bomb saved countless numbers of lives.
Yawn... Another Fox News devotee.
Daniel - Perhaps like they should do with driving there should be a test to see if a person's cognitive abilities are capable of rational thought.
RealAmericanPatriot
Hate to break it to you but we are not a christian nation. It is the Presidents job to represent me as well and I am not a christian.
RealAmerican-
Time to get back on the meds.
Funny that is was Bush who kissed the Saudi King, and adminsitered TARP. nd last I checked, the president doesn't have a say in congressional aides bonuses.
Please get a clue.
Once again, Obama's actions defended by "but Bush did...."
RealAmericanPatriot,
What are you listening to FUX NEWS again. Please stop you are looking like a fool with you stupid comments.
Real...You are neither an American or a Patriot and a disgrace to what our fathers and grandfathers fought for.
Feel better now you "real american dumbfux news viewer"?
This is my beautiful country too mr informed. Speak for yourself...not the rest of us.
Obama/Biden 2012 "We Got It Straight In 2008!!"
What?
It's just a shame, patriot, that you wasted precious time on your ridiculous diatribe that is based neither in fact nor in logic.
You know why Democrats defend Obama's actions by "But Bush did..."? Because he did. The double standards you morons show are baffling and just illustrates that you are neither capable of independent thought nor are you aware or respectful of cultural differences.
And, how can you say you're a patriot by forcing your "Christian Nation" foolishness on the rest of us? Thomas Jefferson, himself, fought against us being a "Christian Nation" because we are FREE to not believe in your little tin God and it is our right to be free from the mix of church and state.
The USA was founded on the principles of Freemasons, not Judeo-Christian beliefs. I'm not sure where this myth of a Christian founding got started but it's complete BS.
That aside, you don't even remember how George W Bush behaved as president? He even gave an unsolicited back rub to a foreign dignitary at an official event, triggering a response of utter revulsion. I don't think Obama could screw up that bad if he tried.
But mr grover & the gop & the rushbo are outright lying when it comes to taxes. They represent the upper 1% and refuse to raise taxes on them because they say of jobs in this country. Hehehe. Their money has been going to china where the growth & returns are 10%/year.
Obama's speech on the renewal of the payroll tax cut was an incredible piece of class warfare and is shameful. This guy is dividing America and I for one have nothing but disgust for him and the democratic party. The payroll tax cut was and is a big mistake. It drains funds from the social security and medicare trust funds which are already underwater. Then to come out and suggest new taxes on the wealthy to cover it...well, nothing but pitting one American against another, meanwhile spend spend spend 15.1 trillion and counting. Gog help us.
steve- class warfare? when we have income disparity and wage stagnation on the 99% as we do if anyone is waging class warfare it is the rich versus the poor.
"Class warfare" is when the interests of 400,000 Americans are placed about the interests of 350,000,000 Americans.
Perfect example of why Republicans are polling in the single digits.
if a rich person becomes more rich, do you lose money? really, do you lose money? Obama is a socialist, who uses this tax cut issue to buy your vote by demonizing wealthy people, meanwhile the entire country is going bankrupt. 15.1 trillion for national debt is not a joke. We are near the end of the line.
By the way, in 2009 (should be true for 2010 and 2011 too), the top 10% of income tax filers paid 70.5% of all federal income taxes.
How do you divide 99% into 1%. Either you learned funny math or you're trying to divide something into nothing.
160 Million people will get a tax break and 300 thousand the 1% will see a tax increase. How is that dividing a nation? WOW the funny math from FUX NEWS is in full effect today.
Steve-3200687
Do you know what a socialist is??? I'm guessing not. Yes the top 10% paid 70% of the taxes...but they also earned 95% of the income. The national debt is going anywhere until companies who are sitting on trillions of dollars start hiring.
At #18.3 -- Yes, see that's because THEY HAVE ALL THE F$%KING MONEY.
Never thought I'd see the day when having money was considered such a chore -- I mean, really -- how d#mn lazy can you get!
To complete your statement Jim, and that will not happen as long as the Progressives continue to micro-manage the economy and change the business climate constantly through the regulator agencies!
So it's okay for the top earners to continue having their tax cuts (not "added" taxes but existing tax cuts to expire) but it's okay to tax the middle class by letting their tax cuts expire? When that millionaire is taxed an extra percentage will he find trouble paying his bills? It's a sad state of affairs for this country when asking for a better wage, a living wage, is considered socialism and it's even sadder when the people in this country would rather allow hard working laborers to languish in the streets. How christian of you!
Keep shilling for the elite, teapubs. Americans are watching, and they aren't buying your trickle down crap anymore. Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like - unless it helps the middle class.
Yes it's class warfare when the middle and lower classes fight back... I'll give ya that one. Up until that happens, it's class massacre of the middle class by the wealthy.
Steve,
What do you have to say about the group of millionaires that have actually stood up and said they want to pay more in taxes for the betterment of the economy and society as a whole? I mean how much do you want to tax a person making minimum wage and can hardly make ends meet?
Karen -
Have any of them actually donated to the federal treasury? (The federal treasury does accept donations - or didn't you know that?)
Until they put their money where their mouth is, they are just playing into the 'class warfare game'.
And liberals are naive enough to believe their rhetoric!
Was it pitting one American against the other when the GOP passed the Bush cuts by reconciliation with a tie breaking vote from Darth Cheney? These cuts went overwhelmingly to the richest among us and then Bush started the mis-adventure in Iraq. McCain said it wasn't right to cut taxes during a war. The debt doubled under Shrub Jr. and nary a republick out there had a damn thing to say. And the cause of the economic collapse was , get this, too much regulation? As one of your buddies on the right might say, "give me a break".
Pat, you lie!!! Only 22% of the Bush tax cuts (you know those "tax cuts for the wealthy") went to the top 2%, the group that pays over 50% of individual federal income taxes!! Even Obama, when he allowed them to be extended, called it the largest tax cut for the middle class in history. How can it be both!!?? I say let them ALL expire. But even though the left calls them "tax breaks for the wealthy", they only want them to expire on the "wealthy"! If they were truly for the wealthy allowing them all to expire wouldn't harm anyone except "the wealthy"!! What do you say to this!?
The Shrub Jr/ tax cuts have had the desired effects, I would say. take a budget surplus that was to used to pay down the debt, double the debt, and then collapse the economy, so the retards can go after unions and Social Security and public education. In short undermine the middle class in America, rip out all environmental regulation, rip out all financial regulation, get the SC(R)OTUS to declare corporations are people. Except for one nagging problem, the Constitution of the United States.
Real american patriot
are you people so desperate that you distort and deceive yourself about reality. Your hatred blinds you to reality. I dont know of three sentences in your statement that is not a distortion of truth or an outright lie.
Try another Paxil - they ain't working.
time to say no more- try reading a book you might get a brain
I guess when Obama said he was going to reach across the isle and bring the two parties together he meant he was doing to drop a grenade across the isle. The great divider strikes again. Folks, it's his JOB to mend fences and move the Country forward. He's a bully and a whack job. Perhaps even mentally ill. Certainly a Narcissus.
Vote him out and all the other dimwits. Both sides.
it takes TWO sides to work together- your side seems to forget it was the Republican LEADERSHIP that BEFORE he came to Washington decided it was more important to protect the Republican brand then about working to heasl America. It has been YOUR side that from day one wanted to make Obama a one term President and has REFUSED to work with him. There has been the LARGEST usage of the filibuster rule EVER.
Compromise is a two way street and the Teaparty even refused a $4 reduction in spending versus a $1 increase in tax.
Please tell me when these Repubs have offered to work with the President? Back in August they chose to get the US downgraded and stated they would rather the US default on its debt than work with this president.
@Time to Say NO MORE,
Were have you been? President Obama wanted a 4 Trillion cut in spending, let me say that again President Obama wanted a 4 Trillion cut in spending but the GOP walked away. I didn't hear you say reach across the isle and bring the two parties together when your side walked away.
Now that President Obama has backed you in a corner on your own principals he's become a divider. If that's not hypocrisy i don't know what is.
Are you a GOP - no raising taxes
Or
Are you a GOP - raise them on working families only
Which one are you? Answer the MOFO question
You cant mend fences where there are 20 ft stonewalls. Comprise means tearing down the fences or walls.....the right just keeps building them higher.
Would you just ANSWER THE QUESTION??????
No more,
I think Obama deserves a medal for being as conciliatory towards the obstuctionists as he's been. If the shoe were on the other foot I can't imagine how somebody like Gingrich would react as arrogant as he is.
Time to say: I think you meant Newt right... Because you just described him to a T...
Obama can not do the work alone generally someone on the other side has to hold their hand out as well...I have seen no one & I mean no one in the GOP do that since Obama took office...well let me rephrase that They pretended to & then slammed the door in his face! Which happens to impact all of us!
dot,
Would that be anything like Obama's statements "we won", or you can come along for the ride but "you're 'gonna have to sit at the back of the bus" ?
Obama is only concerned about one thing .... maintaining his power. He ignored the plight of the jobless during his first two years in office while pushing Amnesty for Illegals, Cap and Trade and his beloved Obamacare which was totally about his ego and taking advantage of a Democratic House, and Senate .... totally disenfranchising Scott Brown of his vote !
Republicans, draw a line in the sand and let this payroll tax cut expire. It does nothing but increase the national debt.
And let all the Bush era tax cuts expire as well. They also add to the deficit.
Steve you can't have it both ways. Especially if the Bush tax cuts are currently not paid for. Or are you on another planet thinking they are.
Were are the JOBS Steve, were are the Jobs?
You are right, we need jobs. To get jobs, reduce regulations and taxes on business. Simplify the tax code, eliminate lots of loopholes and deductions. Federal spending is not the way to go. Cut spending and pay down the national debt.
President Barack Obama contribution to the national debt: When he took office Jan. 20, 2009: the debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. In Jan. 4, 2011: the debt was $14,025,215,218,708.52, Days in Office: 715 Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 15.21%The national debt is now over 15 trillion. If he serves 8 years as president he will double the national debt at the current rate.
by the way, the so-called Bush tax cuts were not just tax cuts for wealthy people. They were across the board to all brackets. Everyone got a cut. What Obama and the Dems are doing now is singling out the social security/medicare tax and creating a controversy to demonize republicans who quite correctly point out that social security and medicare are going broke and this makes it worse. Then says take more money from the rich to give tax cuts to others. Not right.
Bush pushed through a couple tax cuts. The first was for everybody, but the second was mainly for the rich.
There big argument was tax cuts didn't need to be paid for. Over and over the republicans have stated how bad it would be to raise taxes now.
Now they are choosing, raise taxes on the working poor and middle class or raise taxes on the richest in our nation.
Interesting that republicans are more worried about the rich and taxing their second million than they are about the rest of the people in America.
Obama/Biden 2012
Steve-3200687---Thanks for the numbers on the debt! Gee I wonder why Obama had to spend so much??? Oh That's right I remember now the friggen economy tanked Before he got into office so he had to try to do something to avoid a friggen depression! Come one come up with something that makes some sense... Because for the most part we all remember what he had to deal with...and is still trying to deal with despite the GOP.
Great post by Steve at #21.4, the "Bush tax cuts", which Obama extended reduced taxes on ALL LEVELS OF TAXATION ... a very "inconvenient truth" to Democrats who still insist on playing the class warfare game.
Furthermore, for those earning at higher levels, exemptions were phased out, therby increasing their taxable income, thereby INCREASING THEIR TAXES !
Funny, you never hear the liberals mentioning this fact ! All Obama is concerned about is "we're going to redistribute the wealth" ..... words directly from his lips during the last presidential run !
TAX SYSTEM (AND BUSH TAX CUTS) EXPLAINED IN BEER AND SHOW THE LIBS UTTER INCOMPETENCE IN MATH
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all.
This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
Damn Math! I hate facts because you can't distort them and make them fit your agenda!
Yeah, I understand that the richest 1% paid a marginal rate of 91% on their highest earnings in the 1950's. So, their drinks are much, much cheaper today. And they would still be much cheaper if their capital gains rate was raised from 15% to 39% or their earnings rate was raised to 39%.
@Paul-4412303,
That's funny the country seem to work for everyone 35 years ago - Regan
The richest paid 90% once that stared to be reduced to the current 33% and the economy is bad somehow the richest must pay even less than that. That folks doesn't sound like simple math at all. Sounds like lying math. Let's go back to the old days make more pay more simple. We all currently do until you make over a million dollars then your rate drops from 33% to 15% how the hell is that fair?
GREAT!!! Go back to China where you ALL belong!
Yo Solutions....
Get a grip dude...capital gains is different than income and has already been taxed at the corporate level or elsewhere...it's a form of double taxation. You know, the rich pay WAY more in taxes then the rest of the country. Why do you begrudge the successful? Do you really think we need the Northern Nevada Arts Fesitval funded by our tax dollars? How about the reproduction rates of shrimp? Why not pay for the payroll tax cuts with the waste within the federal government. Why keep hitting up the successful, many of which came from nothing with the same opportunities everyone else had...(i.e. public school, paid for college, and worked hard in jobs that paid a return). All good choices...and now you say they owe you money via the federal government? BS brother...
I agree. The tax table should be put back where it was pre-Reagan. The corporate world paid at 90% and still made vast amounts of money. Why is this point constantly distorted?
Super Bon,
Go back to China? You mean that uber capitalist country that manufactures most of the goods at Walmart? You mean that state directed capitalist country that has been kicking our ass? Hey, I don't like their law enforcement policies, free speech policies, or their labor conditions. But, I think you might.
Paul,
I say don't let the door hit em on the way out. There will be plenty other start-ups to take their place. Where, by the way are they going to go and do business. Maybe, Mexico, good luck dealing with the drug cartels. I think they would probably be better served operating in the good old US of A even with higher taxes. Companies are making money hand over fist with sky high, record breaking profits so no reason to whine and complain.
Of course, as you must know, the tenth guy might pay 60% of the tab, but he is making proportional way more than the other nine...so $59 dollars is really meager compared to his purchasing power. While numbers are fun to play with, they can be manipulated quite easily to favor one's political preference, especially when you "play god" with how human behavior will actually respond.
We get it, you have made a bundle of money, love the idea of tax breaks without offsets...unless it involves the middle class...and you call yourself an economist...hahahahaha. After watching Apocalypto, I can't but help think that all the poor souls stretching from the bottom to the top of the pyramid are middle class folks having their hearts cut out by the elite, in the name of religion...because they are bound by supporters like you.
Yo Salsarider-
Bite me. I was lower middle class if I was lucky, and busted my tail to make a decent living. Didn't party in high school or college and work 60 hour weeks. So, because I make more money, I should pay more for a beer then a friend that makes less? How stupid is that!! Maybe next time you go to Wal Mart or Target, why don't you pay 10% more then the single mom just so she can get 10% off. Put your money where your mouth is. I give PLENTY to charity and help others in my industry be more successful and make more money. It's disgusting to think you or the government can tell me I make too much and need to give it to you. I think the $25,000 in federal income taxes alone I paid last year on $110k in AGI is more than enough...
Professor,
you don't say how many beers each man had. 10 men drinking 100 dollars worth of beer at $3 per beer would mean about 33 beers were consumed. At least one beer would spill on the table. Without dividing the beers into fractional parts, and assuming the same monetary contribution from each man, the first six men would drink one beer each, the 7th man would drink 2 beers, the 8th man 3 beers, the 9th man 5 beers, and the 10th man 17 beers.
Due the math, on a per beer basis the 10th man still gets the best per beer price of everyone in the group except the bottom 6, ---but remember they don't get much of a buzz ----given that they only get one beer each!
Obama is a born hypocrite. Anyone but Obama the Inept in 2012!!!
@Mcpaddywack your payroll taxes will go up.
I thought you were a GOP? Are they for less taxes on working families or are they for more taxes on working families? Make up your mind.
But for the last 30 years you were for less taxes.
Were are the JOBS.
Let's just bring Bush back. We all see how well that worked out.
Hey Republicans you can only take one pledge?
So which is it?
Grover Norquist or The United States of America?
Joe - Norquist wins hands down over country with the Pubbies, also their total kowtowing to their god "The Almighty Buck".
Payroll tax cuts are just like the individual mandate on healthcare. Newt and Mitt were for the individual mandate previously. Now, they think it is awful. (Because it's what Obama wants.) Also you have to remember that the Republicans work for and are immensely loyal to the Koch Brothers, Grover Norquist, and Rupert Murdoch. (They prefer to label their FOX allegiance as allegiance to Roger Ailes, given Rupert's current troubles.) So, give them their props for standing up for the only God and Country that they know. You have to know who to goosestep for.
Screw the tax break. Its not helping my wife and I. Keep the money for our elders. What we need is the fair tax or the flat tax. No one should have to pay more taxes. Yes I mean no one. Look at 50 years ago and what people were taxed and then look at us now. Government is going to spend more as long as we give them the OK. And yes you 51% who is not paying any taxes. Become legal, get a job and stop having babies that you cannot afford that way we can help the ones that are not able to help themselves.
We already have a "fair tax" -- You make money, you pay taxes, you make MORE money, you pay MORE taxes.
Gee, nice rant. You should do some research on those who "don't pay taxes" (which, of course, is a fallcy to begin with.
TIRED: Another canard from the Right. The bottom 51% d not pay INCOME TAXES. They still pay sales taxes, property taxes, motor vehicle taxes and a host of other usage taxes.
The reason why they don't pay income tax IS BECAUSE THEY ARE EITHER POOR OR NEAR THE POVERTY LEVEL. How much would you like a single mom with 2 or 3 kids, who works at Wal Mart for minimum wage???
The rich pay more because THEY HAVE ALL THE MONEY. Got it now???
@MJMullinII wrong the more money you make over 1 million dollars the less you pay.
@tiredinath.ga. Ever heard of the working poor, like somone who makes 15,000 a year. They pay FED, FICA, MED and SS taxes every paycheck. Let's not include state taxes. Let's not forget the taxes they pay to buy milk, cell phone taxes, cable taxes if they can afford it and any item at the various stores they go to to get day to day items for surviving. So yes the poor does pay taxes.
The 51% pays no taxes is a FUX NEWS talking point.
Ozzyboy
The other 49% pay all those taxes as well, along with income tax! Was there supose to be a point in there somewhere? As you pointed out there are some that shouldn't be expected to pay taxes, perhaps 18 to 20% fall in that group. Nowhere near the 51% we now have! Although I believe it's closer to 47 or 48% than 51%. Some of these do however recieve money from the IRS because of EIC!
Ted, you do realize that there is an amount of your taxes that you pay no income on as well? Next time you talk to your accountant, ask him to explain the term graduated. Any tax increase to those in the lowest brackets would increase your taxes as well.
Balanced and even in what way? A democrat controlled congress hasn't balanced the budget in over forty years. Guess how many Republican controlled congresses have balanced the budget in the last forty years? All but two. Also, whoever told you that there was such a thing as an honest politician, is a liar.
Everybody in America pays the same tax rates, up to the level of their income. You make mega bucks, great, no problem. Did you employ other people to make that money? Did you use the laws, the education system (to pay for those highly advanced employees), security systems (military, police, DHS ect), and the infrastructure including the markets (since we are a consumer economy)? Did you leverage all that to make your mega-bucks? Also did you pay those employees a fair wage that represented what they did to earn you all that money (you know wages paid are tax deductable, right)? If not, pay the higher rates commensurate with your higher income and STFU.
This has been law for a hundred years or more, it's known as a graduated tax, and at least your grandpappy paid it and didn't whine about it.
How many times can the Democrats play their shell games, paying for this or that with "taxes on the wealthy" ?
Every time Obama and the Dems use the class warfare card, hold onto your wallet, they are coming after all of us.
We are the 99% ...the private sector who works and earns their own keep.
They are the 1%...greedy entitled public sector parasites.
What are u talking about Bob, the 1% have been paying a 15% tax rate or less for the last 10 years.
Yes, so many DMV workers I know are millionaires.
Do you guys even think for one second about the nonsense you spew before you post it??
what in hell is Bob talking about? Oh, it must be something he heard on Fox Noise
I agree Bob, how many times will he blame the successful? As long as his followers believe him I guess.
soazDan, you must be a proponent of our current Governor and her cadre of bullies in the House and Senate... Well, to let you in on a secret, your favorite player Pearce was recalled, the AZ Supreme Court overruled the Governor's blatant power grab with redistricting, and I can count several GOP incumbents who will have the run of their lives. See you in 2012....:).....on the other side...when AZ flips...can't wait to talk to you then...
Because I must...Come on...keep pushing it...because you only help to expose the truth that the GOP is a bunch of goons and it makes Obama look better everyday. The GOP has a serious problem when Newt dominates the polls and then commits himself to a "debate" with Trump as the moderator. Trump as the moderator...hahaha...
There is a lot to be proud of in the GOP isn't there?! They have assembled the finest to take Obama down....hahaha...!
You must
You should not worrying about Obama and begin to understand that the GOP is ready to die on the vine
President Obama's slow ride down Gallup's daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in political history.
His class warfare BS is catching up with him....It's sooooo much fun watching this racist clown go into political oblivion!
@bfitz: You are a pure idiot! Pres Obama is half white as well as half black so as a racist, which side of himself is he a racist against? You just like to say the first dumb thing that enters your empty head; don't you? LMBAO! In a class warfare, who would Obama, who has been bought wealthy and poor, who/whom would he pledge his allegiance to? Still LMAO!
Class warfare? Please explain...i see a big difference between fairness and class warfare. Bfitz...the tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations was a gift and still from the tax payers of this country the "the middle class" and it has been going on to long. The middle class that is funding this is really the folks getting stung. They are losing jobs. This was the REASON for all the tax breaks and incentives for these companies! To grow and invest and hire people. It is NOT happening. The private sector is not creating enough jobs to keep giving them those Bush tax incentives. The revenue lost with those Bush cuts is great and it needs to stop. These companies are hoarding buttloads of money and still not hiring. That is the view of the majority.
Jon...You are another of the leftists that just follows the talking points of the socialists....The Bush tax cuts were for everyone....The lower and middle incomes received a higher percentage tax cut than the top....The information is there...Dont just repeat the lies....Yes, there are business deductions and there have always been. Yes, there are incentives for business investment and there have always been....in every administration.....Dont push the idea that only happened when Bush was president....It would be another lie....
tryreality You need to look at the IRS website! It gives % paid in income taxes for the income groups. You will see that the top 1% pays an average of over 23%! As income goes down, so does % paid in income taxes. I know this doesn't fit with what the left has told you but these are facts!!!
JA You are correct. Only 22% of the Bush tax cuts, you know those "tax breaks for the wealthy", went to the top 2%!!
You know, just once, I mean once, I'd like to hear a Democrat suggest slowing the growth of the federal budget to pay for a tax break. The government should be much smaller before one penny is taken from any working Americans. We all know the government could be cut by 10 or 15% at a minimum ($350 BILLION per year) and we wouldn't even know it....
Paul,
Republicans have said that tax breaks pay for themselves... Why would we have to slow the growth of government to pay for something that is already paid for???
Right you are Paul: lets start with YOUR social security, YOUR Medicare, and YOUR unemployment compensation or Medicaid should you ever fall into hard times. Or would you rather cut 10-15% from the MASSIVELY overbloated military budget? No, Repubs would never do that!
Mark/Bobby-
Go move to Europe. They seem to be doing just fine with their economics.
I'm not going to get social security b/c the government stole it to pay for crap. How about 10 to 15% from military, energy (they have done a great job in getting us off forgien oil, huh), HHS (what do they do anyway?), EPA (I work in the environmental industry and these people are crazy...no one is dying now, but they still want to rachet down air regulations at $billions when people go to McD to eat...what a joke...), Military...yes, military...not the troops, but the military...Medicare (over $200 BILLION in waste...that pays for the payroll tax cut right there), SSA (the staff or move to the State level), Deptartment of Education (yes, we have State Education Depts...I mean why pay the Federal Government to give the States our tax money?)...Dudes, pay attention. 90% of the federal government DOES NOT come back to it's citizens. It goes to special interests of some sort....
Paul,
Why would I move to Europe??? Maybe because you have no facts to back up your argument and facts are for those sissy Europeans...
And you call yourself an economist (from an early post)...hardly. Rather...you are a political partisan...with a giant agenda that is non-factual...