I agree. How much more in taxes does he want?? They already get 50+ % including Fed/State/City/Payroll/Property/School/Sales. What's my fair share?? A little guideline please.

Looks like more giveaway programs.

Shoot Feisty, this is probably not something you need to worry about.

The bit Credit downgrade you fine state just suffered, however, just might be.

So Feisty - refresh my recollection. Wasn't it just last year that Gov. Quinn said the huge budget shortfall would be fixed if they raised taxes? And they did raise taxes, by a huge percent, correct?

So what happened?

Wait a second. Did your fantastic democratic governor and democratically controlled legislature cut spending?

And, in spite of tax increases of upwards of 60%, the revenue didn't really increase?

Huh. What a surprise.

But hey everybody makes mistakes. So what now, brown cow?

You know, you all could take a page from the great state of Wisc. Seems they are kicking ass in the fixing the budget department.

Economic fairness is liberal code for class warfare

Economic fairness is liberal code for class warfare

*yawn*

You know the President is on the right track when, the best they can come up with is a 40 year old talking point! lol

And the funny thing is Feisty is also certain that Gov. Quinn and Ill. is on the right track.

can somebody define "class warfare" please?

But Feisty - if it is still true after 40 years, you can still say it.

What do giving all my money to the poor, a church or amnesty international all have in common. They are all my choices and they should not involve government bureaucrats. Government is not the answer....The condition of the human heart is.

GREAT Job, Mr President.

Obama / Biden 2012 The Clear and Clean Choice for America.

Its good that he's clean! No one likes a stinky president!

Obama's , Robin Hood politics and food stamp promotions are really working out great as our debt blasts above $15 trillion.........beautiful....

You can thank Mr. Bush.

Yup...lets take from the successful and give to the lazy...

Yea , we've heard that one before....I don't know if you've noticed , but Bush has been gone for 3 years...

....................Obama, four more years Guaranteed !!!

I wouldn't want that guarantee.....

Obama to focus on economic fairness, what the hell does that mean? Does that mean we take from those that have it and give to those that don't?

It seems like Obama has talked about the economy in every State of the Union Message since being President, yet the economy has not improved that much but our national debt has skyrocketed.

I am sure he will continue to blame the previous administration, the weather, the middle east, Europe and Japan and anyone and anything else he can come up with especially the Congress, which he will not mention that half of congress is controlled by the democrats.

I'm a newbee so I can't post links yet, but if you google "wall st profits under obama", at the top you get articles from the Washington Post and Thinkprogress reporting how Wall St. profits were greater in the 2 1/2 years under Obama than in 8 years under Bush.

From the Washington Post: Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — are doing even better. They earned more in the first 2 1/2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, industry data show. [...]

Champion of the middle class? I don't think so. Obama has and always will be about Wall Street.

Perhaps if Republicans would stop trying to hobble the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we could begin to reverse that trend.

Meanwhile, back to the standard Conservative whining about "class warfare." How much lower should the effective tax rate be for the wealthy elites be than the effective tax rate for the middle class? The effective tax rate for the very rich is already 30% lower than the effective tax rate of the middle class. What's the number....50% lower? 75% lower? EVERY tax reform plan from Conservatives would virtually eliminate taxes on the wealthy elites. Is that fair?

bigbenalaska, Check out msnbc Business section. "Top Justice officials linked to Mortgage Bank" Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer.

Yessir, he's gonna give free college, free houses, mortgage forgiveness and free jobs training...again. Wonder how many unions and 'green energy' companies will get more cash so's they can declare bancruptcy and forget where all the money went. Love how he keeps helping the middle class, going to save the middle class from the evil elites. Guess the way to do that is to take all the money from the elites (except for his campaign donors, of course) and 're-distribute' said money to those in need (green energy campaign donors and Hollywood Moguls)

I guess I missed out on the last 'give-away' programs, this time I need to know where the line starts. I want me some of that "obama stash.'

Economic fairness?! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! More code words that decipher into giving even more taxpayer money to the deadbeats, welfare puppies, useless unions, and partisan liberal hacks.

And Spanky...try not to confuse the 'frigid' leftwing bloggers with facts

Obviously paying for 2 lose/lose wars,crafting reg's that bankrupted our country (and lined the 1%ers pockets) while giving too many people the illusion that the American Dream was still alive is the Bush legacy the 1%ers will not acknowledge.How many families that could afford to buy homes when eagar lenders were allowed to run wild,millionaires exploited Wall St and oil companies saw record profits are still proud homeowners today?Crude oil was $45/bbl when Bush took office and peaked around $140/bbl.While Average Joe struggles to pay $5-7/gal Oil co's had double-digit billion $ quarterly profits.Obama's trying to bail out the boat while the Republicans do all they can to stand in the way.They aren't hurting like the 99% and their only goal is to not allow Obama to do anything to turn things around.Those are not the values our Great Nation was founded on and I'm surprised they think we can't see them for the despicable,greedy,out of touch monsters they are.

As I said on another article, the class warfare and dividing up the country is working well. It splinters groups which was the plan. The majority will always go for the candidate that promises free stuff. Why not ? The kids just getting started want their loans reduced or eliminated because it just isn't fair that they are saddled with debt. What they haven't figured out yet is that they will be the very ones with the burden of the future of this country. Many in Washington making decisions will be bailing soon to retire. They are set. They got their money and now it is up to the X and Y generation to figure out a game plan to make the math work. So the X and Y generation will need to become the job creators and they will be the taxpayers otherwise the ship goes down.

Economic fairness is nothing more than redistribution of wealth, this is the essence of the Marxism. Economic fairness is robe to Paul to give it to John. Obama is against the job creators , to be milionare you just need to make more than 200 thousand dollars a year, and this is what make an small business, plumber, electrician, this is an attack to the middle class the ones that provide most of the jobs. Obama is out of touch from the back bone of America and focus in make this country a welfare country, because for Democrats the best way to get votes is giving away the money we don't have instead to create policies thet help the investor to create jobs. Russia already try what Obama is trying to do here what Russia did and fail ,we don't need to follow the same road.

Dontcome easy

Who do you think want the price of gas go high? Read comments of Stephen Chu Secretary of Energy, they want the gas higher to promote green energy. This government want the poor pay more for energy because their green ideology is first.

Reality Check-1104333

Yup...lets take from the successful and give to the lazy...

That is not Obama's plan at all...and you know it.

How is making college more affordable for middle class students and helping homeowners avoid foreclosure "taking from the successful and giving to the lazy"?

What is your definition of success? If it means amassing a lot of money through any means possible, then drug dealers and pimps fit that into category. I'd hardly call them hard working and successful...for too long, Americans have been worshiping the almighty dollar-- and those who cheat and steal to get it-- to the detriment of the economy and the moral fiber of this nation.

Middle class people are not lazy. There are millions out of work because Bush's policies allowed corporations to outsource our jobs overseas where factory labor can be bought for a dollar a day. Ask the CEO of Nike about that, why don't you?

Quit listening to the FOX talking heads and think it through...reality check: American's economic engine is middle class consumerism. If the wealthy robber barons succeed in destroying the middle class, they will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

The wealthy 1% cannot defeat Obama in a fair election, so they throw around inane talking points, like 'he's a socialist'. Fortunately for those of us who are proud to be in the middle class and who still believe in democracy, we have the numbers to go to the polls on election day. We are more than the 1% and we can defeat them.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 BRAINS AND BALLOTS

I hope that president Obama is able to explain, during his address to the American people the B. S. that is coming out of Washington and just how the news media twist everything for ratings...

Especially what the one percent have control over in this country... Like the supreme court and both houses of congress... It's all about the money...

With such huge problems, this speech's focus is lame! If my President really want to lock up re-relection, propose one of two things during the State of the Union speech. #1. - Adopt Simpson-Bowels #2. Promise to Introduce and Support Term Limits for all Congresspersons and Senators.

fairness and equality isn't in the reichwing's dictionary. Taking everything you can and letting the person you took it from know that. Now we're getting somewhere.

How is the economic state of affairs in Illinois and Nevada today? Are they still solvent?

Wow Oskar, that logic had more twists than an entire bag of pretzels.

Gasoline prices have doubled since Obama took office, unemployment is a lot higher than they are willing to admit, our bond rating has been lowered, the national debt has skyrocketed, good job Obama, you really deserve another 4 years to finish destroying the economy.

oskar: could you be any sillier? Every one of your Repubilcan saviors on the extreme right now running for President is far, far and away richer than the average American...The fairness argument may sound extreme to them, but to most Americans, this isn't really all that tough to figure out. We've put our foot on the scale for the richest Americans for decades upon decades and at the expense of everyone else. You may not have quite figured that out yet, but this isn't a real difficult concept for others who know corporate tax breaks and 15% tax rates for investments isn't exactly NON governmment intervention ...most Americans know they worked hard for their social security and still do not have enough in the bank to keep their house or send their kids to college let alone face one major medical catastrophe. You need to do some reading on what socialism actually is so you can at least try to make a logical argument for your foaming at the mouth crowd. This ain't it.

So Steve, why do the Republicans continue to block reasonable regulation of the oil market? Speculation in oil is, after all, the ONLY factor driving up inflation...but Republicans continue to fight the concept that wealthy elites shouldn't be able to steal from average Americans and the larger economy through manipulation of markets for this essential economy.

And why do you blame this on President Obama? The highest price on record for oil was 2008, as the world economy was beginning to implode. The Bush Administration refused to do anything about it then, Republicans in Congress refuse to do anything about it now.

NewsFlash Obama to focus on communism and class warfare in his state of the union diatribe.

Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about. Go back to grade school, where you dropped out to have your fifth kid.

The only answer Obama will have in the Presidential debates will be "its all Bushs fault".

Sandra - Socialism is where this administration's agenda is headed. There is much to bolster that argument. Here's just one: http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/78330/

Oh, alim, you're a BIRTHER! That explains a lot. Enjoy your day in the land of make believe.

Meanwhile, no one has answered my question...why do Republicans insist on facilitating greedy speculators who're actively robbing the American middle class?

you right wingers are so out of touch with the rest of us its not even funny anymore i can`t beleave no yes i can beleave you people are so brainwashed and blind that you can`t even think for yourselves anymore you people are such idiots anybody that would vote for a former house speaker who was thrown out for ethics violations by his own party mind you and then used his clout to make millions lobbying for the healthcare industry and make a million an a half working for fannie and fredie while they and ever other loan sharks were killing the economy you dumbasses would vote for anybody just because their a teapublican your idiots you vote even when its against your own best intrest. how dumb is that? your so brainwashed by all the BS that your party spits out on rightwing radio and fox news you never check facts you never sit back and look at things in a different light you have one view and thats it. and how stupid is that? your party should be run out of town for the disrespect that they have shown to this president what a bunch of scumbags i thought that once you were thrown out of congress you couldn`t get back in oh thats right hes reformed so go ahead and elect the lieing a&&hole and let him and his cronnies finish taking the rest of the store and when you are no longer needed they`ll kick your dumbass to the curb to. then again you wont know because your to f@#@#@# brainwashed and stupid to even think for yourself right.

This crap is great until you run out of the successful peoples money. Mitt Romney is worth $250 million. He earned it. We ALL had a chance to go to high school, get scholarships or loans, study business and do what he did. If you come right down to it, our life choices or natural intelligence made us do something different, but many, many of us made a nice living working for the companies Mitt Romney and other venture capitalists provided the coin to start-up. Try getting a loan now to start-up a company. These people risk their personal money, earned after taxes, so why should the government (or the people that didn't earn it) get more than 15%?

So, you take all of Mitt Romney's money ($250 million or whatever) and Obama and the Dems spending spree is approximately $10 billion per day....$3.6 trillion or so divided by 365 is $10 billion. So, that $250 million supports the government for about 20 minutes...what do you do next?

So, again, what is fair? What do you do when you literally run out of people to tax? What is an accpetable amount of spending? When do you hold the US Government accountable for what it spends? When do you hold the Department's of Education and the Teacher Unions accountable for having the most $$ spent per student in the world and some of the worst performance? Give them more money? How does that help?

Stop the madness now!! Obama and the Dems are spending my 12 year old daughter's future kids money b/c there aren't even enough rich people now to support the current spending if you tax them at 70%. That's reality folks. Your utopia doesn't work. America, where an idiot half black minority can get scholoarships to presitgious university and become President w/o working a real day in his life is an example that the American Dream is available to all "poor" people. Stop taking it away from some of us that have busted our tails to get where we are from crappy backgrounds. That IS NOT FAIR!!

Excellent points Paul - these idoits are spending our kids futures away. $15 trillion in debt is about $50,000 per person assuming we have 300 million people. But since a large number of those really don't pay any taxes, those of us who do owe about $150,000. I have 3 kids (the oldest is 30 and in the Army) the others are 27 and 24. I am very concerned about what kind of future they will have if we continue on this path. Four more years of Beavis and Bu**head will be a total disaster for this country.

Meanwhile, no one has answered my question...why do Republicans insist on facilitating greedy speculators who're actively robbing the American middle class?

we are all speculators John. You speculate that going to college will allow you to obtain a decent job, you speculate that graduating from high school will put you ahead of your peers in the job market, you speculate that going to law school, med school, vet school, etc will allow you to practice your craft as a career, make an income and assist your fellow mankind. When you take a job a McDonalds, at WalMart, at 7 eleven you the individual speculate that you will earn money to do with what you want. All this specualtion may allow the individual to be successful, earn more income, move up the corporate ladder and live the American dream.

So you're in favor of the uber rich using their already formidable wealth to increase their fortunes by twisting the market to force up the price of essential commodities that the rest of us must buy.

Thanks for making that clear.

Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or principle. It's a series of messages designed to sell policies beneficial to the wealthy elites.

'Rich man's club.'

You mean the one that Obama is part of? Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Kerry. Of course Kerry pays an average rate of like 12%, but he's a dem, so that cool.

Heck, given Obama's team, both present and past, there must be a 'rich man' clubhouse in the White House. Multi-millionaires - Axelrod, Jarrett, the Obama, Rahm, Daley, Lew, Geinter, Elizabeth Warren.

Is there anyone in Obama's inner circle that is not in the rich man club?

I do see that they are willing to talk publicly and openly on the subject. Mr. Romney would prefer to talk about it quietly. Quietly has not done the job. Publicly and openly might.

Really?

Like Warren, who 'forgot' to report over a $100k?

But please advise - where are ay of these multi-millionaires talking about their own personal worth publicly?

spanky if mitt the ripper gets in his White House will be called the "Richer Man" clubhouse. mitt the ripper has more money than all of the people you have listed above. How many of the above have money in the Cayman Islands?

Ron Paul will not bash President Obama - and only speak regarding policies or procedures the administration furthers, as to whether it squares with the best interest of citizens weighed against law. The stance of the GOP on most issues is not just heavy-handed but absolutely, unequivocally horrible. To come together on foundational issues that promote equality for everyone, pandering to no one, peace, liberty, sound money limits government and promotes individuals, who are and will remain very different. Weaning off of government intervention is difficult but I personally hold that to great degree it is necessary.

I am still looking for the answer about companies, now sitting on record profits, wanting MORE tax cuts and LESS regulation (the GOP plan) before they will consider hiring. How much more profit do they want/need before deciding to create more jobs? Or, are they just wanting to pad their bottom line more? Just some questions to consider.

Smitty-4183671

Why do you care how much Mitt has? Also having money in the Caymans doesn't mean anything if you still pay the appropriate taxes like he did.

Would you prefer somebody in the White House that was dirt poor and means that they didn't know how to manage themself let alone the country. That person would never rise up high enough in any party to get the nomination and that is D or R.

Obama is a millionaire many times over and I don't see anybody criticizing his wealth.

Companies are scared to death to invest or spend their held profits under Obama.....

Sorry, bigben, I don't buy into that one.

reb mitt the ripped said he paid 15%. I pay more than that. Have you seen his tax returns to prove that he has paid the appropriate taxes? The President maybe be a millionaire, but mitt the ripper by far has more millions than the President.

Yes I would rather have a President who came from a humble background. That way that person would know what its like being a small guy and what the small guy has to do to survive. mitt the ripper can't say that.

This thread has to be considered a "safe harbor" for all those nervous Romney supporters today...

phinephancy-4252115

Good to see you again. Hope you had a nice holiday.

As for your questions, I suspect the regulations companies are afraid of involve both Obamacare and Dodd Frank. Both of these will cost companies billions and until the Obamacare question is settled in SCOTUS they won't know the final figure and that is cause significant consternation and little hiring.

Also the rise in corporate profits can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth — which means companies have been able to make more with less — as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad. Economic conditions in the United States may still be weak, but many emerging markets like India and China are expanding rapidly.

Just some reason sbut I am not an economist.

Smitty-4183671

I paid more than that too but I am looking forward to the day when my I retire and my investments will allow me to only pay the 15%. Remember I paid a lot of tax on what I earned and the money that I saved after those taxes and used for investment is what will be charged at the 15%

I personally would prefer a person that had a humble background but you have to go back to Lincoln to get to the last one. I don't think that Obama's concept of spreading the wealth is sound and I sure don't believe that he or Michelle got into Harvard, Columbia etc. etc. without a lot of help. So much for being humble. Perhaps if they went to a community college first and worked their way in I would have more confidence in their "humble" background.

Reb,

How are you? Yes, it was a lovely holiday. And I hope yours was just as good.

I understand your argument, but, I am sorry, I am sceptical of it. With profits padding the pocket, I see these "worries" as just excuses. I could be wrong, but it is the sceptic in me.

Anybody else here subscribe to the Financial Times? Pretty interesting Op Ed there today. Talks about how charities- and the global poor- need capitalism- its the only thing that can save the poor, create jobs, create wealth- you know, all those "evil" things the rich are for, but Obama and his cult are against.

The really interesting point is the author. Fellow by the name of Bill Clinton.

I suspect it appears in the FT because there are so few on this side of the pond who subscribe- and because the FT precludes links to articles.

Just Google "Bill Clinton Charity Needs Capitalism", and you'll get the opening paragraph of the story.

Why not just go to RCP? Where the article is prominently featured....NO subscription necessary...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

President Clinton has written similar pieces that have appeared elsewhere over the past several years, as his own CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) is a stellar example of private sector/public sector partnership...

http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/

phinephancy-4252115

Yes we had a good time here in NYC. Kids came up from Florida if you can imagine that. Snow today but that was to be expected sometime this winter.

I understand you may be skeptical and of course that is your right. I guess we'll both find out the answer in June/July when the court decides.

In any event enjoy your weekend and GO GIANTS!!!

Go to realclearpolitics, dangerfield- then try opening the article. Unless something has changed drastically in the last few months, you will be invited to subscribe before you can access the actual article.

If it has changed, then by all means, avail yourself of the opportunity.

YO phine - check out Apple.

It sits on top of $60 BILLION that sits in overseas accounts.

Smitty - Mitt's rich, but who is richer - him or Kerry? How about Obama's pal Jack Lew, or Geinter or Summers. Shoot, Pelosi is filthy rich.

And don't forget about Ross Perot. He'd cry if he only had Romneys money.

Nope smitty - to reality is and always has been the rich control the world. They did in Rome, they did in England, they do here.

Don't hate, get some.

NoJoe-

No problem from RCP for me...

No problems at RCP for me.

Loved Clintons article.

Then again dude pulls down $110k, minimum per speech and is worth $82 million.

I just hope he's getting a better quality of tail these days.

What I understand as the Ron Paul take on job creation: Phoney money keeps job growth down. When the dollar is worth far less, corporate entities stockpile funds while holding off on hiring. Combined with over-regulation that takes American jobs away, the decreased value of the dollar keeps us treading water. Creating phoney jobs that pile on administrative costs to government haven't been a solution. When the European Union 'band-aided' its currency and debt problems, the markets soared because it gave the impression of sound money. Cutting federal spending and paying down debt are real solutions to our money problems and to job creation. They need to happen yesterday.

You mean the one that Obama is part of? Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Kerry. Of course Kerry pays an average rate of like 12%, but he's a dem, so that cool.

Of course it isn't...and all of those you've mentioned have tried to raise taxes on themselves along with everyone else in their fortunate position. The fact that life has smiled on them hasn't made them so greedy it blinds them to the unfairness of the present tax code.

As for the Right, they're more like John D. Rockefeller. At a time when he was already the wealthiest man on Earth, a giant even among the Robber Barons, he was asked how much more money he needed. "Just a little bit more" was his reply.

Having a bad day Spanky? I don't mean to add to your sorrows, but when you piss on a good man and a Great President to try to coddle and cradle your plummeting "candidate" in the face of a man (Newton) who makes Clinton's sexual history look like he's Richie Cunningham vs the Fonz...well...

I see your true colors shining through here...still attacking the ONLY thing you can about the President who actually balanced the budget and left a surplus for his Republican successor? You know, those economic issues you care so much about now that went unchecked from 2000 through January of 2009?

Did President Clinton, who isn't running for anything, make the idiotic, tone deaf comment that his $375,000.00 speaking fees were "minimal"? The sad attempts at moral equivalence by you now, or by the left when they use the same silly, transparent tactic makes you look really tiny. But not so tiny as when you need to resort to the President's dick to be clever...especially when that kind of thing isn't such a big deal with the MAJORITY of Republican voters anymore...based on who the new "front-runner" is, anyway..I mean they could've had Santorum...

REB-1013231, read the following, and, if you get the chance, read the entire report (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/letterof44dems.pdf). The Republican/TP Inc. party has been selling you a bill of goods that is worth nothing, for a very long time.

From 'Citizens for Tax Justice' report 'Group of House Democrats Support Tax Preferences for Wealthy Investor Class that President Reagan Ended' updated September 29, 2010 (an excerpt addressing your retirement tax plan):

"The letter signed by 47 House Democrats echoes an argument that has been made by Douglas
Holtz-Eakin, who claims that allowing the rate reduction for dividends to expire for the rich
would hurt seniors, who receive more stock dividends than other taxpayers.

But the only seniors who would lose any part of their Bush tax cuts under any plan entertained
by President Obama or Democratic leaders would be those seniors who are among the richest
2.1 percent of taxpayers."

Well said, John B. It is beyond comprehension for the right wing that anyone would want to do anything to help those less fortunate than them, even if it adversely affects their own wealth. The concept that if everyone does well, those at the top will do even better is to subtle for them to comprehend.

Rockefeller is a liberal. As to wealth, would you rather be in a country that allows for the opportunity to become wealthy or would you rather be in a country where everyone is equally poor? When you examine the former USSR you discover that the wealth of the country lay in the hands of the political elite. Everyone else got to stand in line for stale bread. Obama speaks of wealth 'equality' and then turns around and gives money to his cronies and backers. Bush et al did the same, but at least they weren't pretending to give a rat's a$$ about 'equality.' Neither is Obama, he talks a lot, but talk is cheap. Look at what he does rather than only listening to what he says.

John D Rockefeller was a life-long Republican and monopolistic industrialist who died in 1937.

Thanks for playing.

Actually John,

She was probably referring to David Rockefeller, Sr. The current family patriarch.

Who although he claims to be a moderate Republican, where he puts his cash and philanthropy is decidedly liberal in bent. Not that I give a damn since I'm no longer a Republican and haven't been since Georgie the first fired me for telling his campaign advisers that he was going to lose in '92. The Clinton's are long time personal friends of his.

To a hard core republican he is a rino.

Probably so. It's worth noting that there are also 4 Koch brothers. Two of them run the family business and have devoted much of their time and fortunes to furthering the anarcho-capitalist agenda of their father Fred, who cofounded the John Birch Society. Two of them were bought out of the business years ago so they can escape from all that.

Smitty

Obama only pays 15% on his capital gains too, just like Mitt and everybody else. Why are libs so concerned with what someone else has, even if they had less, you wouldnt have more.

That's the point...the "everyone else" you're talking about ACTUALLY MEANS the very wealthy to a huge degree. By that mechanism the wealthy elites pay a LOWER effective tax rate than the middle class. Is that fair?

Beyond the simple matter of fundamental fairness, a change in this ridiculous rule WOULD mean the rest of us would have more. There are 2 pieces to this;

1) The cost of government is being balanced firmly on the backs of the middle class, with those most able to pay getting a significantly lighter load.

2) This artificially low tax on capital gains rewards the movers and shakers for taking unwarranted risks. That's what crashed the economy in the Great Recession. WE ALL make less money because the Kings of Wall Street lost our economy in the casino.

Mittens is in favor of keeping the casino open. President Obama is in favor of returning the finance industry to the safe, boring business of actually funding the businesses of others, people who actually MAKE and DO things.

Steve: having a bit of trouble with that tax fairness argument I see. The argument from your side of the aisle was supposed to be that if you let investors keep more of their money than anyone else, jobs would be created (the old "trickle down" reagan theory which was derided by George the First as "voodoo economics"). You may think the workings of a hedge fund millionaire are all about "job creation" but most folks understand its first and foremost about wealth creation, not jobs. And there's the rub. Corporate tax welfare (i.e. the energy industry) and personal tax welfare (i.e. offshore Cayman accounts, 15% top rates) have now had their effect and not everyone is blind to that effect. There's a reason your side is going to lose this argument and it sure as heck isn't about jealousy about what anyone else has. (That let em eat cake argument never really works well.)

By the way, the vast majority of Obama's income was from the sale of his books, not from investments...which is why his tax rate is so high.

You forget that they already have paid income taxes on that investment money, and now they are being taxed again. If you dont like being poor, do something about it, if you libs spent half as much time figuring out how to make money as you do trying to figure out how to take somebody elses money away from them, youd all be rich.

And you're deliberately ignoring that they haven't paid a dime on the gains they make on their investments. Currently they pay a much lower rate on that income than the rest of us, and EVERY Conservative tax reform plan would eliminate even that minimal level of taxation.

WHY?? Not ONE GOP / "Tea Party" candidate will attempt a look at the "TAX CODE" and say: "Gee, with its $1.1TRILLION in "breaks" & "loopholes"; Plus the fact it allows 45% to pay NOTHING; THEN THIS IS WHERE OUR "DEFICIT" IS COMING FROM ??" "Tea Party" people, follow your "namesakes", grab your "axes" and "AX THE TAX CODE"?? Or won't your RICH & CORPORATE "masters" let you??

Steve: Why the "flat tax/fair tax" won't work? Look up this: moneycentral.msn.com

()

Seems it it would just INCREASE state income, property & sales taxes, ect., paid with already taxed money?? Bush had looked into it? Making over $30,000/& less than $200.000yr would realize a tax INCREASE??

JOhnB

And you're deliberately ignoring that they haven't paid a dime on the gains they make on their investments.

They pay 15%, its called capital gains tax.

Steve,

You've just told us it's unfair to tax that money AT ALL...money that comes in a form in which the wealthy elites "earn" the vast majority of their income.

So you're telling us it's appropriate for the very rich to pay a much lower tax rate than the middle class.

Glad we're straight on that.

Guys I have a question if I vote for Newt can we be able to marriage 3 woman at a time because he said he is for open marriage right so vote for this polygamus Newt.

I love my wife I can not give surch a pain then I think I better keep with Obama

Thanks

John B,

Still with the left wing dribble, tax the rich, nothing but class warfare. It is the House that writes the tax bills, the democrats controlled the house for 4 yrs and I did not see one tax bill come out of the tax committee, which of course was headed by tax cheat Charlie Rangel. The democrats had control of both the House and Senate and could have revised or made major changes to the tax code, but failed to do anything except spend more money and increase the debt ceiling. In stead of one Trillion in more spending they should have maybe revised the tax codes.

There is so much waste, fraud and overlapping programs that need to be taken care of prior to raising taxes on anyone. What's the democrats answer to reduce spending, they don't have one. Until the left wingers get their head out of their rear end and quit depending on government from cradle to grave we will never get anything done.

Our spending priorities are screwed, our foreign policy is screwed up and what does Obama do, blame everyone but himself and those he appointed. What does the left do, blame the republicans, Bush and anyone else but Obama. I remember the left blaming Bush for 911 because he had been president for almost 9 months, but I have yet seen the left blame Obama for the economy and jobs even after 3 years in office. Obama has increased the national debt by 6 Trillion dollars, more than any President in history. It is time to get rid of Obama and his administration.

So you're telling us it's appropriate for the very rich to pay a much lower tax rate than the middle class.

Glad we're straight on that.

Nicely said Bill.

so true, Bill.

You nailed it Bill! Someone should tell Mr Obama that job creation is the key and that fairness comes with working hard to support your family, not dependence on handouts from a government that is going broke!

What a bunch of hogwash.

You guys want to protect the rich so they can raise your taxes. You guys want to protect the rich so they can kill social security. You guys want to protect the rich so they can take the very food out of the mouths of the poor.

Much better to go the way of Greece than to ask the rich to invest in getting the people back to work. Just because they got rich in this country, why should they give anything back? Romney got millions killing companies and stealing peoples retirements. How can we ask someone like him to give back to his country?

Unless you are fighting to retain your own tax cuts for your millions or you are fighting for the rich so they can rob you of the American dream or dinner whichever comes first.

How stupid to fight for the rich when they certainly don't care for the people. With just the ending of the bush tax cuts the deficit could be paid off by 2026 and what do the republicans want to do? They want to pretend to care about the deficit while making the bush tax cuts permanent. Poor Romney just doesn't have enough money in the Cayman Islands. Better to bankrupt America than ask poor Richey Romney for anything especially anything for the country he claims to love.

Surely not all republicans are dumb enough to vote against themselves.

This is blindly simplistic thinking. Also known as rhetoric. You make these logical truism arguments but don't realize that they have no truth beyond what you can see at face value in the words. If I'm taking home 8 million dollars this year, and because of a tax increase, next year I might only take home 7 million, I hardly think that makes my work not worth it. "Only seven million? Ah, screw it then." You use the language of a demagogue and demonstrate no practical knowledge whatsoever.

And "When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them"... really? I know unemployment is high but it's not at 50% yet.

Legislating the rich out of prosperity... get real man. It'd take one hell of a tax increase to send someone who's worth millions to the poor house.

Americans First--- Well said, but the people on the right aren't listening. They are too busy cutting off their noses with a dull knife. Keep sawing away you morons.

This is how the Republicans get votes, by coming up with phrases like the ones you posted above that would make some sense to a 5 year old, or even get them fired up, without having to think about grown-up issues like what do we do with people who are disabled and can't work if we cut their benefits? Put them in jail? Throw them in ditches at the side of the road? You are so stupid it makes my head hurt.

"...are there no work-houses, are there no prisons?"

Think Obama and his writers will come up with their own speech this year? Or will they plagiarize from everyone from Wilson to Thatcher?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/alvin-felzenberg/2011/01/26/obamas-state-of-the-union-was-tantamount-to-plagiarism

By the way- liberals seem to have a limited understanding of the works of others. See, Dickens was portraying the attitudes of those who believed themselves ex obligo by virtue of paying taxes that keep open both debtors' prisons, (the prisons to which there is reference), and "workhouses- places where the indigent were fed, clothed, and housed.

Tell me- who is it constantly demanding higher taxes to support subsistence level programs- and who is it that insists that charity is an individual responsibility?

Spinning is not thinking. Neither is repeating talking points.

Well said, Bill. Can one of you who disagree show me where in the Constitution it says if I work I have to give money to somebody who doesn't. I thought my taxes were to support the operation of the government and the nation, not to support people who don't work. Now, I believe in helping the very neediest of people. The problem is in defining what is "needy". The very ill and disabled need our help. But, that definition of need keeps getting expanded; the system is full of fraud. I see it everyday in my work. I'm always surprised when somebody is telling me they just can't get by, can't pay their utility bill, can't afford their medicine, etc but they have a pack of cigarettes and a cell phone! Or, recently, a gal told me she's disabled due to fibromyalgia but she sure had fun waterskiing the weekend before. I was raised that taking care of your basic necessities comes first. If you don't have enough money, the "extras" have to go but too many want us to pay for everything for them. When is "enough, enough"? I have two chronic illnesses and a heart condition but I've REFUSED to give on taking care of myself and expecting that somebody else will pay my way. It's very hard to go to work somedays, but I'll keep going until it is totally impossible. And, when that day comes, I'm prepared. I have savings, retirement and no debt.

Regarding Romney, people should educate themselves before throwing stones at him. When he "earns" the money from work, it's taxed at the highest level, 35%. He has a choice of spending or investing. When he spends, he pays more taxes on the money such as sales tax or property taxes. When he invests, he pays 15% on the interest earned each and every year it makes earnings. It's ALL legal and according to the tax code as far as we know at this point. If you don't like it, get Congress to change the tax code. I believe in a flat tax or national sales tax. Then, EVERYBODY has some skin in the game. If people aren't contributing, why should they expect anything? And, we get more revenue because wages that were paid under the table in cash and don't currently get taxed would be taxed. It also means anybody here illegally and working for cash at least pays something for being here and using our services.

If you think it's hard to borrow money now, take away the incentive for saving and see what happens. People will stop saving or invest their money in other countries. So, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. And, if you believe everybody should have the same, go live in a communist country and see how you like it. And, that's a charade, too, because in a communist country those at the top will always have more, bigger, better than all their "equal" subjects.

Our system gives everybody the same basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't guarantee you're going to have anything. Our Founders believed it's what you do that determines your lot in life. I'm still waiting for somebody to show me where our founding documents say the government will pay for my needs.

Mike G, if you are opposed to rhetoric, why do you support obama, the king of rhetoric, but no substance!

He likes the catchy phrase and it works well with the uninformed, but falls on deaf ears to those worried, really worried, about the damage his administration has caused! Blaming Bush is a tired old retred and not valid!

OK, buddy. Charity isn't an obligation. You shouldn't have to pay any money to take care of the disabled. The question remains: what do you do with them? Not everyone is able to have a full working career to the point of having a pension or savings to last them the rest of their life. Some people are NEVER able to work in their lives due to their disabilities. You may have a heart condition but clearly you are capable of communicating clearly in writing. What about people with psychotic disorders who don't have family who can pay for their medications? Seriously, do you want to let them and others like them wander the streets until they die or get taken in by the police? You'll probably try to claim they should "snap out of it" with strength of character and stick-to-it-iveness. It's SO, SO easy to say "Hey, it's not my responsibility", but you don't realize the consequences of this attitude. No one does, because we have a system in place to prevent this from happening. Cut the funding and I don't want to imagine what would happen.

Mike, I didn't exclude psychotic disorders; you chose to twist it to say I did. And, I said I believe in helping the needy. Do not put words into my mouth. The types of situations you describe, when the illnesses are documented, deserve consideration for assistance. Again, though, what is needy? How far do we go? The article above quotes Obama mentioning "personal responsibility". When you have somebody receiving assistance and they keep repeating the same behaviors that got them there what do you do? If somebody is on assistance because of the damage caused by illegal drug use and they keep on using drugs, should you continue to support that person?

The system is full of fraud and that needs to be addressed. A neighbor of a close friend had his SSI withdrawn recently. He was incensed they had videotaped him coming out of the grocery store, carrying several bags of groceries. He said "Do they think I'm not ever supposed to leave my house?" Well, yes, the authorities did because in his application he swore he was totally housebound due to his physical condition. When asked to be re-evaluated, as is standard for those receiving assistance, he failed to do so. That sent up a red flag. Those scenarios happen everyday. Safeguards have to be in place to prevent such a thing.

You seem to think I'm some hard-hearted person. I am not. I'm in a helping profession. But, I know from experience that you can only help somebody so much; a lot is up to them.

I don't believe big business should run amuck. I think the tax code that allows people like Warren Buffet to pay very little in taxes or a corporation like GE who pays NO tax and sends jobs out of this country is flawed and needs to be revised. With that done, we will be in better position to help those in need.

Dirt--The way I see your remarks--it's the "deserving" poor you would care for. Who gets to decide? Every study shows that public support is the most efficient avenue available. Public support should be even-handed. That "neighbor of a close friend" sounds a bit like Reagan's welfare Queen buying vodka with her food stamps. As the GI bill demonstrated after WWII, raising employability thru education brought this nation unprecedented prosperity. What are we doing now? Punishing student loan debt, cutting k-12 education in most states, NOT adjusting the tax code to secure fair burden for those most able -- this is not legislating the prosperous into penury--they'll do just fine as they already have. Equality of opportunity is not unamerican -- it is MOST American.

well said Opajack: when did caring about anyone outside your front door become so un-american? No wonder people are leaving the Republican party in droves. What a message......

Either remove the "cuts" & "caps" or just "AX THE TAX CODE"; with its $1.1TRILLION in "breaks"??

Opajack-

Why do you insist the govenment knows best? Have you ever seen what the federal government spends money on? Why don't you insist on the federal goverment balancing their books and being good stewards of our money? I am 100% in Dirt's camp. I, and I'm sure he, gives money to charity and church and to people truly in need. But, when did it become the gov'ts job to reward people for making dumb decisions. Yes, it started under Bush with TARP (that Obama supported) but that money has been paid back. We, the taxpayers have lost $billions in crony Obama capitalism in GM, Chrysler, Solyndra, etc. Where is our outcry on that? Don't tell me it would have been worst if we didn't go trillions into debt, you don't know. For many years, companies came and went in America and we were the strongest country on the planet. Yes, some towns and cities died but others got stronger and better and the country as a whole got better.

You still want to put more money into education? Why not maximize what we have. Demand better performance. We spend as much if not more money per student than any country on the planet, but have poor results. When are you going to blame the governemnt for not helping the poor and geting them better educated.

No one wants to see the truly needy suffer. But, when I go to the grocery store and see people getting lobster with their food stamp car and hoping into an Escalade, it ticks me off.

So, before you take ANY more of my money or Mitt's money or Dirt's money, how about cleaning up what you have now, stop taking money from the elderly and the poor and giving it to the Cowboy and Arts fesitval of Nevada, then come talk to me about paying more...

Yeah, I'm also disappointed the Bushies destroyed the budget surplus that was handed to them.

For those of us who love American and its people and not willing to see our country die just for the rich will be voting for Obama/Biden 2012.

Boo hoo those poor rich people how can we ask for a small surcharge on the second million they make in one year? And of course for the ridiculous ideal of putting Americans back to work.

I know how dare we ask the rich republicans to care about their own country when we can't even get the poor republicans to care?

I'm part of the President's base and I need NO shoring up in my support for the President. I will work hard for his re-election and make financial contributions as well. I am fortunate to be able to do that since I have a good job and the means to give financially.

Did Republicans reject Ronald Reagan because he didn't accomplish everything he promised, raised taxes, negotiated with terrorists, and compromised repeatedly?

Of course not. Conservatives revere him above all besides Supply Side Jesus because he communicated effectively and changed the course of society, setting us on a path leading to a nation whose policies have become far more Conservative than even Conservatives of the time dreamed.

Vote for Newt in SC. We want a brokered Republican Convention.

leona We all know that all the republican/tea bag party's ads will be soooooo truthful. Give it a rest about political ads. Just look at what your guys did to each other in there ads. No lies there huh?

Are people like you for real? Your guy is in the white house why are you acting so crazy? comments like this is why middle america is feeling less and less comfortable with the way things are going right now

Stories like this can't possibly make you feel any more confident, either, Joe

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/01/19/7897/obama-rainmakers-enjoy-white-house-invites-appointments-and-contracts

When you put that in the context of 80% of the billions handed out like Halloween candy by the Department of Energy going into big dollar Obama donors pockets, it kind of makes you feel a little sick, does it not?

Dollars to Donors- the Obama way.

Smitty, think about to 2008 and what went on between Obama and Clinton. that was a very nasty fight. Ugly politics don't belong to one party.

Dirt, Leona seems to think so. That was smitty's point . . . that you evidently missed.

I will sure give it a try. I do believe he is a marxist. I'm not praising or insulting him when I say this. So many people will call him this having never read the writings of karl marx. Marx was not a bad person, only just very foolish. I might go as far to say marx was a over educated idiot. BHO has said several times he believes in income redistribution by the powers of government and government needs to make things fair. These were the two most tenants that karl put into his book das kapital.

I still need someone to give me a explanation of what a 1% is, keeping in mind that words mean things.

People toss phrases around as insults without knowing what or where the phrase comes from and its true meaning. As a example, the term "red neck" is used as a way to insult someone. They have no clue the term came during armed confrontations between coal miners vs the owners in the early 1900's. The coal miners wore red scarfs (hence the term red neck) so they would not shot each other during the gun battles.

The word proletariat was used with great effect during the french and russian revolutions for any one with a different point of view. The rulers were the wealthy and therefore evil. So, most came to view wealth as evil. Neither case was true, but it became a very effective label.

We need to get back to more of saying I support BHO because......................then list the reasons based only on things we can agree can be measured. By not using insults, I win most debates because I insist on using facts that are accurate because they can be measured. I do tend to frustrate many because BHO has very little to measure as good ideas/outcomes. I have the same responce when showing bush 43 will never go down in history as a great president.

Mike: the President has never said he believes in "income redistribution". He has said he believes in fairness, which you then misinterpret as "redistribution" or even more ridiculously (sorry), Marxism. You might consider that your supposed "Marxist" is the one who bailed out (and continued Bush's bailouts) of the most conservative industries in this country. It worked. The auto industry is not only alive and well, GM just announced it had regained its worldwide position as the number one manufacturer and much of the bailouts have been repaid with interest. Wall Street and the financial markets and the banks are also notably, very, very healthy once again--to the point where Europe is looking to OUR Fed for advice, and even the villified Timmothy Guitners demands on the banks to shore up their assets and rework their financial health, is these days, looking awfully "conservative"). Complaining about "redistribution" when you have been on the winning side of government intervention (tax policies, rewards for the highest incomes, corporate welfare for whole industries such as energy) for the past 20 years is a bit ridiculous, as Mr. Buffett for heaven's sake has even had to point out. This nonsense, that Americans somehow just don't need some kind of non-employer paid health insurance like the rest of the developed world, is why your side is losing this argument so badly. Even the TEA party for heaven's sake is beginning to take another look at the Occupy folks' argument about fairness to see what they can 'borrow'. This is what you fail to understand. You need to embrace some kind of common sense in your argument about the reality of most Americans lives and most Americans do not make anywhere near the income of every single one of the people running for President who are arguing that government has no role in keeping them alive unless they are rich. America is never going to embrace the 'let em eat cake' argument or be convinced that anything else equates to "marxism".

Great Post Pat.

Obama / Biden 2012

You might work for the Obama re-election committee ........I like that give back part.......are you referring to our record food stamp program....??

Excellent post. I dare a Republican to read it. Go ahead, don't be afraid. The truth won't bite, though it will probably hurt.

Bigben--You would probably go on food stamps too if you lost everything.

You might work for the Obama re-election committee ........I like that give back part.......are you referring to our record food stamp program....??

Due to the record Job lost in the last 90 days of Mr. Bush in office. I have to get the figure, but I think it was 2.9 million jobs lost.

And we are a better Nation because of him.

Gosh Pat, if your comment is true why do so many American's thing the country is headed in the wrong direction? Why do 80% of those polled feel that they are very worried about (1. Obama getting reelected, 2. the Economy and jobs (Obama linked), 3. Iran getting the bomb.

I think most Americans think Obama is a good guy, but not a very good leader.. and he can't seem negotiate with the opposition, another prerequisite for a president! Bottom line is that he has dreams that don't match with reality. And he is too thin skinned and narcissistic to admit these failings and learn to compromise. The country really needs a change of administration and some drastic measures to get out of this hole Obama has put us in!

Big Ben you can thank the republicans for trashing our economy and killing million of jobs that just so happen to create the need for the record food stamp program.

What should we do? Let these people starve? That will teach them for being laid off.

Americans First...the trashing you mentioned started with easy lending from big banks getting cheap government money , then turning greedy.....super easy lending.....all those who borrowed more than they could afford to pay back are guilty of the economic collapse....Fannie and Freddie are asking for billions more now...big banks should have failed...let the small honest banks prosper..

And all the regulations that were put in place to keep it from happening again are the very regulations the republicans are campaigning to end.

Brought to you by the republicans who think you are too dumb to notice. With the post we see from the right they just prove they weren't wrong.

Pride and Joy,

That is an incorrect number. 80% of Americans are not worried about President Obama getting re-elected.

The actual number is 34%. In 2008 a larger percent were worried.

Great post, Pat--thanks for sharing.

I smile every time I hear someone from the right call President Obama the "food stamp President". Because we all know why there are record numbers of people needing food stamps---thanks to George W. Bush tanking the economy. And we should let Republicans back in the White House? And, even though the Republicans hate it and want to stop it, all those people on food stamps VOTE. Who do you think they'll be voting for in November?

Yes, Steeler, they vote and that's part of Obama's agenda to move us to a socialistic state. If you make over 50% dependent on the government in some way, then you have a guaranteed base that will vote for you because they won't vote to give up their benefits (so, who's being greedy in that scenario?) The problem is as Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

"[Obama] is unlike any president we have ever had."

We agree about that, Pat in Boston.

Obama's disastrous statist policies resulted in by far the longest and worst recovery from a recession since the 1929 crash.

I hope you also agree with me that the Patriots will win tomorrow!

and that's part of Obama's agenda to move us to a socialistic state.

Where is that agenda published on Obama's evil plan to move us to a socialist state? Do you even know what a socialist state is or are you hyper-screaming a talking point? Name ONE socialist state piece of legislation that Obama has passed. Any examples of higher taxes across the board? Any takeover of private land?

The only remote socialist state activity undertaken by a president in the last 4 years was TARP, where we used government money to bail out banks and other financial institutions. However, since it was primarily in the form of loans, it is a stretch to even call that socialistic. It is a fine example of crony capitalism.

The socialist/marxist rants hurled like crap in Obama's face is just plain old and has been disproved so many times it is just laughable. Yet here we have posters spewing this contstant rhetorical crap.

Pat, that's one of the best posts I've read here recently. It's a brilliant explanation of why so many of us are Liberals and why Conservatism has been such a dismal failure. In particular I like this part;

This is the importance of regulations. If we do not abide by regulations then we have nothing but chaos leading to failure. If we do not have laws to regulate our daily lives and commercial transactions then we cannot have progress; we will not have investments; and more importantly there will be no justice and crime will increase. Similarly within markets and companies, if we do not have regulations then we will not have predictability; we will not have protection for investors, employers and employees. In short we would have a free for all system where investors and employees are taken advantage of, vigilante justice will prevail, and there will be no development.

Comfort - it isn't that they left the vine, it is that they have not one valid answer, they know it, and they as is typical, they go into hiding. They love posting talking points from the Limbaugh and Fox News world and think they do not have to post one piece of solid evidence to support their stance.

Just checking back in to see what's up.

RedDevPS, I believe you nailed it.

Hey, I did. You may not agree with me but, all is okay.

To understand me, I do listen to rush and disagree with him about Bush 43. When I look at actions vs outcome, I do not believe he was a good leader. I also sometimes listen to fox news and sometimes to cnn news. I view Obama as a good husband, a good father. These are wonderfull qualities but do not make him a good leader.

Bad hiring a guy who worked at Bain.

Good electings a man for president who ran Bain says Leona.

Real jobs, what a joke. Just like all the jobs the republicans have created since they won in 2010 when they ran on creating jobs.

I can see it now, we didn't create the jobs we promised says the republicans but with less regulations and more tax cuts surely we will create them if you will just believe our lies and vote for us again.

Vote for President Obama and the Democrats. The country is getting stronger under his leadership.

How about bad hiring a guy who worked at Bain and bad voting for one that ran it. The so-called 2 party system is a joke. How can you tell a Wall St. Puppet? He's the guy/gal with a "D" or an "R" after his/her name.

Uh Leona: all of the Republicans running make far more than most Americans. Most Americans are just fine with that. It isn't wealth that's any kind of a problem. Its the fairness of the tax rules and tax policies that allowed for that wealth to be protected at the expense of everyone else's tax rates. Now you can argue for those Cayman island accounts of Mr. Romney's all you like, or the rules that allow newt to claim he was merely "advising" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as he made millions that had absolutely nothing to do with "lobbying" but even you have to understand why these candidates are not eager to defend them --especially with all of those voters depending on a mere paycheck that's taxed at at least 30% and liking their social security just fine thank you. (Hint: that government "getting out of the way" thing Republicans love to talk about?? If it actually was out of the way instead of putting its foot on the scales for the richest, Mr. Romney would be paying far more than his 15%).

good one.

John: you must be confusing him with your hero GW. The recession is now over (course if your still out of work, it may not feel over to you.) That "no hope, no change" mantra may go over really well with your red-meaters, but the state of the union is thankfully much, much healthier now that the "decider" has been sent back to Texas. Thanks for your concern though.

Obama is working for the middle class

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

I don't know Donna. Read my post at 1.18. As for health care, forcing folks to participate in a corrupt private insurance scheme is hardly a good thing. We need single-payer, which not only did Obama not talk about, he even abandoned the fall-back position of the public option. And taxes? All Obama had to do was absolutely nothing and the Bush tax cuts would have died the death they so richly deserve. On to Social Security. How do you make it more viable by cutting workers contributions? Hey, I appreciate the extra carton of smokes a 2 cases of beer each month but frankly I'd rather have a healthy Social Security program when I retire.

I won't even go into the Patriot Act, Homeland Paranoia, NDAA 2012; I think I made my point.

I don't just think twice before I vote, I consider my vote many many times. One thing I can say is that I will not be voting for Obama this year. Don't worry, I won't be voting repub either. Luckily I have many other choices.

None of whom, unfortunately in perhaps some instances, have any chance of being elected anything whatever.

John, only 7 senators voted against NDAA 2012; 3 dems, 3 repubs, and 1 Independent. That says a lot about where our country is headed.

I know, I already contacted my reps and told them they should be in jail.

The one surprise was Al Franken, i have a new respect for the man.

we shall see, right ?

We already have, Leona, but you are to blind to see it, especially if you are one of those who believe that President Obama requires a teleprompter.

Mitt "Everyman" Romney sure seems more cozy with a teleprompter.

Matthew,

We know Obama can sing Al Green songs without a teleprompter but have we ever seen him give a speech without one ?

LEONA #s,

Presidents (and other politicians) have used teleprompters for years.

The dumb talking point you keep throwing around has no validity--but does point to your own limited capacity for thought.

You're right Matthew. Either they can't tell when he's making a formal announcement, or they've never seen him in his daily appearances and remarks any of the hundreds and hundreds of times when he speaks impromptu. In fact, the far right began it's complaints early with Obama's tendency to "uh...uh..." through some of his press answers...which quickly morphed into the teleprompter debate (and you'll notice the far, far right still clinging to its hope of finding that the President didn't actually GO to Harvard, or didn't actually teach law). You just have to remember its easier for them to actually believe this nonsense then face the simple fact they disagree with him politically. Then they'd have to argue substance and that is definately not their strong suit.

dirt,

Woah, great post. ......but the liberal lemmings here don't like facts.

You should only give them ONE at a time. LOL

There are ample errors in the so-called "facts", both in logic and data. Extrapolations, assumptions, and opinions don't qualify. The economic downturn began in 2007 and crashed and burned in the fourth quarter of 2008. Unemployment among college grads, 29% of the workforce, is much lower than average unemployment. Unskilled workers, especially minorities constitute the bulk of the unemployed.

According to statistical research the fact is that the lower the education level, the more likely people are to vote Republican.

Affinity1

I think you are mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

63% of people with no high school and 73% of those with incomes below $15,000 voted for their welfare savior.

I doubt education has much to do with how one votes........the values you are raised with is probably more telling.

No, there's a considerable co-relation, but not perhaps exactly what one would think. Many people with high incomes and advanced degrees are in fact quite liberal; others are not and there is more correlation to field of study with people with degrees in (the perhaps aptly named) liberal arts tend to vote more for Democrats and those with degrees in fields like engineering, Republican.

Matthew: it might be terribly, terribly enlightening for you to understand what "government help" in education means. Look up the highest amount possible in receiving a Pell grant. It wouldn't pay the frieght at a semester of your local community college. Now when you want to whine about people's 'free rides', you ought to at least take a bit and find out what you're talking about.

Mortage help? You might want to google recent articles on announcements by three major banks who've been reworking the terms of their mortgage loans. Before dancing on the graves of these homeowners, these banks apparantly have been persuaded by the big, bad, terrible government that foreclosures aren't their only option in several millions of cases.

"welfare base"?? Huh?? It was a landslide that elected the President and it was on his ideas, not on the hate and disgust for the poor and for working Americans that you are deluded by. In your world, McCain/Palin could've, what...squeezed in if just a few more reactionaries went to the polls?? Wow, I get that you're a fan of the let em eat cake wing of your party, but you I do hope someone gives you a reality check before you work yourself into a heart attack (You better first hope your governor makes it through the recall before foisting him on anyone else...).

the "rich" are already paying WAY more then their fair share. Fairness is having the 47% who pay no federal income tax paying SOMETHING. Fairness is not expecting someone else to pay your way through life

You like to say YOU are paying over 50% in taxes, when you include state, sales, gas etc.

so you seem to think the poor don't pay sales tax, gas tax etc.

GOP are all hypocrites!

PC: You're each half right, actually. The top income earners pay most of the INCOME taxes, but the richest (like Romney) save millions more through legal tax shelters and government "welfare". This is why the GOP will lose this argument...even the very notion of fairness in the bigger picture of what people are left with after all of their work is beyond them. Everything else is called "welfare". You folks on the extreme right keep this up and you will soon not even have a party to ruin.

Has they ruint your grammar, too?

So ignorant conservative, you seem to NOT know that H.R.1125 did NOT make it out of committee!

So that must mean that every word out your mouth is also NOT true and just an ignorant rant you heard Rush Limpdick give this morning!

Why are you not sick of the GOP who Tripled the debt (Ron Reagan) or doubled the debt again (HW Bush) or

increased the debt by 76% GW Bush!!!

Each of these GOP Presidents, cut taxes and spent like a drunken sailor, but OH, it's Obama fault!

GOP= ignorant hypocrites

Eddie: we didn't all just wake up from an 8 year sleep like you apparantly did to discover debt and spending were out of hand. Some of us remember the guy (who must not be named) who began those two wars, kept them off the books, kept telling folks like you that everything was wonderful and we could have major tax cuts too! and though, oh, yeah....finally saw the cliff was at hand and began TARP. Your boy the "decider" was handed a surplus and in 8 short years, turned over an economy near ruin. NOW you wake up? Where have you been?

Seems you only listen to FOX news as well!.

Obama has created more jobs than Bush ever did AND has almost made up for the jobs lost by Bush!

"But if current trends continue, Obama will have some upbeat news to run on. The economy has already added about 2.7 million jobs since employment bottomed out at the beginning of 2010. If the economy keeps adding 200,000 jobs per month, on average, it would mean another 2 million new jobs by the time Election Day rolls around. That would allow Obama to say--accurately--that under his stewardship, the economy has added nearly 5 million new jobs over the last two years."

seem the GOP is going to be TOAST!

PC/NOT - claiming Obama caused divisions with class warfare is like claiming the weatherman caused Katrina. Just because he reports the State of the Union as being one that has left too many Americans behind doesn't mean he caused the storm. Got it?

Ya Newt the Lobbyist is going to be President!!!

Good one. Desperate bunch of GOP.

Next you will be bringing Sarah back. Oddly she is turning out to be your best bet, and what does THAT say about the GOP!