His Affluency Newt Gingrich, keeps trying to label President Obama as a 'food stamp President'. Reminiscent of President Reagan and his 'welfare queens'.

Mr. Gingrich must be very aware that 49% of folks who need food stamps to get by - are not people of color. They are white folks. Many folks using food stamps have jobs, but need the extra help to supplement low wages and keep their families afloat. And some are returning veterans who haven't found their feet yet and are looking for work.
Gingrich himself is not impacted like most Americans by the deepest recession since the 1930's.
Once again - at the end of President Bush's term 8 million jobs were lost.
And initially recorded at minus 6.8%, our GDP for the last quarter of 2008 was later revised to a shocking minus 8.9% (-8.9%).

Senate Leader McConnell + associates pledged to block our economic recovery for the last three years = zero job creation or support from them. Instead, serial threats to; harm our economy by defaulting on the debt celing, shut the government down, trash our safety nets, allow payroll tax cut and unemployement benefits to expire. Despite all that the President has worked successfully to lift us out from under the worst recession since the 1930's. And thanks to him the American Auto industry is thriving again, over 3.2 million private sector jobs created in the last 22 months. Manufacturing employment is up for the first time in two decades.

The Great Bush Recession hit millions of Americans through no fault of their own after 30 years of failed Milton Friedman policies; devastating job destruction, outsourcing of jobs, failure to create jobs at home, shutting down safety nets, reckless deficit spending on wars and tax breaks for the rich, $Billions given away on war contracts. A system so skewed that incomes to the top 1% in our nation have increased by 275% since the 1980's - making this group the richest in the world - leaving the rest of us to take a dive.

Enter Newt-the-Privileged. Newt with his bit of education and some cash, wants to look down his nose at the rest of us AND get our vote at the same time.

"In a poll released yesterday by the Washington-based anti-hunger organization Food Research and Action Center, most Americans opposed cutting food stamps, with 92 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Independents saying cuts to the program are the wrong way to reduce spending."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-22/gingrich-calling-obama-food-stamp-president-draws-critics.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/29/advance-estimate-gdp-second-quarter-2011-and-annual-revision

Louis,

It's Mitt, not Mittens

Gingrich, not Blingrich

Rebublicans, not Republithug.

How do you ever expect to be taken seriously when you resort to Junior High name calling tactics?

But great job being 1st. I know how much that "Prime Real Estate" means to you Libs.

Keep reaching for the stars Louis.

Feisty, they (pundits and Establishment) will never get a firm footing when the Republican voters are the people at the polling place. They can do it all day long, it will not matter.

WCA, I never look to be taken any other way by a person that supports the Whackadoodles on the Right. Try to get out of the bed a little sooner and you 'may' be able to post sooner... however, if you continue to do a Romney, you'll always be a day late and a dollar short.

Hardy har har...

Good morning Louis,

As always, a home run.

Thanks

Whackadoodles on the Right.

:-)

$6.2 million. Six point two million dollars.

that's how much the Romneys paid in fedral taxes for 2010 and 2011. Now, liberals will attempt to make the focus the rate-but the IRS does not collect rates.

It collects dollars.

Kiss the talking point goodbye.

Louis J, nice post; good points about Romney. He's been running 5 years and had no idea they'd ask about his taxes. His ideas are the same failed ideas that put us in this economic mess.

Backhouse, well said. Against all odds, President Obama has succeeded to drag the economy back from the brink. Just think how much better the economy would be if the GOP had compromised at least half the time instead of obstructing all the time. As far as I'm concerned the republicans need never knock on my door to ask for my vote because Party First is unacceptable especially when the country was hovering on the brink of a second Great Depression.

Good morning, Backhouse. That is what I love about your posts. Facts.

Thanks

Disingenuous, no jo. When middle class Americans are filling out their tax forms from WORKING AT THEIR JOBS, and realize that Mittens gets a favorable tax rate for doing nothing, it could cause some angst.

Well, that and those off shore investments. Which you would be screaming about if the Obamas had them.

No wonder Romney didn't want to show his tax returns. 13.9 %? I paid a much higher tax rate last year than he did and I assure you I didn't make 40 million. No wonder this man is so out of step and touch with reality and the common folk.

I will never vote for this pompus ass and I hope none of you will either.

I strongly suggest that the Government look into his holdings for tax fraud. Swiss bank accounts, of shore accounts, the Cayman Island accounts? Sounds like some kind of Drug Lord. Come on, this guys a crook, give me a break. And he wants to be President. LOL

Obama in 2012.

white collar auto That maybe the way you see it I see it as,

1. mitt the ripper

2. gingrinch

3. republiacants

$. tea baggers

When the people of your kind start stop the same s#!t your talking about I'll stop. So is it ok for you guys to it, but when we do it you complain. Typical republicant/tea bagger. If you all are so abused go back to under your rocks.

no joe - really? What % of his earnings and not the amount he paid is in question. You can bla bla bla but Mittens know this is bad news for his aspiration. This 14% tax ratio is the albatross wrapped around his neck.........and he ain't escaping this.

The power of hatred is very impressive. Look at Newt Gingrich go, the hero of the vicious right-wing of the G.O.P. - RINO's - Republicans In Name Only. They love RINO god and RINO dogma. RINO god does not like Mormons and he simply cannot stand Muslims. RINO god demands that women incubate the fetus of a rapist. RINO god loves carpet bombing, Predator drones, and sending kids to war - but only after they're 18. He likes indefinite confinement for infidels and doesn't care for dark skin. Newt - The Anointed One - takes this message to RINO god's followers blowing special notes on RINO god's dogma trumpet.

Poor Mitt Romney, he's not feeling the love. He just can't move the Republican love-meter past the 30% mark, unless his regional neighbors weigh in. It's not simply that RINO god doesn't like him, lots of people don't like him.

Mitt has the misfortune of being one of those people you look at and say, "I can't put my finger on it, but there's just something about that guy I don't like." Maybe, it's that he comes across as cold and bloodless. He doesn't understand that very few have been born to privilege and traveled in circles from which most people are excluded. Perhaps its that he doesn't even understand noblesse oblige.

Perhaps when he speaks of earning money, it just doesn't jibe with our idea of earning money. You earn money when you work. Work isn't sitting at a desk and rounding up money, or manipulating numbers. That's not creating wealth, that's simply pocketing wealth someone else produced. Work means sweat, it means calloused hands, sore backs, creating something from virtually nothing. Putting on a pair of blue jeans just doesn't make you working folk.

Perhaps we just don't feel connected to Mr. Romney. We have that nagging feeling that he really doesn't mean what he says. He believes in a woman's right to choose and he doesn't. He believes in a mandate and he doesn't. He loves me. He loves me not. He's a florist's dream.

He says a lot of the right things. He's been married for more than 40 years, and defying Newtonian Marriage Dynamics, he has only been married to one woman. He has been a lifelong adherent to his faith. He is, at least by the measure of wealth, a successful businessman. We like that stuff, but we just don't like Mitt.

We could love Mitt, and all he has to do is to do what he does best. Mr. Romney's wife has a serious and extremely debilitating disease - Multiple Sclerosis. The nation is sending Mr. Romney a very clear message. We really don't want him as President. His wife, on the other hand, truly needs his help.

Here is a man who knows how to raise capital. Here is a man who knows how to organize. Could there possibly be a better place for Mr. Romney to invest his capital, to bring together other venture capitalists, to use his organizational skills, to bring his talents to bear to create a research juggernaut whose mission is to find a cure for MS?

Don't fight the tide Mr. Romney. Be a hero. Maybe, your God is sending you a message you are refusing to hear. Show us what a venture capitalist can do. You want to feel the love? Take a look at any one of our Presidents. Every one of them leaves office knowing that a vast number of people dislike and even hate him. No one - not a single solitary soul - is going to feel anything but respect and admiration for someone who devotes his life to the noble cause of medical research.

No wonder this man is so out of step and touch with reality and the common folk.

Now come on Tom - cut Willard a little bit of slack...

From the photo I saw, he does a mean load of 'whites', thanks to Tide with Bleach! ;op

Job 1 and Jody, thanks and you too, on the facts.

We cannot undo in 3 years what took 30 years to put in place.

There goes nojo being delusional as ever.

When someone makes over $56K a day and only pays 13.9% tax rate, it will be a talking point for a very long time.

Wonder what's in those off shore accounts and why are they there? Up until 2010 he had some of his money in a Swiss Account. Then closed it on advice as it wouldn't look too good running for President in this economic climate.

There is no defending that nojo.

Joe in Albany -

Well, lets see: 1, 2 and 3 all work great for me and my working middle class family. We need government regulations to keep the corporations from killing our workers by laxing on safety regulations, tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no poor no more (10 years after), if the federal spending is for fixing bridges and getting us out of the oil corporations strong hold, I'm all for it.

you are incorrect on #4, he will save this country from the bankruptcy that georgie and dickie tried so hard to accomplish.

Hope and change, working very well for me and my working middle class family, thanks for asking! NBO (nobody but Obama) 2012!

Poor, poor Libbies. Romney pays $3 million in taxes, and to them, that's just not enough. Now it's one less talking point for them to whine and cry about. Oh but the Libs will still have their hissy fit about tax rates, but rates don't pay for Obama's overspending, dollars pay for that mess. Looks like Mitt contributes quite a bit to Obama's little spending sprees.

There is no defending that nojo.

Bless her little black heart - NJNB sure is giving it her best shot! lmao

Poor dears latest conspiracy theory blew up in her face yesterday...

This is all small potatoes. The big settlement is coming to let the banksters off the fraud.

These pigs will be free. Obama do not sell out.

Ags do not sell out.

We went there there heads. F+k the pigs.

The average tax RATE-so important for liberals- is 11%

It matters not at all where one has income from-nor where one has a bank account- provided one pays the proper taxes.

The Romneys did.

Case closed.

Oh, by the way- here is a link, written in language even liberals can understand
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/mitt-romney-releases-taxes-/1

It would appear that the Left simply does not understand the tax code.

$6.2 million is about 1/100th of the money Obama squandered in Solyndra. So it took about 100 Romney's to support 1 failed solar company. If I was Romney anf the other 99 folks, I'd ask for money back.

Tom wants him investigated for tax fraud.

This is why showing the returns was meaningless.

We knew he was super rich, gave 10% to his church and paid his taxes in full, before he released the forms.

Now he has released them and it's still not enough for the Libs.

Need that pint of blood still, don't ya?

you are incorrect on #4, he will save this country from the bankruptcy that georgie and dickie tried so hard to accomplish.

___________________________________________

OH!!!

I guess that's why America lost it's AAA credit rating last summer for the first time in history. Barry's excellent and fiscally responsible management of America's finances. Did you see where Barry's budget will be delivered late again this year?? He must be working on getting the deficit under $1,000,000,000,000 for the first time in his Presidency. Or maybe he just doesn't know the first thing about living within your means.

NBO 2012 (No Barry Obama 2012)

If Romney were truly coordinated, he would have already been out front. He would have already taken care of business. It is obvious that the Establishment is not behind Romney... they would have already helped him get his act together.

The Establishment is not backing any candidate.... come on, there are only four left (well actually 2), why hasn't the RNC made an official endorsement?

I guess this is for Joe in Albany, who is his own advanced version with nothing very intelligent, factual, or substantive to say. As for bankrupting the country, the Republicans already did that and then bailed themselves out with your money. You need to wake up and discover that paying down the debt is a long haul situation. To overdue it, like Tea Partiers tried, depresses the economy even further. There is not doubt that we need a smaller, more efficient government, but you should try looking around a little bit, read a little more, find out what is really going on then falling into a bunch of mumbo jumbo that really is out of time and place.

Louis why do you care?

You're only hope is that Obama get re-elected.

If the GOP is in such disarray, Obama is a lock, right? Easy Peasy.

You ought to ba happy. Really why do you care what the RNC does?

But I'm curious. At this point in 2008, had the DNC officially endorsed Obama or Clinton?

Comments over at the Obama Diary nail it -

What flag would Mitt fly over the White House ? Swiss ? Cayman Islands ?

The question GOP voters face this year: do you prefer a candidate who is unfaithful to his wife or his country?

Pat,

Nails what?

3 down(and the 1st is not even over yet) we have a LONG way to go in this Rep race. Obama will get his challenger sooner or later.

Pat where are your favorite restaurants near Leominster?

white collar auto Its 2012 who cares what happened in the past. Isn't that what you righties say when one talks about jr.bush?

JoAnnaSmith1

Poor, poor Libbies. Romney pays $3 million in taxes, and to them, that's just not enough.

Poor, poor JoAnna. Doesn't understand what the word "percentage" means. The MSNBC headline says that Romney paid 6.2 million in taxes on an income of 42.5 million over two years. That's a rate of 14.6%, which is a LOT less than many middle class people pay, including myself.

Maybe if Romney sent the IRS $50K like Warren Buffet he'd be hero to the left.

Buck Naked, I've never been to Leominster. Can't help ya.

Poor, ppor JoAnna. Doesn't understand what the word "percentage" means. The MSNBC headline says that Romney paid 6.2 million in taxes on an income of 42.5 million over two years. That's a rate of 14.6%, which is a LOT less than many middle class people pay, including myself.

So given the current tax code Romney paid with 0.4% of the maximum he could. I believe that their was a Democratic Administration since 2009. Democrats were in charge of congress from 2007. This being a budget issue they could have used reconciliation. Where were the cries for social justice then? Where was the urgency to right this wrong? Why did the Democrats take so long to get to this issue and why did they not change the tax code in 2009?

Smitty, it's called historical context. Or more imprtantlly a basic understanding of the nomination process.

Louis wanted to know why the RNC had not yet "Officially Endorsed" a candidate.

If he would take the time to go back to the 2008 DNC campaign between Clinton and Obama, he might see why and when the DNC and RNC "Officially Endorse" a candidate.

You folks are so uninformed here, I'm just trying to help.

David Walker, well written honest post. You too Backhouse.

This summer is going to be fun as we re-elect one of the most decent presidents our Nation has ever voted in.

Alan, NJ

So given the current tax code Romney paid with 0.4% of the maximum he could. I believe that their was a Democratic Administration since 2009

In case you didn't notice, Obama was concerned with preventing the Bush Recession from turning into the Bush Depression at the time. He didn't want to raise taxes on anyone at that time. He actually cut middle class taxes as part of the dreaded stimulus, despite the Republicans' lying insinuations that he raise taxes. So we've been out of the Bush Recession for two years, and making tax dodgers like Mitt Romney pay their fair share is certainly not going to hurt the economy.

Houston: Doesn't understand what the word "percentage" means. The MSNBC headline says that Romney paid 6.2 million in taxes on an income of 42.5 million over two years. That's a rate of 14.6%, which is a LOT less than many middle class people pay, including myself.

Like I said, the Loons will whine about the percentages and the rates. Rates don't pay for Obama's spending, dollars do. Romney paid the legal rate.

As Alan, NJ says, the Democrats had the votes to change any tax code they wanted to in 2009 and 2010. They did nothing. Now folks like you Houston are attempting to make an issue out of Romney obeying the tax laws and paying his taxes. That is just so weak. Now you on Left have less to whine about, but you still continue to whine. Go talk to Obama and the Democrats if you don't like the rates. They had the votes to change them, but never did. Obama and the Democrats failed you Houston, all while Romney paid $3 million in taxes.

Houston: making tax dodgers like Mitt Romney pay their fair share is certainly not going to hurt the economy.

There you go again Houston, $3 million isn't "fair"? And what exact taxes has Romney "dodged"? Lets see you enumerate those dodges.

Feisty -

I'm sure someone had to show Mittens how to operate a washing machine. I'm sure he'd never seen one before. Wonder who helped him open the soap box?

As usual, love your posts.

Obama in 2012,

In case you didn't notice, Obama was concerned with preventing the Bush Recession from turning into the Bush Depression at the time. He didn't want to raise taxes on anyone at that time. He actually cut middle class taxes as part of the dreaded stimulus, despite the Republicans' lying insinuations that he raise taxes. So we've been out of the Bush Recession for two years, and making tax dodgers like Mitt Romney pay their fair share is certainly not going to hurt the economy.

So, from the first part of your post you are a supply-sider as you seem to be arguing that tax cuts spur growth, correct? We may be out of recession but I think you would agree that growth is still pretty anemic. If the tax rates from two years ago stopped us from falling into recession why won't the same rates help growth and by extension lower unemployment which I'm sure you are for.

Finally, can you be specific on your accusation that Romney is a tax dodger? It seems to me he paid 99% of the maximum he was liable for the same as Warren Buffet. Are you calling Warren Buffet a tax dodger as well? If someone claims mortgage tax relief do you consider them a tax dodger? If I pay less than the 28% that I am liable for because of deductions, am I a tax dodger in your view?

In 2009, taxpayers earning $1M or more paid 20% of all income taxes -- a greater share than everyone earning $75K or less. These millionaires also had an average effective tax rate of 25% -- as compared to the entire universe of American taxpayers where the average was 11 percent. Some millionaires paid taxes at the "preferential" rate of 15% due to deriving their incomes primarily from capital gains. Even so, the data clearly show that millionaires pay an average tax rate that is twice that of the country as a whole.

But facts are a tough thing for the left to deal with, as anyone around here with a brain already knows.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27899.html

I'm sure someone had to show Mittens how to operate a washing machine.

Tom,

I wonder where he found one that accepts $100 bills since that's all he has in his wallet!

Thanks for the kind words! ;o)

Good Morning everyone!

Today we should thank Mr. Romney for providing an outstanding example of why we should not eliminate the capital gains tax. For those in favor of eliminating it please make your case why Mr. Romney should pay no taxes.

NJNB, JOS1, anyone??????

6.2 Million Dollars....

Wow, that's a lot of food stamps. So we have a guy that earns over 40 million dollars with a capacity to pay 6.2 million in taxes. Then we have a guy that blows through 4 trillion dollars and says people like the first guy need to pay more.

The first guy is a success and the second guy is a failure. Gee, who should I vote for?

no joe, no bo, nj

$6.2 million. Six point two million dollars.

that's how much the Romneys paid in fedral taxes for 2010 and 2011. Now, liberals will attempt to make the focus the rate-but the IRS does not collect rates.

It collects dollars.

Kiss the talking point goodbye.

========

If a person made 2 billion and paid 100 Million in taxes (5%) it's ok because it's 100 million and that's a lot of money and therefore everything should be ok?

ok I will drive into Boston, give me some of your favorites

So what ever happened with this:

Obama Declares Plan to Cut Deficit By Half:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJvkkNmR_8

Keep this Obama speech from the past in mind when you listen to him during the SOTU speech. See if sincerity of his promises made tonight match up with sincerity of his promises from years ago. They probably will, so you can expect the new promises will mean as much as the old promises.

Today we should thank Mr. Romney for providing an outstanding example of why we should not eliminate the capital gains tax. For those in favor of eliminating it please make your case why Mr. Romney should pay no taxes.

Check my previous postings. I am for Cap Gains and Dividends to be taxed at the same rate as income. At the same time I would eliminate corporation tax and individual deductions. Then the rates for all could be lowered.

I am also for eliminating the SS and Medicare taxes and have a starting band of 8% (roughly what SS and medicare are today when combined). That would stop the cry that 47% do not pay Federal Income Tax. It will also end the fallacy that there is a SS and Medicare trust fund.

Thanks FR lefty liberals for collapsing my post #1.2!!!!!

It confirms that I have made my point.

__________________________________________

I'm sure someone had to show Mittens how to operate a washing machine.

Tom,

I wonder where he found one that accepts $100 bills since that's all he has in his wallet!

Nasty: Some of us don't bring our laundry to the coin operated laundromats. We own the washer and dryer and keep them in the laundry room of our homes. Some of us even hire people to come in and do the laundry for us.

Joe in Albany: Some of us even hire people to come in and do the laundry for us.

You ol' job creator elitist you.

The Liberals answer to this: "You need to pay more taxes and do your own laundry."

Some of us don't bring our laundry to the coin operated laundromats

Some of us also buy the large bottle of Tide (at home) rather than the packets from the laundromat vending machines...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/caption-contest-mitt-romney-does-his-own-laundry-edition/attachment/ajtltflcqaaqrvd/

I am as liberal as they come but I hope Democrats back off the attack on the capital gains tax rate - if you ever sold a house or stock you realize the capital gains tax is a great benefit. Raising the capital tax rate will affect middle income people more than the Romneys of the world (i.e., raise it on Romney and he is still left with tens of millions of dollars in his pocket; raise it on the rest of us and it takes thousands out of our pocket).

Focus on those illegally sending their money to offshore bank accounts (for example) to avoid paying taxes all together.

Alan:

Combined Medicare and Social Security contributions are around 15%. There is a matching employer contribution.

I am as liberal as they come but I hope Democrats back off the attack on the capital gains tax rate - if you ever sold a house or stock you realize the capital gains tax is a great benefit.

Apart the primary residence exemption (which I'm in favor of), I think we could have investment accounts where you only get taxed when you withdraw the profit. That way if you make money on an investment you could re-invest it without paying tax. It would simplify the tax system and you still pay when you actually used the money, similar to a retirement account.

Breaking News...White House will miss the Budget Deadline again.

JoAnnaSmith1

There you go again Houston, $3 million isn't "fair"? And what exact taxes has Romney "dodged"? Lets see you enumerate those dodges.

There you go again, JoAnna, revealing your feeble grasp of basic arithmetic. Not to mention basic fairness. Every poll has shown that the public overwhelmingly supports making the wealthy pay at least the same rates as everyone else. You're in a tiny minority of cranks and crackpots.

Alan, in some cases you can do just that. If, say you have an investment property and sell it, you can use the profits to reinvest in other properties and not pay taxes on the original sale (a 1031 tax free sale and reinvestment).

Houston: There you go again, JoAnna, revealing your feeble grasp of basic arithmetic. Not to mention basic fairness. Every poll has shown that the public overwhelmingly supports making the wealthy pay at least the same rates as everyone else. You're in a tiny minority of cranks and crackpots.

So Houston, do tell, what is the Capital Gains tax rate Romney pays? What is the Capital Gains tax rate everyone else pays? Don't waste your time looking Houston, they are the same rates.

Alan NJ-- Income is income agreed! On Dec. 29, 2011, the Congressional Research Service presented a report to Congress on the reasons for the inequality of income over the past decade. Below is a quote from that report. You can read the full report here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42131.pdf

Three potential causes of the increase in after-tax income inequality between 1996 and 2006 are changes in labor income (wages and salaries), changes in capital income (capital gains, dividends, and business income), and changes in taxes. To evaluate these potential reasons for increasing income inequality, a technique to decompose income inequality by income source is used. While earnings inequality increased between 1996 and 2006, this was not the major source of increasing income inequality over this period. Capital gains and dividends were a larger share of total income in 2006 than in 1996 (especially for high-income taxpayers) and were more unequally distributed in 2006 than in 1996. Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality.

Anybody care to make the case for eliminating the capital gains tax?????

Again, a big thanks to Mr. Romney for being a great example of why we should not eliminate this tax.

Amazed that the millions of Republicans who are on food stamps, unemployed or under-employed, paying 30+ tax rate cannot admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with the picture that Mitt & the 1% represent regarding taxes. Why do they defend the likes of Rush and Mitt and others who are laughing all the way to the bank on their backs. Many Republicans are suffering from the effects of Bush spending and wars, yet will die a thousand deaths before breaking party rhetoric. The same rhetoric that is not helping them and does not care about them. Just empty words on paper. Seems common sense and reality of the growing inequality in our country should prevail at some point and we should work together to fix it.

Yes, Mitt, there is something wrong. You know it, we know it. Being wealthy is not the issue here, it is the disproportionate burden being carried by those who are not wealthy, preventing them from ever being wealthy. Republicans will to pretend not to understand this and twist the truth. Blaming Obama for not paying your fair tax share, hiding monies offshore, and hiding your tax returns, won't work this time, Romney.

Americans will not let this issue be ignored by GOP/TP.

Joe,

Sorry, this one belongs to "your boy" GW.

Give me four more years so I can finish the job of bankrupting the country

And this is St. Ronnie and Dick's favorite tune.

More federal govt deficit spending

The "Barrow and Spend" GOP we always try to transfer our short comings on the other guy.

Again, the GOP is the reason our economy tanked. Oh you know two unfunded wars, Tax cuts for the wealthy and total mismanagement of the economy just to name a few of the GOP's blunders.

And yet another goofy thread, riddled with Loius, Feisty and all her lemmings. Such a bummer when those two invade a thread; common sense becomes non-existant, and you end up with a bunch of loonies patting each other on the back for making non-sensical arguments.

Anyone else suspect that Feisty posts under multiple names (The gushy, goofy ata-girls on "her" threads are over the top and kinda comical)

"Being wealthy is not the issue here, it is the disproportionate burden being carried by those who are not wealth"

Interesting comment Paris.

Exactly who is it that you believe pays the bulk of our federal taxes? (Hint: The bottom 50% don't pay any)

Do the math people.

@ROB in MA,

I was trying to post a link for you, but couldn't make it happen.

If you haven't seen it already, check Boston.com for comments Gingrich recently made about Romney as Governor of Massachusetts. By extension, he labelled MA conservatives as well (at least as I read it).

Going to be interesting if Gingrich wins the nomination, and suddenly expects MA republicans to support him.

Tod you come on here spouting nonsensical statements, you don't even go as far as to make an argument. Then you act like you have the moral high ground. Sounds like you have been taking lessons from Newt.

With just the ending of the bush tax cuts the deficit would be paid off by 2026. The republicans want to extend the bush tax cuts and Romney wants to make them larger and then he wants the poor people in our country to pay the bills so the 1% can pay half the taxes they are paying now.

Come on Rob defend your taxes getting raised to pay for an even larger tax cut for the 1%.

Then tell us how much the republicans care about paying down the deficit.

Tod lotsanumbers:

It's not wise to get smug when you don't have a clue. Do the math, you say? Try this on for size.

Those who are employed pay both portions of F.I.C.A. That is a federal tax. Your 50% talking point is BS and has been debunked repeatedly.

Furthermore, each and every purchase made by a consumer is a transfer payment. Without a transportation infrastructure, virtually all goods will never get to a consumer. That infrastructure is funded by local, state, and federal taxes. As a math whiz, perhaps you will be kind enough to tell us the percentage of citizens who pay no sales, property, or other taxes.

Look bud, we're all in this together and the rich have made a great portion of their wealth thanks to a socialized infrastructure. I'm not hanging my hat on some nebulous notion of a "fair" tax. There is no objective measure of fair. I'll stick to a readily measurable and objective reality.

We must pay for those things we purchase. What escapes your nimble mind is the fact that you cannot get tax money from people who do not have it. It has to come from somewhere and the right-wing has been quite busy transferring that money to the rich. Every statistic shows that.

Do the math, smart guy.

They are questioning Adelson's (Casinos) donation to Newt; Legal, its a business. Question Romney's 13.9% tax rate on "investments": also Legal. (The morals of the rate???) But the real "Questioning"should be about Grover Norquist; HE is dangerous & "scarey". His "Americans for Tax Reform" (ATR) has great sound,but is NOT about 'reform". His "pledge"states:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or business;

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits,unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

NO exception to this! At last count, 238 Congressmen and 41 Senators (including Mitt & Newt) have signed on. The "pledge" is binding for a politican's entire term in office. It's no wonder Obama put a temporary hold on the "pipeline" 'cause Norquist is the number ONE Lobbyist for it! So much power in one man! ! "Tea Party" people, follow your "Namesakes", grab your "axes"; "AX THE TAX CODE"..

david,

I mentioned "federal taxes" because that is actually what the article is about. If you want to blather on about state, local, sales and Fica. Go right ahead, I have different ideas about those, which are irrelevant to this converation. Romney pays ~ 15% on his income, which happens to be largely capital gains. The same rate as the rest of the country.

" Look bud, we're all in this together and the rich have made a great portion of their wealth thanks to a socialized infrastructure. I'm not hanging my hat on some nebulous notion of a "fair" tax. There is no objective measure of fair. I'll stick to a readily measurable and objective reality."

On that we can partially agree (socialized infrastructure can be taken a lot of ways, and the "look bud" referene is kinda goofy).

"With just the ending of the bush tax cuts the deficit would be paid off by 2026"

Talk about your non-sensical statements; whose rear-end did you pull that out of American? can you actually predict our future economy?

Tod - lotsanumbers:

FICA is a federal tax! As far as predicting our future economy, you can't be serious. Projected revenues are based on estimates of what WILL occur - you know, the future. That's how it's done.

Bud is my personal shorthand for: Clueless talking point slinger.

"FICA is a federal tax!"

And there-in lies the rub; lefty loons think FICA money is government money (tax). Let me spell this out for you; when talking of Romneys 15% we are not speaking of FICA. You can talk about it all you want, personally I think its a government run nightmare that I have no intentions of relying on. I'm certainly not going to whine if the rich don't pay for mine, I want my own account that government keeps their slimy hands off.

"what WILL occur" you don't really believe that do you? Every state in the union is suffering drastic deficits (like the feds) because they based their over-legislation on what will occur.

What argument would you have me make. Its a goofy, typically one sided MSNBC article about Romney's taxes.

Newsflash: He makes a lot of money

Newsflash: He pays the same tax rate on his captital gains that everyone else does.

Newsflash: He gives a much larger percentage of his income to charity that than your average American. (which is a heck of a lot better use of your average American's money than taxes.

Whats to argue?

Romney made more than $40 million the last two years, or $57,000 a day, and paid a 13.9% tax rate

Adding in his Social Security and Medicare contributions, it STILL comes out to a piddling 13.9%.

Even poor people who pay no federal income tax pay more in Social Security and Medicare taxes ALONE than Mitt Romney does in income tax, Medicare, and Social Security taxes COMBINED.

tod, Social Security and Medicare taxes ARE federal tax!

Grover Norquist...is dangerous & "scarey"..... His "pledge"states:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or business;

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits,unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

In other words, no end to the fedraal deficit EVER.

Math and fiscal conservatism are no longer GOP strong points.

Common sense,

You are making my point; why are those treated as a tax and why is government running them? Tell me why you believe that those who have worked hard and have been successful should pay for evryone elses retirement and medical bills (because that is what you are suggesting). Show me where our founding fathers promoted any type of wealth redistribution.

Combined Medicare and Social Security contributions are around 15%. There is a matching employer contribution.

I know. But if you eliminate that the chance of the actual employee seeing the money are 0 to none. However, it would be interesting if they offered to eliminate that (thus offering a real incentive to employ) in exchange for raising the minimum wage. The the lowest rate of tax could start around 10% so there is a tax cut for working poor and more incentive for employers to hire.

We have to simplify this tax system!

I told you all that Gingrich was the one to watch many months ago when everyone was saying he was DEED! ;-) Our president better be paying attention and brushing up on his debating skills because he is going to need them.

I read a conservative post yesterday that I wish I had copied, but it said essentially that to make money you: (1) work hard and make money; (2) invest that money and earn more; to ultimately (3) have your money working for you (a la Romney). And they stated that this is the American Dream.

In my opinion, if that's the Republican point of view, well no wonder we're in this mess. I always thought the American Dream was about working hard, to provide for your family, have some security, and have a happy life. But if it's really about being so greedy and money grubbing that you have to scrape and claw every cent you can until you can sit back and reap the benefits.....well. That's a new one.

If all the people on welfare and struggling with poverty are just "lazy" as the Republicans would have us believe.....well what do you call someone who earns $50K a DAY (as it states in the article about Romney) and never lifts a finger? Lucky? I guess since he was not lazy at some point in his past, when he worked hard to not let other people work hard ("firing" people), he just deserves to be lazy and make millions? Is that how it works? I mean, the rest of us "lazy" people aren't collecting dividends and getting salon treatments and plastic surgery like the "real housewives" of the rich....but that's just cuz we're so lazy, right??

commonsense: YES !.!. There IS a way to end the "DEFICIT". Have the "TEA PARTY", get THEIR "AXES" and "AX THE TAX CODE". Norquist won't like IT , BUT 99% of the people WILL..!

SCOTUS on Monday morning denied conservative watchdog group, Freedom Watch’s request to argue for Justice Elena Kagan's recusal from the health care cases.

I'm glad of this. Thomas is the one that is on the Freedom Watch pay roll, through his wife.

When you consider the conflict of interest of Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court -- his wife a tea party leader on record taking cash specifically to oppose Health Care Reform...are they hoping to let sleeping dogs lie?

No one wanted to upset the Thomas house of cards, could have been a bit sticky if they voted against Kagan and not Thomas. All depends, on who you know, right?

Dennis, glad to hear that. Freedom Watch has a lot of nerve to even try. Now if they had included Justice Thomas and possibly Scalia, it would make sense.

I thought the issue in this article is the Republican Primary, NOT the SCOTUS.

Try to stay on message Republicans, or have you already forgotten what the article is about?

All the bashing of Mitt for being rich appears to put the lie to yall's BS claim that "I'm not against anybody making money." Haha. Yeah right. I've said it before, at the heart of every liberal is someone who hasn't grown up yet. Jealousy of the rich and successful is a big part of that.

You clowns better start preparing yourselves for either a Presient Romney or a President Gingrich. Because you all so often claim to be the only smart people in the nation, and that the majority of Americans are stupid, it should not be a shock to you when this happens, right? Right! Maybe this time when you cry, wring your hands and gnash your teeth, you really WILL leave the country like you promised back in the Bush days.

I thought it odd last night that he said he made all his money through hard work, that his wealth wasn't inherited. While it is true he did make the multi-millions on his own and deserves credit for that, he inherited a million from his dad giving him a distinct advantage. I don't envy his wealth or his inheritance but it annoys me to have him speak as if he dragged himself off the "real streets of America", pulled himself up by his boot straps from the ranks of the middle and lower class when he inherited a million.

Romney's policies are even more favorable to the wealthy than Bush 43's were and that's saying something. At least Bush thought capital gains worth a 15% tax; Romney and Gingrich both would eliminate it as well as eliminate the falsely named "death tax" which only affects the wealthiest among us. Every Romney policy is for the benefit of him and those like him.

Jody, the problem Republicans have with Romney is that he's shoving himself down their throats because he is the ONLY Republican in the race that has the money, and the organization (Romney is registered in all 50 states) to even get to the nomination.

None of the other Republicans that are running for the nomination have the money, and they are NOT registered to run for POTUS or the nomination in all 50 states.

It looks like Newt is already out of money, except for that one guy who is going to give Newt another $5 million, but just ONE GUY contributing to Newt's campaign speaks volumes.

Obama / Biden 2012

I'll start off with: I think, know, the TAX SYSTEM is SCREWED!

Having said that, the Democrats had 6 years to fix it but they didn't... I wonder who they were protecting?

Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw STONES! Look at "Prince Harry and Queen Nancy"! They both made MILLIONS while they have been in office! There are probably a lot more who are laying low, afraid to utter a word. It is only when they run for President that the skeletons fall out of the closet.

I'm not saying that the Republican legislators are "free of sin", either, but for the LEFT to get UP IN ARMS about wealth and tax rates is a total sham! They could have made corrections to LEVEL the playing field but they didn't!

Speaking of "RICH", who do you think is paying for Obama's BILLION DOLLAR re-election campaign? Who is paying $35,000/plate to listen to him blather about how this isn't his fault? The HOMELESS? The OWS protesters? The UNEMPLOYED? Well, I've got news for you! It isn't any of those... It's RICH DEMOCRATS!

Perhaps you LEFTIES should look into the tax rates of the Kennedys, George Soros and a few of the Democrat "High Rollers"... They aren't writing "extra" checks to the IRS and they ARE taking advantage of EVERY loop hole in the system.

The lefties sure didn't question John Kerry's effective tax rate. Why is that? Anybody know what John Kerry's effective tax rate was back when he ran? I can't even remember the issue being raised.

Hey Ron -- the ones bitching the most about Romney's tax rate are Newt and his cult followers. Romney simply followed the law. We can debate if tax laws need to be change but again -- the ones griping the most about Romney are Republicans.

American Girl-724855

...he is the ONLY Republican in the race that has the money, and the organization (Romney is registered in all 50 states)

Aren't you leaving someone out there girl, there is another in the republican race that is also registered in all 51 voting blocks. (50 states and DC)

None of the other Republicans that are running for the nomination have the money, and they are NOT registered to run for POTUS or the nomination in all 50 states.

Don't follow the news much do you, or are you doing the same as the MSM are doing? think that if I ignore him he will just go away?

All this says to me is that the Democrats are most afraid of Dr Paul, this is why they support Mitts for the republican candidate.

Matt, Romney is not a normal American, how could he be? In 2010 he earned over 56K A DAY !

The taxes came to 21m plus at 13.9%, wouldn't we all love to pay at that rate?

Up until 2010 he had a Swiss bank account, until advised it would be an embarrassment running for President. His off shore accounts in the Cayman islands are sitting there making millions.

Is it any wonder he appears uncomfortable and out of touch with the average American.

I am not against anyone having a lot of money, I've worked for them and know them too, well, none of them have ever had any trouble relating to those with less, some inherited, some earned their wealth, but none are uncomfortable with themselves, it leaves me wondering what is he so twitchy about.

He is a phony of the worst kind, Newt is no prize either, so sorry for those who have to make a choice.....and the other two, Paul and Santorum dont count, as they will never be nominated.

1. Is it illegal to make $56K a day?

2. Did he cheat on his taxes or did he pay taxes at the rate as established? Don't you think most of those elected make their income passively and are taxed accordingly?

3. Is it illegal to have bank accounts in other countries providing you declare the income derived from them?

4. How is he any more out of touch with the average American than DNC members? The Kennedy's were "connected" with us? The Gore's are average? Pelosi is just barely scraping by? Kerry? Warner, Lautenberg, Feinstein, etc. You are aware that Michelle Obama by herself in the past on her own earnings would have been a 1%er? Nearly ALL politicians are wealthy elitists and most are career politicians somehow amassing their fortune. Romney earned it the old fashioned way.

mattpl, so right.

Yes, we are looking at a bunch of self-interested millionaires.

The fact that Romney moved his money from a secret Swiss bank account to a secret Cayman Islands account somehow makes him look better?

Although I am interested in the rate Romney paid on what money he didn't hide overseas, I'm even more interested in what he will do to my taxes, along with the rest of the middle class. It appears that many of you on the right hate the present administration so much you're willing to pay higher taxes and increase the federal deficit just to get Obama out of office.

From The New York Times-

"Mr. Romney’s tax plan — which calls for permanently extending the Bush administration’s tax cuts, reducing the corporate income tax rate and eliminating the estate tax — would cut the taxes of people earning more than a million dollars a year by an average of $295,874, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group.

Since Mr. Romney would also allow some of President Obama’s tax cuts to expire, his plan would effectively raise taxes on some people earning less than $40,000 a year. The Romney tax plan would add to the deficit by reducing federal revenues by $600 billion in 2015, a 16 percent cut, the center found."

Anything said by the right that claims to have anything to do with fiscal fairness and responsibility is a lie.

Voter in-LA,

You're purposely missing the point. Which means you're being disingenuous. Which further means that you're insulting our intelligence. Which in turn means you don't have anything worth saying.

Come back when you're ready to have a grown-up conversation.

Jack, maybe you're the one missing the point? Harping on the tax rate he pays insinuates that he had a direct influence on it. Set aside your partisan blinkers and come back once you graduate from the school of throwing around insults in a poor attempt to conceal your jealousy at his success.

BTW let me ask this question, what tax rate do you think Pelosi et alia paid on their profits by the legitimate insider trading allowed for members of Congress? Do you think they magically paid a higher rate out of the goodness of their hearts, or do you think that like Romney they paid the rate established by the IRS for passive income (i.e. capital gains)?

BTW Jack, I'm not pro-Romney, but I find attacking him because of the tax rate he pays to be juvenile. At least vwterry in the post above yours has accurately located real reasons to question his platform.

Voter-in-LA

your jealousy at his success

That's your cynical viewpoint. It has nothing to do with jealousy whatsoever. If you can accept that much, read on. If not, don't bother. Societies function best when you don't have extreme wealth at one end and extreme poverty at the other. This country is heading towards becoming another Rio de Janeiro. That's not the country I grew up in, and it's not the one I want to live in. And since this is a democratic society, I'm expressing my viewpoint on the matter. Second, this country is what made it possible for Romney and his family to become wealthy. He owes this society more than 15% of his annual income. Period.

I have no quarrel with Pelosi and other members of Congress from both parties not being allowed to profit from insider trading, and I think they should pay their fair share as well. But your bringing it up it a distraction from the real topic: Romney. He's the one who is running for president, and that's what First Thoughts is discussing this morning.

Sorry son, you're the one who is being juvenile. And vwterry's excellent post doesn't get you off the hook.

Jack in port... - based on your constant strawman arguments you have never had a grownup discussion. I doubt if you even know what one is...

Vwterry - I would just as soon as see the obama (bush) tax cuts expire across the board with an emphasis on bringing down our debt over thye next 20 years.

BTW - nice use of using a dollar amount for what romneys tax thoughts would realize for the wealthy. It is so much better to spin against hi rather than use percentages

Jack, I know you cannot be expected to have bothered to delve into what I've ever said before, but just so you don't have expend too much energy:

1. I've repeatedly questioned why Capital Gains is taxed at a different rate to regular income. And btw that's despite receiving approximate 65% of my income from passive sources.

2. The fact that Romney and many others owe more than 15% to society doesn't change the fact that NOBODY whether they are poor or rich pays more than what at the end of the day the IRS demands you pay. Public grandstanding like Buffett likes to do does nothing. He's still paying that same rate.

3. Not a single one of the tax proposals from EITHER side of the aisle address the ridiculous differential between capital gains and active income. Until ALL income is lumped together and the sum total determines your tax rate, nothing will change. This should apply to everyone, if your passive earnings bump you into the next tax bracket, well pay up. You can increase the tax rate all you want on the salary of "high income earners". The horrible fact remains that for those who are wealthy, an additional 10, 15 even 25% on their active income will not affect their standard of life. To the majority it represents only a fraction of their earnings as I'm sure you're aware (simply review the public databases of the IRS).

4. I agree the topic should be Romney, but as I indicated above, attack the platform not the man. Attacking his wealth, his income tax rate he pays, etc. indicates more of a fear of his potential success and deflects from where the focus should be.

5. Also, I unlike many who may have middle of the road views or conservatives, have zero issues with 47% not paying taxes. The only issue I have is the fact that there are so many who earn so little.

So before you try to become all judgmental, reread my first post which was a response to Gingerbread Mama's views. Her views attacked the man not his political stance and platform. Sadly that's often the "liberal" method. And I hate to repeat myself, but it is juvenile.

american......

I have no problem with taxes being brought back to the Clinton era rates either. But I'm also not the one in the position to keep that from happening. That's the Republicans.

In addition, the dollar figures shown were not mine. I quoted the New York Time article. However, when using dollar figures like $295,874 or 4 time the average income of a household in 2011, it is relevant to the conversation, especially when contrasted with the increase in taxes for those making less than 1/4 of that amount.

Yep. Points well worth making, IR!

Thank you for posting this, Independent. Eugene Robinson is one of the very few pundits who really gets it. He has a knack for getting to the heart of an issue, rather than pontificating on the usual "horse race"elements in an election.

I concur with your comment that conservatives have no accomplishments to run on, so they choose to make this race about beating the Democrat in the White House, just because he's a Democrat (or worse.)

Eugene Robinson is one of the very few pundits who really gets it

Yeah, Eugene. The one that pontificates and is critical of how the Santorum family handles the loss of their newborn child. Eugene is a real class act. Low-class. The man is a disgrace.

IR, Eugene Robinson sure nailed that one and your added thoughts, perfect! Loved the quote.

It's beyond me how a group of people can be so blinded by getting rid of that guy who is in the White House that they seem not to care about anything that really matters. Romney, Gingrich are the guys with the blueberry pie all over their faces and yet, conservatives say, give the GOP another chance to blow up the economy because Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 didn't quite get the job done; give the GOP another chance to start more unnecessary wars, to make the tax code even more advantageous to the wealthy, to give advantage to businesses over the workers who make those businesses a success, etc etc etc.

Thanks for sharing this, IR.

When they want to take "their" country back---who are they taking it back from? Seems to me a majority of their fellow citizens voted for President Obama to be the steward of their country for four years and, hopefully, four more years. They never seem to see it that way---they make it their mission to destroy a Democratic presidency from day one.

And how about that profile in courage, Rick Santorum, not correcting the voter who hit the daily double of birtherism AND Muslim.

Seems like we saw this dynamic tried before especially by old Newt when he tried to hang up Clinton for the ripe crime of getting a B.J. in the White House.

...and doing all this while cheating on wife #2! The GOP and Newt have no room to talk about wasting government funds. Whitewater an investigation on a real estate deal gone bad that end with the President being impeached for getting a BJ from an intern and they didn't even suceed in getting him removed from office! Now that was $53,000,000.00 well spent.

I wouldn't have any problem with Eugene, if he wasn't such a flaming liberal and bigot for black causes. He still believes that racial profiling to give blacks an advantage is something that needs to continue like Affirmative Action!

Although at points he can make some very erudite arguments, particularly on how the tax code enslaves us all. I cannot accept anything from a bigot. Isn't that the liberal mantra around here, I"m surprised that you would trot him out as a paragon of virtue.

I know I'm going to get nailed by the liberal attack dogs here because Gene Robinson is a favorite of yours, but the truth is the truth as you liberals like to assert.

.

Huh?

I don't know... if the audience is allowed to dictate the conversation the same way they did with the TEA Party (which I'm sure the audience is part of) then they will likely affect the nomination process. NBC likely vetted the audience which made it more tame. I noticed a couple of guys behind Williams smirk at a couple of responses from Newt (likely Romney supporters).

Job1: In the last two SC debates, Newt went in you face with Juan Williams and then John King. In these two debates, Fox and CNN allowed the peanut gallery to go crazy with their cattle calls,

"Cattle calls" - A cattle call is when you have a bunch of folks come in and audition or interview for a part in a play or for a job. Not sure how it fits with what you're trying to describe. It looks like you're trying to describe the audience spontaneously cheering, but it's hard to tell.

Think there will be any "cattle calls" at the SOTU speech? Or will everyone be told to sit down and be quiet.

And "carvel barking"? Is that what Jimmy Carville does?

Looks like you're drinking kind of early Jobs, even for you. Best you stick to your one-liners.

Job1, good point. I also think that in Florida, the voters are very different from SC. Newt Gingrich is good at blowing the dog whistles while feigning that's not what he meant, how dare anyone suggest such a thing about Newt; and knowing all the while that those who hear dog whistles receive the message loudly and clearly. Carnival barker describes Newt Gingrich perfectly.

What the heck is carvel barking? Perhaps you mean carnival barking.

Last year at SOTU, folks from both sides of the aisles sat together and responded as befits the chamber of the House.

Job1, yes you are right. The same crass put-up-or-shut-up crowd was at the Town Halls in 2010.

...All those Koch dollars behind them.

The Presidential debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates and I would think they would have more control over the audience and format than any debate sponsored by a for-profit network.

So true Jody.

What did we learn last night?

I had an image in my head last night of two standard bearers, riding out onto a battle field to rally the troops; but what exactly is meant by the standard they bear? Each candidate claims to be the true conservative, and this obviously means something wonderful to the audience of Republicans, but the discussion of what is meant by conservatism, left me, a moderate Democrat, pretty cold.

Then, I had an image in my head of another standard bearer riding into battle, and this flag was the flag of the United States, not just of the conservative movement. The truth is, conservatism and liberalism are two philosophies that don't need to be in conflict, but can be complementary. I wish Republicans would occasionally acknowledge liberals have contributed to the accomplishments of this great country. I don't consider President Obama to be the standard bearer of liberalism, but he incorporates the best of both philosophies. I didn't see a single candidate on the Republican stage last night that could be said to be able to put country before party. Not one. And if you aren't running to be President of all the United States, what are you running for?

Jody, great

And we know it is all about GOP/Koch wasting our time, frittering away time that should be spent putting people back to work.

There is still only one GOPTP candidate who has a remotely responsible attitude about foreign policy and that is Dr. Ron Paul. The rest clearly have no idea of what foreign policy is beyond the notion of the US bombing countries or starting covert wars to overthrow dictators we don't like.

{{{{Jody}}}} look y'all I hugged a liberal!! ;)

I always thought McCain and Cheney were warmongers, after watching the debate, Newt scares the hell out of me even more than the other two. I may not agree with you on the other two points completely (when it comes to Dr. Paul) the rest is spot on though. As always Jody well said.

And as always for me.... Ron Paul 2012!

Jody,

Dr Paul's Positions are very nuanced, not simplistic. I know it seems like they are given the little time you have to hear them on a debate stage, but they are actually a lot deeper than soundbites.

Dr Paul does have a bit of a problem with presentation, he is working on improving that. But claiming that he is too simplistic shows a lack of knowledge of what it is he really supports. I would encourage you to explore his positions more...

1SGFitzsWife4ID

Good to see you here girl, been a while...

Hiya Egilman, I've been around, mostly reading not writing lately, since you do such a good job when it comes to talking about Dr. Paul, I usually don't need to add anything ;) hope all is well with you and Mrs. Egilman!

I think it was Richard Wolffe but not positive who said in the last year or so that over several decades, the GOP had increasingly moved to the politics of personal destruction aimed primarily at democrats. The advent of right-wing media in the form of Limbaugh, Beck and some others on FOX, the politics of hate and divisiveness begun in the 90's has come full circle. It was only a matter of time before the vitriolic nature of right-wing media would cross the line into character assassination of their own. Seems he was right.

He sure was, Jody.

Let's not forget at the close of the primary battle between then-Senators Obama and Clinton, that they resolved their differences enough for Senator Clinton to campaign convincingly for candidate Obama and that they had the trust in each other for her to be appointed to one of the most important positions in his administration, Secretary of State. Another primary foe became the Vice President and has played an important role as well.

Would anyone believe it if either Gingrich or Romney campaigned for the other?

For those who have missed the real question posed in this FR thread, here is one source of info on that BILLIONAIRE couple who is financing Newt's SuperPAC: Sheldon Adelson and wife. Note that this is from a "conservative" publication, too. I wonder too just what return they are hoping for with this "investment" of $10M so far.

http://topics.wsj.com/person/A/sheldon-g-adelson/587

Would anyone believe it if either Gingrich or Romney campaigned for the other?

I would Steeler but only because they're the same, they'll attack each other for now but if one of them actually wins the nomination the other will be behind them, remember ABO seems to be the mantra, I personally don't want President Obama being re-elected but I certainly don't want the other side of the same coin either.

Not sure I agree with you,1sgFitzsWife, though I do always read what you write. There is so much personal animus between Gingrinch and Romney, that support will be half hearted, if it occurs at all.

I take a very similar position to 1SGFitzsWife, But I also agree with Newday too, I doubt they can mend the fences, they will try in public but the hatchet has bee raised by both and neither can put it down...

Wonderful JoAnne!

Awesome, JoAnne! It's an attack on those of us who disagree with their policies.

The thing that angers me the most is that President Obama is a decent, caring man who doesn't deserve the mud that is slung at him. Disagree with his policies? Fine. But to attack his character, his integrity, as so many do, is way, way out of bounds. It's a hatred for the man himself, and in my view, originates in racism.

Pretty Work JoAnne.

JoAnne, I Love it.

Too bad the GNOP still has not learned that this is the UNITED States of America - not the Rich States of America, not the MY God is right your God is wrong of America...and as Joanne says - when they say Obama failed - like it or not - they are also saying THEY failed -- as the old saying goes - it take 2 to tango.....so maybe they should wise up...

uh, JoAnn? When trying to make a point, it is helpful to have the facts straight.

Obama took 64,639,738 votes. you number is off by over five million.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081106170536AA1fNVy

He does not have nearly that level of support this year. Want a hint? His campaign saw both Iowa and New Hampshire as test runs of their ground game. Not looking too good in either state.

Take New Hampshire. Obama got less than 50,000 true beievers to come out and vote for him. True, he was uncontested- but so were both Bush and Clinton in their re election campaigns.

Bush got a little less than 60,000 votes-Clinton about 80,000.

By any measure, the fall off is disturbing-if you are a member of the cult.

Get a life, no jo! 50,000 "true believers" came out and voted for Obama in NH (my state), and it was considered by the newspapers in the state as a good turnout for a sitting president. Don't try to make it something it wasn't.

JoAnne, that is an awesome piece, State of the Union quality. Beautifully written beautiful thoughts. Thank you.

JoAnne in PA: So listen up, okay? When you call "Obama" a total failure, you're calling me a total failure too.

If the shoe fits sweetie . . .

Somehow you on the Left think Obama has no responsibility for high unemployment, a low GDP, a record increase in food stamps usage, trillion dollar deficits, and record setting debt. Obama has failed in each of those areas, and that does make him a failure. And if you want to take that as a personal affront to yourself, I guess that's your problem.

JoAnne,

Super-well said.

GOP/Koch/ALEC/Norquist really, really, really want us to forget that -

Democracy = By the Consent of the People.

NoJoe -

Not surprisingly, I found at least three other different totals when researching this, all of which were higher than the one you cite.

But instead of Yahoo!, I went with the Federal Election Commission's site:

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf

With nojo and JAS1......one can only consider the source.

As the economy improves, as the President's numbers rise, and the GOP candidates are such dismal alternatives, they get more frantic and more inconsequential. And the lies keeping spreading. All is just empty rhetoric and schoolyard taunts.

Brilliant JoAnne!

But instead of Yahoo!, I went with the Federal Election Commission's site:

I noticed the nut job from NJ can't resist taking the bait!

Bonus points for the rebuttal!

Obama got 48,970 votes in New Hampshire

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/nh

Bush got 53,962 votes in 2004

CandidateVotes %Delegates
George W. Bush53,96279.5529
All Others13,90720.45
Total67,83310029
  courtesy of Wiki

Clinton did the best for an incumbent, with 77,797 votes

http://www.nh.gov/nhinfo/1996results.html

The massive ground game?  looking more like a pick up touch football game than the NFL.

I echo Feisty's remark - Brilliant JoAnne!

JoAnne, PA, excellent post!

This morning Dr. Brzezinski was on Morning Joe talking about foreign policy, and his new book, "Strategic Vision" (I think that's the title). Although I can't repeat verbatim his comments, more or less, he said that President Obama grasps and understands the changing world, and is the only person (among the current candidates) who seems to be way ahead in recognizing the changing world in which we live, how it affects us, and that his foreign policy ideas are in tune with the modern world because we are no longer the USA vs the USSR, etc. The rest seem stuck in the mode of the old USA ideology of us versus the communists, good vs evil, keeper of the world. He said President Clinton didn't get it and President Bush certainly did not understand it but President Obama does. It was a good discussion and he'll be back on Morning Joe tomorrow.

Thank you JoAnne. You articulated what millions of supporters feel about our President.

Now, No Jo and JoannaSmith, try making a case for your candidate, any candidate, tell us how Gingrich inspires you to try your hand at lobbying, or Romney gives you hope, hope you too may one day pay only 15% of your income in taxes. Thrill us.

JoAnne, a second round of applause for the rebuttal to NJ.

Your initial post is worthy of a spot on the editorial pages of major newspapers.

Amy B: Thrill us.

Oh, no one can thrill you like Barack can Amy. No sense even trying to compete with your main man.

Burning coals sweet-heart. Burning coals.

Jody -

Thanks for sharing Dr. Brzezinski's comments - I couldn't agree more. In fact, it's one of the many reasons why I voted for Barack Obama in 2008; he seemed light-years ahead of John McCain in terms of seeing and understanding the speed at which the world is changing. Unlike the "birther" crowd, I always thought that having a President who had actually spent time in Africa and Indonesia and had relatives from both parts of the world would be an enormous asset in this day and age - just as I thought that speaking Chinese and having lived in China would have been an asset for Jon Huntsman. It's also why I disagree so strongly with those who suggest that we should have a "one size fits all" policy towards what's going on in the Middle East. It's a big, complex world, and it's only getting more complex as technology changes the way we live and think and act. I'm the first to admit that I can't keep up with it myself, so it's more imperative than ever that I have confidence that my leaders can.

Speaking the truth that the world is not still stuck in the cold war. It is no longer the US vs. USSR and we should not be obligated to be the policemen of the world.

I'm sure the commentator on Morning Joe would find a better proponent of these views from Ron Paul and not Barack Obama. Yes Paul is better than Obama on some foreign policy and some civil liberty issues. Again Dr. Paul, spoke the truth at the debate, the angst and hatred that comes our way from other countries is based not because of our way of life it is based on our actions/foreign policy toward them. He said something about the Golden Rule before even though it didn't play so well.

On another note regarding the debate, I find it heartening that Paul didn't take the bait like Newt, Mitt and Rick did. The others call for an invasion, subversion and assasination in Iran I wouldn't doubt if the would practically suggest the same measures in Cuba. The big three are merely scrounging for neo con votes when rattling sabers against Iran and or crawling for Cuban American votes when talking about Cuba. Good to see that at least one R does not drink the koolaide from the neo con warmongering cultists.

Mark -

I should have been clearer in my original post that I wasn't really including Dr. Paul in with the other three candidates - partly because both his views and his way of presenting them are noticeably different from theirs, but partly because I don't think he has even a remote chance of getting the GOP nomination - and, to be perfectly honest here, I often have a hard time following the point he's trying to make in the first place.

Interesting, though..... when you say "Dr. Paul spoke the truth at the debate, the angst and hatred that comes our way from other countries is based not because of our way of life it is based on our actions/foreign policy toward them.".....if President Obama said the exact same thing, he'd be accused of "apologizing" for America. So either there's a double standard in the GOP or - as I'm afraid is probably closer to the truth - Dr. Paul's very loyal supporters are the only ones paying any attention to what he has to say. In any case, thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion.

if President Obama said the exact same thing, he'd be accused of "apologizing" for America. So either there's a double standard in the GOP

Yes I agree there is a double standard in the GOP. Paul also confuses me as well when he starts talking his economic policy ;}

Seriously though, Paul correctly talks about bubbles bursting as the source of the problem. He then states how he believes that all problems can be solved by auditing the fed for money manipulation and then reduce almost all regulations. My question is that without regulations won't more bubbles be created and burst with no guidelines to hold in unbridled capitalism?

Always good talking to you.

if President Obama said the exact same thing, he'd be accused of "apologizing" for America. So either there's a double standard in the GOP or - as I'm afraid is probably closer to the truth - Dr. Paul's very loyal supporters are the only ones paying any attention to what he has to say.

That's exactly what it is JoAnne- we're the only one's paying attention, we're not the GOP, we're Constitutionalists, Libertarians, right and left leaning Independents. I get just as offended being called a Republican as I do a Democrat ;)

Dr. Paul's greatest fault when it comes to debating is, well he needs to slow down, he gets too excited and it goes over the top of most people's heads, also he's trying to get his point across before someone else cuts him off which is often the case.

1SGFitzsWife4ID -

No offense intended! On the contrary, I admire those of you on here who are staunch supporters of Dr. Paul, because most of you have supported him all along; you - and he - are consistent in your opinions; and unlike most posters here, you're not just sitting around waiting for the last man standing to become the anti-Obama before you'll have the courage to stand up for him. But I'm afraid that as long as Dr. Paul has an (R) after his name, you're just going to have to live with being mistaken for a Republican..... :)

Yes JoAnne,

There is a double standard in the Republican party right now, the Neo-Cons vs the true Conservatives. There is a war brewing between them also. My hope is we true conservatives can take back our party.

Dr Paul has his faith and that faith says speak truth to the lies, even if they shout you down. That is personal intregrity we haven't seen in a political election in a LOOONNG time, it is needed....

We do not like the fact that to get the message out he has to be a republican and associate with the hate mongers, but we do what we have to to show America that there is another way other than the Status Quo...

Yellowdog,

Dr Paul is not saying that the issue with the Fed can be solved by auditing them, that will only reveal the true depth of the corruption we all know is going on. He is very clearly saying that we need to remove the Fed as the decider in our fiscal policy.

The control they have is one of the major problems, he would solve the problem by removing the fed and replacing them with the US Treasury, the arm of Government the Constitution say handles our money and fiscal policy.

Then replace printed Fiat money with no real value with Gold backed capital. Only way to break the stranglehold that international financiers have over our economy!

JoAnne- I wasn't offended by you! You said what I was thinking perfectly! It drives me to no end that Dr. Paul has to run as a republican, the one party system (D & R) is what's wrong with our country, it's amazing to me that so many people don't even KNOW there's more parties out there, actually I take that back it saddens me not amazes me.

Believe me I wouldn't even consider voting for anyone else.

Be interesting to see if that trajectory is more firmly in place after this debate.

Good Morning dangerfield,

How will the release of Mr. Romney's tax return play into this narrative - with his 13.9% tax rate and his money holdings in the Caymens and Bermuda?

Anyone but Romney is becoming anyone but Gingrich ... Jeb is being fitted with a parachute behind closed doors.

Six point two million dollars paid over two years. That's the number the electorate will focus on.

The IRS does not collect rates-it collects dollars. The Romneys coughed up plenty of dollars.

Fortunately for Jeb, the convention is in Tampa and he won't have to travel very far.

nojo,

I think the off shore holdings will bother some. Just a guess.

NoJo, the number that many voters will focus on is 13.9% as opposed to a top tax rate of 35%. Those are the numbers people look at when they figure out how many dollars to send the good folks at the IRS.

Didn't you confidently say he was going to stand firm and not release any returns until April?

He caved, He looks weak. It doesn't matter now how many returns he releases or when or even what they show, he caved.

The tax forms are secondary to the appearance of capitulation. He's using Charlie Crist's team;

To some, the Florida race has all the markings of a repeat of the Crist-Rubio showdown. Veteran political strategist Roger Stone tells Newsmax that the Romney campaign has been “tone deaf when it comes to conservatives.”

The Miami-based Stone adds: “Stuart Stevens, while he is a smart guy, he is not a conservative. He does not come from the conservative movement, he does not understand the conservative movement.”

So far, Romney’s national campaign playbook has been eerily similar to Crist’s strategy, embracing swing, middle-of-the-road voters while keeping the GOP’s conservative base at a distance.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Romney Campaign Run by Charlie Crist’s Political Aides
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't work out so well fro Charlie, did it?

Phine-

Attribution? I'm glad you like the line though...;)

dangerfield,

Sorry, still working on my first cup of coffee and the thought process is a little sluggish! But it was a great line from you. I enjoyed it! (And I believe you are right, he will appreciate the short trip)

Here is a thought that MIGHT come from some people. A lot of the argument today comes about corporations keeping their profits in off shore accounts and how to entice them to bring those profits back to the US. I can't help but think the appearance of a presidential candidate keeping some of his own personal wealth in off shore accounts would be detrimental - especially if one is espousing the idea of rebuilding the wealth of the US.

Just a thought.

Yes,

INsourcing is the biggie going forward from the Obama Administration.

I do not remember making any statement of that kind, dangerfield. In fact, my feeling was jsut the opposite. I knew he needed to counter tye talking point.

I DID, however, point out that Candidate Obama did not release his tax returns until March of 2008- so it seemed to me that Romney had at least that much time.

in all fairness.

I guess we do not care so mcuh about that anymore, now, do we?

I am stunned by the lack of discourse between conservatives on this blog about the exciting and historic Republican primaries. The comments section at Red State, NewsMax, NRO, and the like, have lively discussions about ISSUES that separate the candidates and the competing PHILOSOPHIES vying for dominance.

Here it's all Obama worship vs Obama derangement all the time...

NoJoe-

Yes, you did. And it isn't about FAIRNESS it's about WEAKNESS...He caved.

And you are so wrong about what the average voter will "focus" on here...

And what about that repatriation of trillions in corporate profits sitting overseas? I haven't seen that football passed around recently. The rate due is 35% not 5% and not 0% with a promise of creating jobs here. I didn't create any jobs in 2004 and was only used for stock buybacks and CEO bonuses. How long can they sit on profits made off the backs of slave wages overseas? If they are waiting for a Republican administration they're gonna have a long wait...

Dangerfield, nice post, good points.

This GOP battle is one that will swing on whether or not Gingrich implodes which he is prone to do. While those so-called "real conservatives" may be rallying to the side of Newt in the southern regions, it remains to be seen whether or not that will carry into the middle, western and northern states. I still say the only reason Newt Gingrich is being considered is there is no alternative left to be the anti-Romney candidate. I am not convinced that is enough when Gingrich has so much baggage that needs to be unpacked and scrutinized by voters. Are republican voters really willing to embrace an ethically challenged, politically divisive, flame thrower? Or is this just the latest and last stand of anyone but Mitt, doomed to rise and fall one last time? I really have no idea what is going to happen. Regardless, it is interesting to watch.

NoJo: The IRS does not collect rates-it collects dollars. The Romneys coughed up plenty of dollars.

And I coughed up plenty of dollars to the IRS as well. Which was even more of a hardship. Considering I was paying a larger rate of 30 percent on far less total income.

What's your point?

As a person who made a nice living, generally paid a much higher tax rate than Mitt Romney, saved money, etc., looking at Mitt Romney's 13.9% is likely the number most people like me will note. The fact that he paid millions in taxes is irrelevant because he made multiple millions more while paying a lower percentage tax rate than those earning $100,000 or less.

I do not care how much money Mitt Romney has or earns, more power to him. I do not envy Romney because the things most valuable are not things that money can buy. One does not need millions and millions to be happy. What I care about is Romney paid 13.9% and has millions of dollars off-shore vacationing in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and this man's proposed tax policies would mean he would pay even less if not zero. Romney with his millions has absolutely no qualms in eliminating social security and medicare for people like me, and for people less fortunate than me. People like Romney and Gingrich use the mantra of "welfare" state to describe a federal version of a 401K or IRA investment by workers called Social Security, a health care plan that has improved the lives of Americans who reach their golden years called medicare, a food stamp program which keeps the poor and disabled from starvation and assists those who have hit hard times or are unemployed.

These wealthy conservations portray those things as evil, socialist, communist things to be eliminated or worse, turned over to the Wall Street speculators who did such a great job of blowing up the economy. I do not envy Romney or Gingrich, I do not resent their multi-millions but I do resent multi-millionaires who would destroy the safety nets for everyone else for no reason other than they don't like government yet it is they who use Government, exploit Government for their personal gain and benefit while convincing the foolish sheep who listen and believe that social security, medicare and food stamps are evil.

When getting raises they want to talk percentages because it gets them more dollars than the guy making less than them.

But when talking about taxes, they talk dollars because the percentage paid will be less for them.

In other words, it's always about what benefits them the most and not about what's fair. They're all sooooo selfish.

The real stunner is the fact that Romney paid an effective tax rate of only 13.9% on this tremendous income. Romney’s tax rate is actually below that of many middle-class Americans who make only $50,000 per year. Romney’s chief GOP opponent, Newt Gingrich, made over $3 million in 2010, but paid a tax rate over 30%. President Obama made $1.8 million in 2010, and paid a tax rate of 23%. Both men made less than one-seventh of what Romney made, yet paid a much higher tax rate.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/five-shocking-facts-from-mitt-romney-s-tax-return

Feilden:

What's your point?

I can answer that... pick me, pick me:

Her "point" is a Tea-GOP political plank that the GOP-Tea leaders have spun and developed talking soliloquies about for adherents and Grover pledgers to spout to any and every open ear repeatedly and continuously in the hope it will deter or even maybe prevent SOME American citizen voters from casting a ballot for President Obama in November. Guess everyone sees and knows that already though.

BWAAAHAHAHAHA!

Boy are they in for a shock.

Just another example of gross RNC/TEA/GOP failure like nearly everything else they've tried to do this past year. MAN! They must be really uncomfortable and feeling the heat the way they insist on doubling down on this failure. Says a great deal about those who continue such unsuccessful strategy, doesn't it.

He sure does, Da Noid!

Da Noid -

Someone sent me one of those ubiquitous forwarded e-mails a while ago that had a bunch of supposedly amazing but true household hints in it - one of which was that if you want to keep a pot from boiling over the stove, instead of (duhhh) turning down the heat, you should just lay a long wooden spoon across the top of the pot. So one night last week when I was boiling some water for spaghetti, I tried it, and guess what? The pot boiled over anyway.

Now every time I look at Newt Gingrich, I wonder if someone on his campaign staff got that same e-mail and what kind of spoon they're using. Trust me, guys, it doesn't work.

P.S. - I believe the word you wanted was "pantywaist", not "panty waste" - typo, or freudian slip? :)

P.S. - I believe the word you wanted was "pantywaist", not "panty waste" - typo, or freudian slip? :)

I think if you're Newt Gingrich either spelling would apply to Mitt Romney.

JoAnne in PA, you are kicking azz today, I'm enjoying your posts.

Da Noid, so true, it's probably giving Newt ulcers to keep control; bet his BP is sky high.

JoAnne, you're on a roll today.

Da Noid, so true, it's probably giving Newt ulcers to keep control; bet his BP is sky high.

I see Newt right now more like Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men. Newt wants to crush Mitt. He wants to beat him like a drum and end his candidacy in one swift stroke...and it's absolutely eating him alive that he has to be diplomatic in these debates.

Noid -

One of my all-time favorite movies - and a GREAT analogy! Now I have to go home and watch it again!

Mitts's Complaint to newt...

Sometimes I wonder if It'll ever extend,
I get embarassed when I'm hanging with my friends.
They like to razz me, I don't know why.
They get me a Happy Meal and super-size my fry.
And there's nothing I can do,
I only got a 3 inch tool.
And when I'm comming outta the pool,
I only got a 1 inch tool.

Actually, the REAL issue here people is who is most qualified to make toast out of Obama and stop the decimation morally, socially, and economically of our country. Gingrich can't do it, he has way too much baggage...more baggage than any candidate in recent memory. Obama will relish making mincemeat out of him. Santorum is too much of a young schoolboy who has no clue how vicious Obama will be, he does not have the grit. Ron Paul? Un-electable. Polarizing. So we come to Mitt Romney. He has the demonstrated experience, the moral character, and the smarts needed to fix the mess that Obama made. That is the real issue, and that is also the reason that Obama has focused his wealth on taking Romney down before Romney is even the nominee. Obama has shown from the beginning that the only candidate who threatens him is Romney, so Romney is my choice. Another four years of Obama will destroy what is left of our nationally structure in every fundamental way possible. We can't afford that! Our children can't afford that!

Vote Romney...this farmer is going to!

Already missing some of those ethanol/farm subsidies, bingham?

Bingham: Our children can't afford that!

What our children can't afford is to have their educational opportunities decimated, to have their protection from working at school age threatened, to have ttheir protections under family serrvices erased.

Bingham, could our children afford the decimation that occurred during the Bush years? Could our children afford the massive unfunded spending, the unfettered greed that led to a meltdown? What about the children of the men and women who died fighting an unnecessary war? What about the wounded men and women who return no longer able to care for themselves or their families? Republicans do not invest in this country, they invest in making more for those who already have and hope it trickles down to everyone else. What kind of country does that provide for our children? It is sad to read conservative comments that totally disregard the decimation of the Bush years that Obama inherited and claim the decimation and the aftermath of those failed policies was caused by President Obama. That's looking through ideology's rose-colored glasses where facts, common sense and reality are lost in the process.

bingham, not sure how President Obama decimated our country morally. That comment is almost laughable coming from the Right wouldn't know morality if it were staring straight at them. Same goes for social or financial markers. According to almost all markers, our country is moving in the correct direction despite all attempts by the Right otherwise.

Agree, hummbird. Can't get on up above, JoAnne, but thanks for a great post summarizing how we are feeling. I do think you should publish it.

Thank you both! That makes up for the sleep I lost this morning trying to organize my feelings into words!

@ bingham22 ... be served notice then, I'll be the one that will be reversing the impact of YOUR vote in the 2012 election. The only candidate I can see more deserving of the Republican nomination can't even run because he is an Ostrich. Take care ...

Yes...we celebrate success.

...but more importantly, we celebrate innovation and entrepreneurship.

Mitt Romney is not an entrepreneurship. He is merely buying other people's ideas and not coming up with any of his own.

...and what part of our past success involved sending our money to the Cayman Islands instead of investing it here?

Macnfries-

You make it very clear that you care more for you intellect than the fate of our country. People who do not vote are from an old farmers view; UN-AMERICAN to the ninth degree. They do not deserve to vote and they certainly should not complain when their country is decimated as it has been for the last four years in all fundamental ways possible! We have lowered the bar morally, socially, and economically to such a degree that it may not be able to be fixed or changed. Is that what you wish for the next four years? To go beyond all hope of change? I guarantee that this country will fail if Obama is re-elected, and he will be unless the GOP can get it's act together and nominate the one baggage-less man who can defeat him.

While I love to watch people like bingham spin what actually occurred, I get tired of the lies.

The facts are that George Bush is responsible for the decimation of the country, in collusion with the Republican establishment. It is only the truly deluded that still want to lie about that.

Romney has no baggage? Don't make me laugh...

Macnfries-

You make it very clear that you care more for you intellect than the fate of our country.

Don't go for this TEA-RNC spin and sales pitch Mac; no one else is.

The TRUTH is that you make it very clear that YOU care more for the fate of our country that the greedy, selfish 1%ers, dubya-cheney, and the "base" Wall Street Norquist pledging Tea-GOP supporters EVER have.

They should truly cease their mindless spin and lies, put on their big boy panties, take responsibility and be truthful of their position instead of attacking America and her head-of-State.

Actually I said that Romney does not have the baggage the Gingrich has. Gingrich has a closet full of rattling bones for Obama to pick and choose. Romney does not have near the issues that Gingrich does.

Romney does not have near the issues that Gingrich does

Issues?????

Looks like entire SUBSCRIPTIONS to me.....

...certainly MORE than just a few "issues."

I wish Obama could do something about the Citizen United atrocity, but the only way the mess the Roberts Court made can be cleaned up is with a constitutional amendment. There's already an effort underway to get one passed. But if it appears there's any serious possibility that it could succeed, the corporate money spigots will open wide to drown it in a deluge of nasty TV ads.

Michael Moore created this, y'all should thank him for it. What's good for one is good for the other.

The "corporate money spigots" as you put it Houston (love the imagery btw) is wide open on both sides, those of us who find it disgusting for either side to do it will just *shake our heads* and continue to donate our 20.00 a week to our candidate of choice and hope for the best.

Good Morning Houston!

Gotcha Gregory also slipped up last week on NBC Nightly News, when talking about Republicans then interjecting 'us' into the conversation...

Hubby & I looked at each other and said; Freudian Slip?

I have long suspected David of being a shill for the right - appears he has decided to take off the wolf suit!

I agree. I'm sure he gets paid handsomely with infecting the conversation with his Romney Views.

Houston and Feisty.....you can add Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell into that mix, both of whom have a difficult time concealing their true leanings towards the GOP>

Yes, if they aren't all supplicants they're enemies!...I remember when 'the group" was going to "boycot" Rachel and KEITH (remember him?) because they criticized The President's handling of the Gulf Oil spill...If you WANT partisan journalism, why complain about the hyper-partisan journalism at the Red Team channel? Poor David Gregory, Anderea Mitchell and Chuck Todd aren't PARTISAN enough for your tastes, but any Conservative or Republican would laugh at your contention that they;

have a difficult time concealing their true leanings towards the GOP>

That's not just silly, it's reactionary.

Watch PBS and be exposed to both sides of an argument without people interrupting each other, and best of all no commercials...

dangerfield,

You have set the cat amongst the pigeons and the pigeons will not like it. LOL :)

dangerfield

Yes, if they aren't all supplicants they're enemies!.

If you say so, but that's not what I said. Any other strawmen you care to do battle with today? Gregory has adopted the Romney "class warfare" talking point as his own. That would be just fine with me if he were presenting himself as a spokesman for Romney or the corporate wing of the Republican Party, but he's misrepresenting himself as some sort of impartial journalist, which he's not. I find find dishonesty like that disgusting, whether it's from Gregory or from you.

Phine-

Somebody's gotta do it, right? lol

One down and several more to go I presume...;)

dangerfield

Phine-

Somebody's gotta do it, right? lol

You mean engage in dishonest strawman arguments? You're sure the somebody to do that. lol

impartial journalist, which he's not. I find find dishonesty like that disgusting, whether it's from Gregory or from you!

Bravo Houston!

Anyone who has been around FR awhile sees right through dangerfields 'impartial' act! ;o)

Obviously, he can fool some of the people some of the time...

dangerfield,

You did it you little "dishonest strawman" you! Meow! LOL However, you are right, I hear the support for The Ed Show and Rev Al, and the screams about Bill and Hannity. Ah, partisan politics - nothing like it. For real news, I agree, PBS is the way to go.

Phine-

There are some here with Irish Alzheimer's...forgotten everything but their petty grudges.

Gregory, Mitchell and Todd are not GOP leaning journalists and claiming such is silly. Period.

Dangerfield

Gregory, Mitchell and Todd are not GOP leaning journalists and claiming such is silly. Period.

Gregory, who is supposed to be an impartial journalist, attacked both Obama and Gingrich for "class warfare." Your denial of the facts are silly and so is your lame strawman argument Period.

The best humor is unintentional and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...;-)

Yikes ... seeing as we have a very warm day up here I decided to take the 132lb. puppy for a walk in the park ... good thing as I only got crap on my Wellingtons.

We've got to stop this class warfare krap! It isn't personal, it's economics.

There's plenty of supply and little demand. The top 2% provides the supply and the middle class provides the demand. When you stifle the middle class in favor of the upper class, EVERYONE SUFFERS. The upper class don't seem to realize they will become richer by investing in the middle class - in other words, they have to pay more to get more in return. They need to invest to produce a happy and productive workforce that will spend their money on the products produced by the job creators.

And govt needs to be smaller. We need to catch the cheats and scammers while still providing the safety nets called social security and medicare. We need reform and enforcers to reduce the spending.

And we need our congresscritters to talk to each other and come up with solutions that may be outside of their parties comfort zone. We need them to put country before party. That hasn't happened since Newt was Speaker. He is a divider and not a uniter. We will never come together as a country under Newt.

My claim to fame is my "right-wing" radar. I can tell the political orientation of just about any reporter.

David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd definitely lean Republican. Chuck Todd has flashes of objectivity, however, and I think he honestly tries to be unbiased. Mitchell is personally fond of Hillary, but she has no use President Obama. None of them are particularly fair to liberals.

Dangerfield---I differentiate between pundits who have a stated point of view and agenda and those who hold themselves out to be "straight" journalists who are to be reporting the facts without interjecting their personal opinion. In my view, pundits can say anything they want and if I don't like what they are saying I'm free to change the channel or read elsewhere. I'd like to think the journalists bringing me the facts (which inevitably must be filtered) are doing so in as unbiased a way as is possible.

Personal political radar comes with drawing a line in the sand and where one draws that line defines what for that person is on the left or the right of them. It cannot be considered an objective perception.

Houston, cheers for saying that!

It is one thing for Morning Joe S to speak for conservatives, the evening hosts to show their political leanings because those are meant as places to discuss politics and we understand they are entertainment where we also get some news. We know the hosts lean right or left and recognize the content as such.

It is another for those claiming to be journalists and neutral such as Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, David Gregory to show preference and bias in their reporting. I could not tell you what political ideology Michael Isikoff or Pete Williams or Richard Engel support because they stick to the facts, stick to what they think might have happened or could happen. Mitchell, Todd and Gregory need to study why Walter Cronkhite was the most trusted man in America--hint, hint--only once did we hear him make a political comment, and beyond that one time, never did we hear him inject his views into the news or the discussion.

I stopped watching MTP because of David Gregory's partisan bias which is up front for all to see; it shows when he questions republicans and then questions democrats. I later saw the clip of his interview with Gingrich and could not believe how much nonsense Gregory let stand as fact without challenge. What a disgrace to Tim Russert's excellence.

Dangerfield, seems to me you're the one with the strawman argument. We're not talking about FOX or Rachel, Lawrence, Keith Olbermann or Joe Scarborough--they clearly make their politics known and each of us recognizes that point. As liberals, we do not always agree with their particular views, that's what democrats do and we discuss it as disagreeing with them. Mitchell, Gregory and Todd are not talk show hosts, they are supposed to be unbiased journalists who are not pro or anti anyone who comes on their shows. That's the difference in Houston's point and his point is well taken.

What a disgrace to Tim Russert's excellence

Jody,

GOD - how I miss him!

After watching Tim for years, it was only after his passing, that I became aware he was a Democrat!

NO one will ever fill his shoes... least of all Gotcha Gregory!

I failed to add that Chuck Todd does try to maintain objectivity and most of the time does a good job of it. I think his problem is when he puts on his reporter hat instead of his morning show hat; that's when occasionally he injects some personal opinion into the news report he is providing. I like Chuck Todd and appreciate his efforts.

Feisty, same here, I never knew Tim Russert was a democrat until he passed away.

Ugh I don't see how any of you can "tell" the leanings of ANY journalist (to use the term loosely no matter which network) all I ever hear is a whole lot of ranting, raving, and interrupting. I seriously can not stomach any of them for more than 5 minutes.

Good information. Wonder if anyone will pay attention to it (and I mean the candidates, not just the folks posting here)?

Nah! Folks here don't have TIME to read Phine...they're too busy opining...;-)

dangerfield,

The only "opining" I am worried about today is going to come from Mr. phinephancy. I just did my part to help the economy by buying a new living room chair - without telling him! :)

I just wish I had MORE time to read all the things I want. So much to read and learn, so little time.

Mrs Phancy,

It's your investment in living room INFRASTRUCTURE

Just make sure that it was manufactured in the good old U.S.A. and you are also contributing to the economic recovery...;-)

dangerfield,

It was actually made in Ocala, Florida! So not only am I helping the US economy, I am also helping my state's economy. (Think Mr. phinephancy will buy that?)

I did, but then I'm a sucker for "Made in America"...

dangerfield, sounds as if you're implying that you don't "opin" but sorry, we all "opin" and that includes you.

phinephancy, I bought all new livingroom furniture last fall, every stick Made in the USA.

Martin, well said. I certainly do not understand the current pro-life candidates who seem to think once a child is born, society as a whole has no further obligation. Everyone for him/herself, survival of the fittest. They gladly propose eliminating unemployment benefits, food aid while claiming to be pro-life and lately sound anti-public education, anti-assistance to those children with less. Newt Gingrich's idea of firing the working janitor parents (earning a good wage, health care, pension) and hire the poor children (at minimum wage, no doubt) to clean the schools is outrageous.

I'm not a Republican but I could support a Paul/Huntsman or a Paul/Johnson ticket

You have to be kidding! And you wonder why independent thinking people laugh at the loony left. You realize that not a single one of your points applies to America and if anything both sides of the political spectrum would point a finger and say that point applies to your side which means it applies to neither. Its silliness like this no different than the far right idiots that destroy the intellectual debate.

Seems to fit the GNOP to a T!

What is Romney's fair share? He paid 35% on his compensation, 15% on his investments after each of those companies paid 35% on its corporate income and donated 15% of his gross income to charity. So what is his fair share?

It would be fair if he paid the same rate as the person who actually washes his clothes.

Well since the person washing his clothes pays zero federal income taxes and any payroll taxes obviously that person will get back in the form of social security so your example is clearly wrong. But as the WSJ showed even factoring in payroll taxes, Mitt is paying double the effective rate of the person washing his clothes. So again, provide us what fair share is? I think all of us would love to throw out the tax code and make it simple, fair and progressive. We need to eliminate all social engineering, loopholes and deductions. People with kids shouldnt get special tax breaks nor because you have a mortgage no different than investment income getting a lower rate. Further, everyone should contribute something even if its one dollar and all welfare should be eliminated from the tax code and if welfare is needed because of a person's low income, then provide it under our welfare system.

Being critical of someone for making money, donating to charity and paying the appropriate amount of tax under our tax code is just almost unamerican. If you dont agree with Romney's political positions, then dont vote for him but the attacks on his success are really losers.

Gee Kirk---I guess we know who favors the rich now.

What does favor mean? It was really a simple question, what is the fair share Romney should pay? Obama is rich as are virtually all politicians so it has nothing to do with that. You were critical of Romney for being successful rich and not liking that he followed the law and paid the appropriate amount of tax. I just dont understand when we stopped celebrating success and deciding equality of outcomes was better? If you want to vote for Obama because you dont like Romney's political position of Obamacare, I get that, but to attack his success and tax payments, seems lame to me. Not sure how anything I said favored the rich as they already pay double or triple the amount of tax of the rest of us.

Tom, that would be an excellent debate question. Let's hope some moderator asks that. Listening to Santorum, Romney and Gingrich last night--they're ready and raring to start a war with Iran and Cuba, too.

Kirk, I'd say Mitt Romney paying 28% is fair because that's the rate most people pay who earn a whole lot less but are not poor. Both Romney and Gingrich's tax plans eliminate capital gains and lower the rate on the wealthy while raising it on everyone else. Romney's goal is to pay 0%. BTW, that 28% is the rate President Ronald Reagan felt was a fair rate for capital gains--more in line with income.

Jody, thanks for the response. Its a different discussion feeling the tax code is unfair and should be changed than making any attacks on Ronmey for paying the legally obligated tax even if it was low. I disagree that Romney and Gingrich want to lower the rate on the wealthy while raising it on everyone else. First, if you start with the fact that taxing capital gains investment is a double tax to begin with as tax of 35% is already paid on operational income of the business. Second, what Gingrich at least wants and Romney has indicated that he would keep the top tax rate the same is a simpler fair tax code to eliminate all loopholes and deductions so the overall rates can be lowered. Now it is true that when 50% of the current taxpayers pay no federal income tax, a reform of the tax code is likely to cause tax to be paid by those workers making taxable income greater than poverty wages so increasing tax from zero is a higher rate. But if you eliminated all deductions and loopholes and made is progressive you could lower the highest tax rate to 25% and still have the wealthy pay more tax. So its somewhat disingenous to say that you lower the rate on the wealthy but raise it on everyone else. What you are really doing it is raising it on everyone and the wealthy will continue to pay a much larger portion of the overall tax burden just as they do today.

As for the capital gains rate, besides the hedge fund issue which really isnt that big of a deal if it was explained better and doesnt raise that much revenue but it makes for good occupy wall street media play, its historically been a great catalyst for investment in both real estate and manufacturing and been a huge boon for innovative capital investment. When Clinton reduced the capital gains rate in the mid 90s it helped fuel investment in the internet boom and brought in the most tax revenue as a percentage of GDP ever. Lowering tax rates do sometimes create revenue regardless of the progressive view otherwise.