Ah....the latest talking point on embracing Simpson Bowles.

The problem is Romney is only suggesting embracing the Simpson part of the report.

So he is in fact rejecting the Simpson Bowles report.

Hey Spanky, are you going to stick around and tell me all about Germany?

Many corporations already pay low or no taxes due to loopholes, subsidies and special provisions not available to ordinary people.

EXXON MOBIL IS THE MOST PROFITABLE CORPORATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND IT PAYS ZERO INCOME TAXES.

Exxon ALSO collects a massive subsidy from American taxpayers at GOP/Norquist's insistence.

We are still subsidizing $Billions to oil and gas, even as Big Oil is making record profits.

GOP/Koch/Romney/Santorum would like to get those rates down to Zero for all the corporates = give zero-zero-zero revenues to the US Treasury.

Backhouse

If you stick around, I have a link to send you re pipelines.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#United_States

Spanky, we're going to balance the budget by wiping out revenue and unspecified cuts? For that program to be deficit neutral, we would have to eliminate every domestic program and half the military. But beyond the silly notion that business do better when we don't invest at all in our society, Mitt is lying. It's a lie. He doesn't plan to cut anything near enough. This is what he does best. Pander.

FR headline you will never see: Obama signs Social Security tax reduction extension; omits details on how to pay for it.

Wake up Michigan Voters!

Thanks to Obama this country is heading in the toilet. Aside from giving the green light to our elite forces on the Bin Laden hit everything Obama has touched has been made worse.

Mitt Romney is not a politician. He is not a fancy talker or sloganeer like the current embarrassment in the White House. Mitt Romney is a brilliant manager/administrator and leader.

There are very few leaders in this country capable of getting us back on the right path. I witnessed him first hand having to manage a state that is hopelessly liberal and it he did it with a conservative hand and got things accomplished without divisiveness without pitting classes against each other. He got things done with vision, leadership, and competence.

VOTE FOR ROMNEY. HE WILL BE ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS TO EVER HOLD OFFICE.

VOTE FOR ROMNEY. HE WILL BE ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS TO EVER HOLD OFFICE.

And the most liberal flip flopper too! Well according to most of you RWNJs.

Seeing as how Michigan is an open primary I think I will vote for Santorum in your honor...

The only reason its close in Michigan is because of the liberal stiffs like yourself. But you have all been accounted for. Romney will win and then there will be no looking back!

If this plan were implemented, I'll bet S&P would downgrade us further the next day, probably skipping a couple levels. Moody's and Fitch would follow. The global community would look at us like we're crazy, and we can pretend we don't care all we like, but the sloshing capital has ensured our economic fate is tied to theirs.

The current diversification of central bank holdings would accelerate. Trade in dollars could only last a short while longer. The special status our currency has enjoyed for decades would come to an end. This is the wrong plan at the wrong time. Maybe there is no right plan to fix things - Spanky knows what I'm talking about. But this plan speeds up the process.

Rob, I've never seen an enthusiastic Romney supporter... ever. You're being paid and fed talking points. That's the only explanation.

Get over yourself,

The health care plan was paid for and was under negotiation for years. There were public forums and community meetings and years of debates. Romney is just lying completely. He is running for president first, coming up with pandering polices as the need arises. After 5 years of running, he all of a sudden has a new tax policy? If he's paying for it, then why be so secretive about it?

The reason is he has no plan to pay for it. His policies as of yesterday were already found to increase the deficit substantially. Now apparently he has given up caring. He's not running for president to advance a policy or an ideology. He doesn't have a vision for America. He's just trying to buy votes because he really really wants to be president. His entire campaign style is to buy votes. This tax policy is insane. The debt it tacks on is insane. See through this.

You're obviously knee jerk GOP apologist. Why is acceptable to you that he isn't explaining his plan even a little? Not even broad sentiments, just a vague notion of it being paid of.

Let's see what do the Republicans say about Obama? Oh yeah,

"he's only saying it to be elected"

"why now, he's been running for President for 12 years"

"Same as always, he presents a plan with no details"

etc.

I visited the Romney site last summer and his foreign policy page had about 50 words that just pretty much repeated the phrase "keep America strong" and "bigger military." Nothing about the wars, nothing about any country on Earth. Nothing at all. The media didn't even care and didn't ask him a single question about his policy specifics. There has never been anything Romney firmly stood for. Nothing he would have directed his team to place in his platform as a core initiative or value.

Romney is the purest form of the empty suit. There is no real person. I can't even imagine him taking the lead on anything at all or making a decision. He could really do anything if his advisers say it'll help him politically. Anything at all.

Don't people realize it yet? Those Libertarian-Republicans are brain dead, nothing but ZOMBIES. They are truly incapable of coming up with a solution. They just can parrot what their MASTERS says.

Once again, they spew out the same old same old.. cut taxes... huge growth....zillions of jobs created... Problem is they TRIED this with Bushwhacked.... Where are the jobs? Were was the growth?? Nadda.

You think the rich are going to sit back and watch the middle class catch a break with our mortgage interest deduction and the others he says we will keep.

As for those who keep repeating Limburger regarding "everything Obama has done has failed"... Please do your research. While things are not wonderful, they have certainly improved over the last of the Bush years. 10 quarters of positive growth compared to 6 of the last 7 for Bush being negative. Housing has started to turn a little, employment is up, manufacturing is growing again.. etc. I'll take what is happening now over what these absolutely horrible Rep candidates.

So Backhouse, can you explain why you want to create a regressive tax by making Exxon pay 35% of their profits to the Treasury. So if you assume Exxon makes $100 billion and you take $35 billion away and give it to the Treasury and if you assume they cant pass on that tax to the consumer, do you think the stock of Exxon is now worth $35 billion less? So who owns Exxon stock? Well the largest shareholders are the union pension plans, then mutual funds owned by 401k plans and then endowments. So are you saying you want to tax your union brethren and middle class in order to ensure that Exxon pays tax?

Seeing as how Michigan is an open primary I think I will vote for Santorum in your honor...

Good one!

Re Kirk2957282 - sorry, corporations are now people, so they can pay their fair share. You don't get to have it both ways.

Barry Jolly,

So you're saying that all those middle class citizens whose pension money, 401k savings, etc., make up the majority stakes in a corporation such as Exxon aren't paying their fair share?

This shouldn’t surprise anybody this guy is the poster child of the 1%. My concern is when he calls for a law requiring all Americans to give 10% of their incomes to the religion of his choice.

This guy Romney is obviously making it up as he goes along and besides, what does he really care what the U.S. tax rates are . . . his money is in The Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

So Romney didn’t release any details of his proposed tax cut yet. So what? There is absolutely no plan that the ineptocrats will like. In fact, they’re all waiting for Romney to release some details, any details so they can criticize it.

But they’re all fine with Obama’s latest tax hike proposal under the sham of reducing the corporate tax rate. If anyone actually believes Obama is actually proposing a tax reduction, they are delusional.

Many of the posters here should be grateful for the 1% since it is they that’s paying for all the free stuff Obama gives you.

Just admit it, there is nothing any Republican could ever say that would sway you.

Get Over Yourself,

Not true... I am leaning liberal and agreed with Buddy Roehmer (GOP candidate) when he claimed that corrupt lobbyist money is the number one problem in our government, and we need to get rid of it. Problem is, the rest of the bottom-feeding Republicans decide to drop to their knees for lobbyists, and they even signed a contract with one (Norquist).

I also agreed with Republican Rudy Giuliani when he said that the GOP would do well to stay out of people's bedrooms. Of course, you and the rest of the big-government Republicans can't stand the idea of not spreading your moral tyranny across the nation.

So let me make it easy for you, buddy boy. You want to sway us? Do you, kid? Then get YOUR party to do the following:

1) Ban ALL lobbyist actions in Washington... get rid of them all. Including your precious messiah, Norquist.

2) Compromise on the tax issue... you know what COMPROMISE means, right? No more "your way or the highway" bull-s***. No more, "your way or you destroy the economy". No more hostage taking. Compromise.

3) Mind your own God Damn business. That means: No more telling people who they can marry, that is a personal issue and none of you f***ing business. No more telling people what they can do in the bedroom, that is a personal issue and none of your f***ing business. No more telling women what they can and can not do with their own bodies, that is their personal issue and none of your f***ing business. No more telling someone that they can die for this country, but they can not reveal their sexuality, that is a personal issue and none of your f***ing business. No more forcing "morals" on society, morals are subjective to each person, and the personal "morals" of someone else is none of your f***ing business. Are you sensing a trend yet? MIND YOUR OWN F***ING BUSINESS. It's called SMALLER government... not MORE.

4) You know all those political organizations that push the Republican agenda and rally votes, but are tax-free... START TAXING THEM. If you are a political organization, pushing your political agenda and influencing legislation, you PAY TAXES. I don't give a flying f*** if you lie and say you are a "church"... you are pushing political legislation, thus you are a political organization. Pay your damn share.

As you can see, there definitely are things you can say to "sway" someone who leans liberal. You do those 4 things, then I may eventually vote Republican again. Deal?

Romney is a classic example of a person continually led around by the nose. He has no backbone. The moment his opponents say "You aren't conservative/radical/focused/creative enough," he has to say something to 'prove' them wrong. Then when the people speak up against these inane ideas, he backs down and contradicts everything he said the day before. The problem is, I can't quite decide if that makes him the most dangerous candidate on the block, or the most harmless.

It's very clear to anyone with half a brain cell (whether Republican or Democrat) that relentless tax cuts are unsustainable. You can't spend three-quarters of a trillion dollars on the military every year and lower tax rates to pre-1930 levels. It's a recipe for default. Ronald Reagan tried expanding the military while giving everyone a tax cut. After a year or two of watching the national debt explode, he had to expand the tax base to get back the revenue he eliminated through tax cuts. If we aren't going to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce military spending anytime this decade and still pay our other bills, then we're going to have to live with slightly higher tax rates. That's all there is to it.

Gov. Mitt Romney, [AKA Mr. 1%] seeking to kick-start his presidential campaign among recalcitrant conservatives, will propose cutting the top income tax for individuals to 28%...

Ignoring several facts:

1) The first round of Bush tax cuts in 2001 were across the board to excuse a lower rate for the rich. The second round of Bush tax cuts in 2003 were only for the richest 1% (not across the board) as these were tax breaks for dividends, capital gains, and estate taxes only. As long as there are loopholes and the richest 1% do not have to pay taxes on ALL of their income, Romney's proposal does not make tax code fairer--It's a scam.

After seeing the disasterous effects of voodoo economics and the Bush tax cuts, many Republicans, along with Independents want the rich to contribute more, not less.

2) Of course Romney does not say how additional loss of revenue would be paid for. Remember, tax cuts pay for themselves and deficits don't matter -- NOT!

3) Romney's original plan calls for spending cuts that would result in revenue of only 17% of GDP. To operate without deficits, revenue cannot fall below 20% of GDP, and actually 22-23% of GDP is best. To top it all off, the spending cuts will not come from defense--Romney wants defense spending to continue as it is -- nor Homeland Security, which is the fastest growing agency of all. As such Romney will cause deficits to skyrocket even higher than during Dubya.

Teabaggers who want draconian "starve the beast" spending cuts anarchists. Those who don't want to pay taxes are unpatriotic. Tax rates have not been lower since 1950 than what rates currently are especially since the Bush tax cuts. Citizens who truly love this country are willing to "do their bit," particularly the the rich who have become rich thanks to an educated workforce, infrastructure, and national/domestic security know they must "pay it forward."

There is no going back to a feudal system or slave labor or even the early industrial days of the robber barons. We are now in a global economy based on supply and demand. When the middle class does well, everyone does well including businesses and the rich.

Voters have a clear choice. A vision (nightmare) of every man, woman, and child for him/herself in a Race to the Bottom, or investing in the future of this great nation for a tide that lifts all boats.

Obama/Biden - 2012!

dante2308

The reason is he has no plan to pay for it. His policies as of yesterday were already found to increase the deficit substantially.

Even if folks don't believe in the CBO, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center debunked Romney's plan along with all the other crazies like Herman Cain. President Obama's plan has revenue at only 18% of GDP, which is also below what is needed in the long term. But at least it is balanced with cuts and revenue, and it is with understanding that in the short-term we must continue to invest in economic recovery.

The bottom line is the Teapublicans as a Party have no plans, no solutions, no ideas. As such, their only policy is to obstruct, smear, and divide the country with religious wedge issues.

"Tax rates have not been lower since 1950 than what rates currently are especially since the Bush tax cuts. Citizens who truly love this country are willing to "do their bit," particularly the the rich who have become rich thanks to an educated workforce, infrastructure, and national/domestic security know they must "pay it forward.""

Tax rates are irrelevant unless you're looking at overall tax burden. Tax loopholes were big enough to drive a semi thru back in 1950. It took AMT and Reagan's 1986 tax reform to close some of the biggest ones. The top 1% pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 95% combined - that's substantially more skewed than even as recently as the mid-1980s. I don't think there's any amount the wealthiest members could pay that would be enough for people like you!

(Oh, and don't be so quick to point out that these stats are irrelevant because they don't include payroll taxes. They're not included because they’re not really taxes. They’re contributions to retirement (FICA) and medical insurance (Medicare) programs. There's a dollar-for-dollar association between what workers put in vs. what comes back out, plus interest. And the less you make, the better the return on your money. It’s not a tax at all; it’s forced insurance/investment. Yes, there’s a “burden” now, but it’s more than offset by a benefit later in life.)

Obama's budget ASSUMES revenue/gdp at just over 20%. The 30 year average is 18.3%. The 50 year average is 18%. His projections are a bit rosie.

Any spending over 18% historically since WW2 goes into deficit. Current spending by BO is around 24% revenue/GDP.

Reducing large tax deductions, such as the ones for home mortgage interest and state and local taxes, is politically treacherous because of their popularity with voters and elected officials alike. For now, at least, Mr. Romney will dodge any potential backlash by avoiding any specifics.

Mr. Romney will pledge to work with Congress on "limiting them," Mr. Hubbard said, but "It is not his intention to take on any specific deduction or exclusion and eliminate it."

He had said earlier that he wouldn't be putting out a tax plan until he took office.

Now Obama has one so he says HE has one. (another flip)

But no details available (another non-transparency)

In effect he is stating that "it will affect no one". Right. We believe that one.

Questions to ask Mr. FLIP FLOP Romnutty

1."Mr. FLIP FLOP Romnutty, explain to everybody how placing your money into shelters overseas so you can get away with paying less then 14 percent in annual taxes is helping Americans?"

2. Mr. FLIP FLOP Romnutty, do you send the bulk of your money overseas because you value the trade of other countries over America's, or did you send your money over there so you didn't have to pay as much in taxes as everybody else does?"

3 Mr. FLIP FLOP Romnutty, you like to say that you pay what you owe in taxes and not a dollar more. What if the vast majority of America thinks you should pay a lot more? Do you agree with the majority of American people and pay more taxes or tell them you don't care and don't want their votes anyways?"

4. Mr. FLIP FLOP Romnutty, do you think all Americans should pay less then 14 percent of their annual incomes to taxes, like you do, even though that would plunge this great nation into third-world status almost immediately?

5. Mr. FLIP FLOP Romnutty only the rich could take advantage of loopholes you have used to insure you pay less in taxes then almost all Americans who pay taxes. Should that be how America's tax code works? Should rich people, like yourself, pay smaller percent of your income to taxes when people like our military, cops, social workers, firefighters have to pay a great deal more?

Okay, to be truthful, Romney's plan has SOME merit, but he isn't even close to plugging the deficit hole. Romney's tax plans would raise some revenue, but not a lot. Spending cuts would obviously be his major deficit reduction package, something that I think is bulls***. I want revenues to equal spending; essentially it is 50% revenue 50% spending cut package for me, at least I wish it were that. But I am tired of cutting taxes endlessly. We have practically cut ourselves to the bottom. I'd rather have Obama's plan, because it has a more balanced package and is at least a start. Maybe a deal by the 2013 Congress can get a better deal (provided it have a Democratic majority in both houses) to cut the deficit.

And here is my tax plan to reduce the deficit:

I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.

• $750 billion in defense cuts: cut waste in private contracting; reduce investments in new military projects to more sustainable levels; reduce active military personnel by about 8%; demolish 200 bases, mostly overseas, to save over $55 billion a year; prioritize investments for drones, efficient weapon systems, and cyber-defense systems.
• $1.25 trillion in entitlement savings: Raise payroll cap to 90% of income; reinstate COLA; reinstate estate taxes; raise premiums for beneficiaries who make over $250,000; progressive indexing.
• Cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending except from NASA and Department of Education. Find ways to remove waste, trim costs, etc.
• Save $2.7 trillion by repealing Bush tax cuts but retaining about $1.1 trillion for the middle class.
• Institute Buffet Rule and save $500 billion.
• Reform tax code: decrease about 70% of all tax expenditures unless they are PROVEN to promote a significant amount of growth. Close loopholes, lower corporate tax rate to between 20-25%. Eliminate all corporate welfare. Broaden tax base. Approximate savings=$ 737.1 billion a year.
• Reduce subsidies to oil companies, farmers, and ethanol producers by $100 billion.
• Total savings=~$13 trillion plus perhaps trillions more in interest.

I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3472). Just removing 90% of our tax code's loopholes and tax expenditures would save $947 billion a year. Maybe we ought to do that and simply reform entitlements and we'd have practically no debt by the mid-to-late 2020s.

II. Economic Recovery Package

• Education reform. Increase funding for Department of Education, adopt RAND education policy and further Head Start programs.
• Create Department of Tourism with $36 billion budget to support 150,000 employees to speed up process for foreign tourists to apply for visas to US and make system more efficient.
• $90 billion in infrastructure bank to leverage capital for infrastructure repairs to employ millions of Americans.
• Incorporate policies of Obama's Jobs Bill.
• Offer incentives for businesses to buy US-made equipment and to employ people in America to the tune of perhaps $2,000-$3,000 per head; includes only people earning the median salary that the companies provides for its workers.
• Increase duties and tariffs for Chinese goods to 35% until China appreciates its currency and lowers subsidies; place more cases on Chinese fraud and stealing,
• $60 billion in incentives and federal loans and grants to green technology every year for 4 years.
• Regulatory overview to decrease unnecessary regulations for economy and add regulations were needed.
• Reinstate Glass-Steagall.
• Lift moratorium on offshore oil drilling and open up certain areas for energy exploration WITH safety and environmental precautions and insure safety.
• Invest $40 billion in new R&D projects every year for 4 years.
• Offer more scholarships and Pell grants; prioritize scholarships to promote getting degrees in engineering, technology, etc.
• Negotiate lower tuition deals with private institutions in return for aid and invest more money public higher education. Negotiate with states for a state education surtax to pay for public universities.
• Help housing market: tighten regulations on housing and financial markets, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; create partnership programs between the government and the private sector to buy houses and rent it out to former owners; persuade banks to write off parts of underwater mortgages; quicken time for foreclosures; demolish old buildings to open up to construction projects.
• Increase federal gasoline tax to $.225/gallon and use extra revenues to revamp infrastructure.
• Extend payroll tax cut.
• Reform Post Office. Eliminate 60,000 payrolls through early retirement, increase stamp costs to $.51, cut administrative salaries and budgets, pay freeze, adopt methods that FedEx and UPS do, transition to an energy-efficient postal fleet and turn postal buildings "green," and find more ways to trim costs.

Obama Biden 2012

Oh and Rob, the effective tax rate for the top earners in the 1950s was around 40%. Now it is about half that.

Oh and thank you Indie for telling it as it is. You've done something that I've wanted to for such a long time.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Rob-523523 fails to mention that the reason the top 1% pay 95% of the nation's income taxes is because they own about 95% of the country's wealth.

You know what my husband said the other day? "I'll be glad the day we don't get an income tax refund. It will mean that we're actually making a decent income."

Freshieee, i don't agree with it all, but we need big plans like that to make a move on our debt. We are getting at a tipping point of not being able to pay our bills and its scary for our countries outlook. I run my household very fiscally conservative and hate debt, thus the washington crowd drives me nuts.

Please don't tell me you don't want to raise revenues. I just hate it when people always say that "we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." If revenue is below 18% (currently 15%) we need to raise revenues AND cut spending.

Thanks for the support. I too hate debt, but understand that it is often necessary. Perhaps the progressive liberal in me and the conservative in you could get along when we set aside differences. I wish I could speak the same of our representatives in Congress....

America 2012 (in respect to you, I shall not say Obama 2012. I just hope that whoever wins, I hope Obama, will deal with the debt in a responsible way).

Please don't tell me you don't want to raise revenues. I just hate it when people always say that "we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." If revenue is below 18% (currently 15%) we need to raise revenues AND cut spending.

Thanks for the support. I too hate debt, but understand that it is often necessary. Perhaps the progressive liberal in me and the conservative in you could get along when we set aside differences. I wish I could speak the same of our representatives in Congress....

America 2012 (in respect to you, I shall not say Obama 2012. I just hope that whoever wins, I hope Obama, will deal with the debt in a responsible way).

It isn't exactly "man bites dog" news that Romney's plan is to cut taxes, then balance the budget by some sort of magical incantation. That's been the Republican SOP for the last generation...and look at how well it's worked.

It's also the sort of nonsensical pandering that leads people to make idiotic statements like "Revenue is an entirely separate issue from expenses."

Try that at home and let us know how it works out. Ask your employer for a reduction in pay, then just assume that cuts in your personal budget will somehow make it OK.

Actually, in a way that's been part of the Conservative plan for the last 30 years as well...which is why the American middle class has been gradually impoverished over time, then seriously wounded in the Bush Recession.

"But he added that Mr. Romney is committed to making his plan both "revenue neutral" -- meaning it won't add to the budget deficit -- and "distributionally neutral" -- meaning that it won't shift the tax burden from upper-income Americans to middle and working class Americans. Since the largest benefits from rate reduction would go to upper income taxpayers, so will the burdens of "base broadening" reductions in existing deductions needed to keep the government from hemorrhaging revenue, he explained."

I have to wonder just how Romney thinks he can reduce taxes...yet...according to this statement..have the higher paid folks carry a bit more of the burden...while all the other republican runners and the so called tea party are against any type ofincrease for their wealthy friends...how can he do both and ballance any budget ?

As much as I distrust Willard, I sure did enjoy watching him take the wind out of Rick's sails last night. Poor little guy looked like he was going to cry...

So just because your neighbor has more wealth than you, you think they should pay your bills? You can twist and spin it any which way ("oh, but it's only fair"), but basically you're still rationalizing theft.

That's exactly the entitlement attitude that is rotting this once great nation from within...

Rob, nobody is saying that the rich should pay our bills. What people are saying is that since the wealthy have prospered the most over the past 30 years, they should pay more in taxes. As the old saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. No, that is not a misinterpretation from a Bible quote, it is common sense. I'd want EVERYONE to pay higher taxes, but the rich ought to pay more because technically the top 1% control 41% of the income in America, and the remaining 19% control around 52%. That leaves a paltry 7% for the rest of us. I am not against the rich; I hope to become wealthy one day, in fact. I just want them to pay a fair share and I want income inequality to go down; if we are a land of equal opportunity, that also means we each must share a burden. One guy shouldn't pay the same rate his neighbor if his neighbor makes 1/5 of his income. That is not class warfare, as you right-wing propagandists and shrieking; it's common sense. You can fight against an opinion or a theory, but not against common sense. Unless you want to make the GOP seem even more unrealistic, do you???

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

HIGHER TAXES 2012

TO HELL WITH VOODOO ECONOMICS 2012

Nope, Rob, I'm more than happy to pay my own bills. But the fact of the matter is, nearly half the working adults in this country don't take home incomes high enough to qualify for the income tax. The quickest way to raise government revenues and expand the tax base is to raise wages for the bottom 80%. However, the big employers in this country don't want to pay their employees a living wage; in fact, many of them are doing everything they can to cut benefits and push wages lower. So as long as they want to keep workers poor and desperate, I'll let them foot the bill for most of our government services. Otherwise, where is the money going to come from? Fact: raising taxes on the top 1% by 10% would bring in nearly 2.5 times more revenue than taxing the bottom 50% at the same percentage. It's not class warfare; it's math.

By the way, taxes aren't theft. Refusing to pay taxes, however, is. Do you really think rich people aren't using government services? The fact is, they probably use a far greater percentage of services than the average person. Patent laws protect their inventions, banking laws protect their wealth, public education provides them with skilled workers, good infrastructure allows them to reliably transmit large amounts of data and products across the country, and courts uphold their business contracts--not to mention the perks of direct Congressional lobbying and war profiteering. Oh yeah, and no matter how wealthy they are, they still draw money from entitlement programs after retirement, despite the fact that FICA taxes apply to only the first $115,000 of earned income.

If I make $50,000 a year and my tax rate is 28% because I'm single and have no kids, and a guy like Romney makes $364,000 a year and his tax rate is 15%, then I agree totally....that is THEFT.

Sure Romney pays more actual money in taxes, but he actually pays less percentage wise, since his percentage tax rate of income is lower. If the people in Romneys income range and higher start paying 28% or 30% or 35% like millions of us already do, then we wouldn't have a revenue problem and taxes would be more fair.

Tell me who could afford to pay a higher tax rate? Joe the Plumber making $50,000 a year or Mittens Romney making $364,000 a year? How many jobs has Mittens actually created? Since his tax rate is 15%. Anybody? How many jobs has Mittens created?

Answer: Zero. Mittens takes all that money he saves by not paying a higher tax rate and puts it into a bank in the Caymans....where it sits and makes Mittens even more money that he doesn't pay taxes on. Yes, that sounds fair! I agree with Rob-523523 on this issue...Mittens is definitely a theif.

You've all proven my point. You can spin a rationalization of theft, and you truly believe your own spin, all under the guise of "fairness" for which there can be no absolute definition.

By way of example, Shekki, why is it Romney's fault that you only make $50K/yr. and therefore can only contribute $14K to this country, when he's contributing $54,600/yr.?

(That's assuming your math is correct, which it's not. There's no way anyone making $50K/yr. pays an effective tax rate of 28% or anything close to it, after exemptions/std deductions etc.)

Seems to me, you benefit disproportionately by being a citizen of the same nation as Romney. If it weren't for boundaries, and we were all simply citizens of the UN, then by your logic you should turn over a much bigger chunk of your annual earnings to subsidize African bushmen, because you'd certainly be a "1%'er" in their eyes...

I'd say I've proven my point. Romney sure pays more money, but doesn't pay the same percentage. It's also not my fault that he makes $364,000 a year and shelters most of it to avoid paying taxes...which is theft. If Romney paid the same rate as everyone else, then I would say that would be fair.

Ain't math fun? No, I don't make $50,000 a year. It was a hypothetical situation. Neocons love hypothetical situations, becasue they don't deal with reality. Sort of like your whole take on poor people paying less taxes being theft. Duh! They have less money so of course they will pay less.

Robbie, I think you fail to see the point. Romney is benefitting from a super low tax rate and is doing nothing to use that advantage to create jobs, which is the neocon mantra. Sure let's give the rich people tax breaks cuz they create jobs...blah, blah, blah....they just fill up their bank accounts and buy another Benz.

You fail to understand the concept of fairness. Have you ever been on the poverty side of the equation? I highly doubt it. Who causes that? Hmm....the Romneys of the world. The same job creators that take the tax credits, line their pockets with those tax credits and then move jobs to China to "remain competitive". The same job creators that think paying someone in China $1.00 an hour is fair. The same job creators that demand that US workers take pay cuts to compete with the $1.00 an hour workers in China or Mexico. The same job creators that reduce the workers wealth while increasing their own. Yeah, let's talk about theft.

What does the UN have to do with it? Nothing. Get some more tinfoil...I think your old tinfoil hat isn't cutting it.

Rob, if you even think for a damn moment that the UN is anti-American, you are dead wrong. In case you haven't studied your history, America FOUNDED the damn organization. WE (and the rest of the West) control it, and we have a permanent seat on the Security Council. If the UN recently sounds anti-America its because they have finally stopped buying all the crap that we sell them about "maintaining democracy" or "searching for peace." No, I am not anti-American. I love this nation like I love my family. But I am tired of us being the liar and hypocrite of the world, claiming that we know what's best for everyone. I say let them find their own way to prosperity and maybe give them a helping hand rather than a kick. It would be mighty hypocritical for the founder of the UN to leave it. Remember that one of the reasons why World War II happened was because the United States was not a part of the League of Nations and thus the organization was relatively powerless.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

TO HELL WITH TAX CUTS FOR THE 1%.

TO HELL WITH VOODOO ECONOMICS

EVERYBODY PAYS THEIR DAMN SHARE

I'm sure the Kocksucker brothers, GE, Bush, Boner (Bainer) are all in favor for this while the rest get stuck with higher taxes and fees.

It's always the poor that get stuck picking up the tab for the rich.

Screw Romney, Nutty Newt and Saintorum.

Obama 2012

What color is the sky in a world where asking the wealthy elites to pay the same effective tax rate as the middle class is considered "theft"?

In that world, there is no sky.

What is so wrong with having them pay a few more in taxes??? They even went to the Capitol to ask for tax hikes, for pete's sake. Either the GOP is terrified of Traitor Norquist, or they are completely beholden to the 1%. I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes; as long as everyone else does. 35% is too low in my opinion. I say raise the top rate to 45%, the second rate to 37%, the third rate at 30%, the fourth at 25%, the fifth at 18%, and the sixth (if there is one) at 12%. Capital gains would be 24%, with a 3.5% deduction for investments in domestic ventures. Corporations would have a 28% rate, with perhaps 4-6% in net tax expenditures. THAT would be a fair tax code.

Sounds like as good a plan as any of which I've heard.

Kirk, please explain yourself. This link to top shareholders of Exxon..............http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=xom+Major+Holders

In your twisted world, a wealthy person should pay $10,000 for a $5,000 car, simply because they can afford it. Unfortunately, this country is overrun by like-minded leeches like you who want someone else to pay their bills. Anyone who truly thinks the wealthy created the impoverished in this country is too far gone to understand the concepts of "fairness" and "personal responsibility."

Wow, great story Bro!!

Try googling "reductio ad absurdum", you'll probably find that very argument somewhere. Two issues with your ridiculous example come immediately to mind;

1) The sales tax has nothing whatsoever to do with the income tax...except for being the most regressive of all taxes...the opposite of the "fairness" in which you pretend to believe.

2) No one is suggesting that the rich pay more than they make, or more than they spend. No one has suggested that.

Conservatives, however, ARE suggesting it's somehow "fair" for the wealthy elites to pay a lower proportion of their income in taxes than do the middle class. Would you at least agree that the rich should pay at least the same effective tax rate as the middle class?

I'm guessing "no". There's your disappearing concepts of "fairness" and "personal responsibility."

"Would you at least agree that the rich should pay at least the same effective tax rate as the middle class?"

Personally, I think the fair tax is the way to go. See fairtax.org.

But I still stand by my example as a tool for spotlighting the basic question. In any realm other than taxation, it would not be considered fair for anyone to pay (in absolute dollars) more for a product or service simply because they can afford it. So why do people conveniently and selectively make an exception when it comes to taxes?

Regarding effective tax rates, it's also a fact that the truly effective tax rate on investment income is higher than 15% in a typical investment portfolio because that income stream has already been hit with U.S. corporate income taxes, among the highest in the world. If the U.S. were to substantially reduce or eliminate corporate income taxes, then the lower investment income rate wouldn't be justifiable as a necessary "fairness" adjustment to mitigate the double-taxation.

As a prominent tax accountant said recently, "Warren Buffet may be the Oracle of Omaha, but he doesn't seem to have even a basic understanding of his own tax burden." Buffett's actual effective fed income tax rate is substantially higher than his secretary's - likely between 40-50%, all in. Romney's effective rate would be in the same territory, and that's all before the 15% of his income that he gives to charity every year (which is multiples more than Obama, or any of the other presidential candidates).

So what? My paycheck also comes from a company which has already paid corporate income tax. You're argument is just as valid (or invalid, actually) in that case.

Like most Conservatives you're making a case that the rich should pay an even lower tax rate than they do, already lower than the middle class. Years spent implementing that agenda has helped create our longstanding budgetary shortfall as well.

That's why Buffett correctly observed that the class warfare is real, and the rich are winning.

Your paycheck is not the same at all - it's a deductible expense. Dividends to owners are not tax-deductible. Big difference! You've highlighted the crux of the issue.

Yes, I'm saying the rich are carrying a very disproportionate share of the federal tax burden. You're not following my math regarding "effective" rates - their effective rates, particularly when averaged over multiple years, tend to be substantially higher than middle class rates.

And I've already explained why citing Buffett as any sort of tax expert is no citation...

Yes, I have deliberately highlighted the crux of the issue...that the 1% receives their income in a way that's largely tax sheltered...capital gains, carried interest, and similar forms that are taxed at a ridiculously low rate in the name of "job creation." How did that work out for us over the last 12 years? Not at all well, the numbers show. Make your case any way you want. The numbers show that;

The top 1% pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class.

The top 1% claim a higher proportion of total earnings than they pay in taxes.

The top 1% claim a MUCH higher proportion of total wealth than they pay in taxes.

The wealthy have benefited hugely from tax "reforms" dating all the way back to the Reagan years.

The trickle down failure of the Conservative faithful has decimated government budgets, failed to produce an increase in economic growth, and unfairly shifted the tax burden toward the middle class.

If you believe otherwise you just haven't looked at all the numbers and how they relate to each other.

I believe otherwise because I have looked at the numbers and how they relate to each other. I suspect you're one of those people who thinks that paper wealth translates to liquid wealth, and that the wealthy just sit on a their gold, piled up in one of the endless spare rooms in one of their 30 mansions. (I suppose you have to believe that is reality, because without such faith, your class warfare M.O. crumbles. You cite stats in absolutes, but there are no such absolutes. Why not draw the line at the 2% threshold? 3%? 5%. 0.5%? But that's another topic...)

The wealthiest shoulder a much higher % of the federal tax burden now than 30 years ago. Don't believe me? Look it up. Your assertions simply aren't consistent with reality. Reagan's 1986 tax act actually closed many of the wealthy's huge loopholes. Some say we should return the tax structure of the 50's, when the highest bracket was 90%. I would challenge them to find an example, any example, of someone actually paying at that rate...

OF COURSE the wealthy shoulder a much higher % of the federal tax burden now than 20 years ago...they claim a MUCH HIGHER PROPORTION OF TOTAL INCOME.

In 1982 the wealthiest 10% of Americans claimed 35% of all income. Now it's OVER 50%. http://acivilamericandebate.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/the-30-year-growth-of-income-inequality/

Like I said, look at the numbers and how they relate to one another.

On the other hand, here's a study, by a liberal economist no less, that shows the income gap issue is substantially overblown:

So I agree with you, look at the numbers and how they relate to one another. Clearly the tax burden on the wealthiest has increased more in the last 30 years than their share of total income.

Not sure why, but the link keeps dropping. Instead, google:

MISPERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE MAGNITUDE AND TIMING OF CHANGES IN AMERICAN INCOME INEQUALITY by Robert J. Gordon

Dude, you just referred to the work of Conservative think tank National Center for Policy Analysis as "Liberal." Here's what a little research on your "reliable source" will show;

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a free market think tank primarily funded by private foundations established by wealthy conservative business families and billionaires, including Charles and David Koch. It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'" -- NCRP, The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations^[1]It develops and promotes private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, and encourages reliance on the private sector.^[2]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

Sorry, but when you represent an arm of the Kochtopus as an authority you've used up your credibility. We're done.

Oh, don't be so closed-minded. There's a reason they published Robert Gordon. Look him up on wikipedia. He's a noted Keynesian; definitely not conservative.

But go ahead, cherry-pick your info to support your narrow-minded view of the world, if you will.

I guess we are done.

Justify the paid opinions of the Koch brothers' propaganda mills all you want, they are what they are. Defining the output of a Conservative think tank as "Liberal" goes beyond cherry-picking into the realm of deliberate misinformation.

Presuming "output" without even reading it - yours is truly a closed mind. There's plenty about Robert Gordon's view of the world that the Koch bros wouldn't agree with...

Unlike the media I see no point in pretending the propagandists employed by the Conservative propaganda machine are anything but paid liars.

Your posture of taking offense is a duly noted deflection from the truth of the matter.

Don't get me wrong - no offense taken. It's my observation that it's pretty hard to get to the "truth" in any debate when either party is afflicted by such a prejudice as yours. By your standard, it can be argued that the media also lies and they get paid, ergo they are "paid liars."

I'm a fiscal conservative, but I don't pay attention to Fox or Drudge or the other media outlets Conservatives get branding with following. I follow MSNBC, which has a liberal-slant reputation, because I like to be challenged by opinions that don't necessarily align with my own. Helps me refine my own opinions. Doesn't mean I don't find much of MSNBC's reporting misleading, not so much by what they report, but what they leave out. (Journalists tend to want to drive their reader to a conclusion. If they insert too much counterpoint, they run the risk of leaving their reader confused and dissatified. And leaving your reader dissatisfied isn't good for repeat business. So they tend not to cover both sides of an issue evenly. They insert enough opposing view to give it the appearance that they're being "fair and balanced," but ultimately they have to tip the balance in one direction. Perhaps journalists are simply catering to basic human nature - a need categorize and pull together information in nice, tidy and judgable packages.) But ultimately, you can argue it's lying by omission.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist; I don't believe there's any such thing as a "Conservative propaganda machine." Regardless, many studies over the years have concluded that propaganda ultimately has the opposite effect of it's intention. Why? Because, it usually provides the other side plenty of fodder for counterattack. The likes of Rush simply preach to the choir. The demand for their material is already there - they're not converting anyone. But they provide the other side plenty of fodder.

We agree on many points here even tough we're coming from different directions politically. I listen to, watch, and read a variety of sources...MSNBC obviously since I'm here, Sean Hannity, NPR, Glenn Beck, the local Des Moines Register...can't name them all. I'm capable of being persuaded. When the "Herman Cain drove Godfather's Pizza into bankruptcy" meme came along it sounded plausible and my first inclination was to believe it. Then I found out they were on the verge of bankruptcy when he was given the CEO position and they performed much better afterward.

The idea that there isn't a Conservative conspiracy to influence the media, however, just doesn't hold up to the evidence;

Many historians identify the origins of this effort with an influential 1971 memo written by Lewis Powell—just before he was appointed by Richard Nixon to become a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Writing to Eugene Sydnor Jr. of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Powell decried what he termed to be the "broadly-based" attack on the American economic system by "the communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries," which found its most prominent voice in all the usual liberal bogeymen—college campuses, the media, intellectual and literary journals, and the arts and sciences. His solution: a clarion call to multinational corporations to begin to fund the necessary institutions to train conservative journalists, economists and teachers to begin preaching the right-wing gospel. Joining with right billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors and Sun Myung Moon, as well as influential pundit/politicians like Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Neoconservative "godfather" Irving Kristol, the effort quickly began to bear ideological fruit.

Powell's suggestions have been remarkably effective, as evidenced in NCRP's report, which identified 79 of the top conservative-giving foundations, breaking down how much they gave and to whom. In the three-year period covered in the report, the 79 foundations made a total of 4,812 contributions but of these, just five foundations—Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation, and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation—made up over 50 percent of moneys given.

The report also found that despite the continued conservative denials, there is a unified network of interconnected organizations that work together to influence public policy. Most of the top 25 foundations do indeed have direct relationships with one another through their directors and board members. For example, "The Sarah Scaife Foundation is one of several Scaife Mellon family foundations, including the Carthage Foundation (10th largest) and the Scaife Family Foundation (19th largest), as well as the Allegheny Foundation (46th largest). Similarly, the Charles G. Koch Foundation (seventh largest) is one of several of the Koch family's foundations, which also include the David H. Koch Foundation (eighth largest) and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (13th largest)." Similarily, NCRP found that 23 of the people in its database of conservative foundation and grantee board and staff members "are leaders of three or more foundations and/or nonprofits, with 19 of those individuals serving on the board or staff of at least one foundation and of at least one nonprofit. Notably, the leading family members who direct foundations also serve on the boards of various nonprofits to which their foundations often provide grants," implying a well-connected and like-minded group of people who share a single agenda and the resources to shape public policy in its political direction.

Surprisingly, fully 46 percent of funding ($115.9 million) went directly to national and state public policy think tanks.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/10/b222111.html

While I could pull together a comparable list of left-leaning foundations w/comparable agendas (e.g. Media Matters for America, Tides Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Institutes, Sandler Foundation, Schumann Fund for Media and Democracy, MoveOn.Org, et al), perhaps it's the definition of "conspiracy" that is more worthy of debate. I think either side, left or right, argues their efforts are necessary to combat an opposing bias in information being presented to the public. In 2002, a right-leaning journalist by the name of Dan Chavez made the following comments re a perceived liberal media conspiracy (which I happen to think is just as questionable):

"The issue of whether or not a conscious conspiracy exists among the members of the "mainstream media" has exercised many minds among their opponents. How to address this topic needs to be clearly understood by those dedicated to reducing the power of the media. First, so we can clearly identify our target and second so they cannot smear and vilify us with one of their favorite terms of opprobrium, namely, "conspiracy theorist".

"There are many of us who believe that a conscious conspiracy exists among the liberal media to advance a left-wing, pro-statist agenda. Despite the odium attached to the term, a conspiracy is merely an agreement between people to pursue a common goal or engage in certain actions, chosen in advance. Whatever the reason one believes there exists a conspiracy among the media it is best, for tactical reasons, to simply use these beliefs, whatever they may be, as a motivator to action rather than a position for debate. Reason being that exceptions may exist to any conspiracy theory and will undoubtedly be trotted out by the media. Plus we must not give our opponents any excuse to marginalize or weaken our cause by smear tactics.

"It is true that the majority of journalists and editors in the "mainstream" media characterize themselves as Democrats. It is also true that in a hierarchical structure the values of those lower down in that structure will reflect echo or at the very least not be a threat to those higher up. For our purposes it is better to articulate our struggle as being a combat against those who share certain values and assumptions. This, by the way, will be entirely true.

"One of the reasons for the power of the media is that they have been able to function as a conspiracy while yet being able to claim it does not. Not so much by argument as by ad hominum and vilification campaigns against those who were against them. Or, by simply ignoring them. When you have a group of people that share certain values and assumptions, like the media's editors and journalists do, you can predict with a certainty what their political slant and biases for or against certain issues will be. Add to this the structure of the media being a hierarchy where those above can weed out or deny advancement to those on the lower levels and you already have what to an outsider would appear a conscious conspiracy. But what is in reality a series of assumptions expressed by a group of people that takes on the appearance of unanimity. But, at the same time is something that can be denied as a conspiracy. So, the mainstream media has had the best of both worlds, namely, to be able to function as a conspiracy, albeit an unconscious one, and to be able to mock, denigrate and point up rare exceptions to their otherwise unanimity on most issues, when they are not otherwise ignoring their critics, which is most of the time.

"Bernard Goldberg in his book "Bias" writes of network newscasters "Liberal bias is how they see the world" and " It just happens. News isn't just a collection of facts. It's also how reporters and editors see those facts, how they interpret them, and most important, what facts they think are newsworthy to begin with". These are the terms and the context within which the issues of a "conspiracy" within the "mainstream" media should best be articulated. If we can reduce their power and influence in an effective fashion then the opponents of the "mainstream" media will be well served no matter what their views on media "conspiracies" might be."

While I may not subscribe to conspiracies, I do think bias can result in omission. However, I think the need to tell a nice, neat story can also result in omission. By way of example, and getting back to my points earlier in this thread, I think omission has left out a key component of Warren Buffett's tax burden (namely the fact that his investment earnings have already been taxed at the corporate level, and then he gets taxed again at the individual level, for a much higher effective tax rate than his secretary). Frankly, I don't blame the journalists. Readers/listeners want to read/hear a good story. Therefore, successful journalists want to tell a good story. There's a reason David vs Golliath was a popular story. For the same reason, the 99%'ers vs the 1%'ers dynamic makes for a good story. Muddying the facts with additional details about Buffett's true tax burden detracts from telling a good story.

Obama has kept 168 promises to date and compromised on 52 more. 156 are still in the works.

Not bad, I'd say. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Brain, this person is promising to balloon the deficit. I guess we can only hope he doesn't really mean to.

Well dante - we can be assured if Obama remains, the deficit will definitely be ballooned.

Eric - who cares how many promises Obama delivered on. It's the promises of hope and change that have hit us below the belt. Obama has changed this country for sure... Instead of moving to the left, we have now arrived and going full steam ahead further in that direction.

Brainb, didn't you even read the article? This man is proposing to double the deficit Obama is proposing. How is that better? The only low deficit option is Obama apparently. The GOP candidates lack access to economists or calculators. If moving to the right means more deficit, then how about we move to the left?

PS: Remember the "Austrian School of Economics"? Now Google each Candidate, past and present as to their Economic Theory.

Bush II had that idea, borrow money to pay the bills and lower the tax on the super rich and see where we are today.

Obama is the LOW debt option? His proposal is 4% growth (1.8% now) and over 20% revenue/gdp (historical is a bit over 18%) Both a bit optimistic.

Of his 4 trillion in cuts 2 trillion he proposes are ALREADY SIGNED INTO LAW. Another trillion is from war cuts from spending that hasn't even been proposed yet.

Even with his rosie numbers in 2022 he projects to still have over 700 Billion in deficit spending. That's 14 years into him coming in projecting over 700 billion still. Sound good?

Now his rosie number projection gives us a 2022 deficit of around 24Trillion. Taking out the trillions of bogus cuts and a more realistic revenue projection we will probably be 27 or 28 trillion in debt.

Anyone think we can pay off 27 trillion in debt?

BO promises i could have gotten behind, but did none of.....

-cut deficit in half, which would be 230B, but is 1.3 Trillion

-no taxes under 250k earners

-no recess appointments, he called "damaged goods"

-no lobbyists in white house (they are everywhere)

-end no bid contracts over 25k

-line by line cuts

-public financing

-cut earmarks

-putting bills online for 5 days

-ksm military trial

-immigration reform 1st year

-negotiate on CSPAN

Then there is close guantanimo

raise minimum wage

oppose columbian free trade

renegotiate nafta

MOST OF HIS PLATFORM OF WHICH NONE HAS BEEN DONE

BigATC, I know right. Amazing that the Republicans are proposing to double that.

Then you put out this big long list. 1/2 of 1.4 trillion is 700 billion. Taxes haven't been raised on <250k. We've had cuts... but why should I go on. When you finish by saying Obama hasn't done anything at all you aren't being serious. Just a long list of paid talking points. If only the Republicans had vision and honestly.

No, no one is going to vote for Romney on the basis of him reducing deficits after this tax proposal that no one is asking for and doesn't mathematically make any sense.

Where are the numbers that the republicans propose to go from 15 to 39-40 Trillion dollar deficit in 10 years dante? Who put it out? I tried to find that on google and was unable to. I couldn't support it?

He said he would cut BUSH's last deficit in half. It was 458 billion, which means he promised us a 230 Billion deficit by his last term.

There have been several taxes on people under 250k. The first was not too long in office when he passed a tobacco tax. Unless only rich people smoke.

I never said Obama hasn't done anything. He has done a few things i like. I just gave a list of some things he promised to do on the campaign trail but didn't do. Since it was brought up above.

Paid talking points??? You can't be serious? That actually made me laugh. LOL. You must have not watched him campaign at all because he promised to do all that above on his campaign.

If you are accusing me of not being honest what exactly am i lying about?

If he would have done the above, as he told us he would, i would be voting for him. But him or any of the republicans running just say what they think we want to hear to get elected. He had his one chance with me and didn't come through with what he said he would do so i will vote against him.

Dante the tobacco tax was signed into law Feb 9, 2009 as a means for SCHIP funding. Less than 3 weeks into office he went back on his pledge for no taxes that would affect anyone that made under 250k.

Technically, that was a breach. However, sometimes you have to break promises to do good things. Plus I don't think Obama ever said that he would oppose a tax on tobacco, which is regressive enough to discourage unhealthy habits like smoking.

He never said he would oppose tanning either and also raised taxes on the tanning crowd. You can say that with almost any item, but he did make the promise and broke it a couple of times.

It doesn't surprise me as that's almost a badge of honor for politicians of both parties. If Romney wins and beats Obama we will be back here in 4 years pointing out all of his broken promises. They all just say what they think we want to hear to get elected.

Big ACT, just a point of fact: he was referring to the FY 2009 deficit and budget that was signed into law (plus TARP) before he came into office. That called for a 1.4 trillion deficit before he did anything at all. Obama did not promise to go back in time to the wonder years and cherry pick a time when the economy wasn't exploding and reduce the deficit from there. Ironically, he would have made his target if he had let the his and Bush's tax cuts expire.

By the way, the doubling of the deficit comes from the report that Romney's tax cuts would reduce revenue by 10 trillion over ten years.

Romney's tax cuts are even more expensive, clocking in at a cost of more than $10.7 trillion over the next decade and reducing revenue to a paltry 15 percent of GDP, according to Linden. Balancing the budget on those terms, as Romney claims he will do, would be next to impossible.

Our current year deficit is 1.3 trillion which falls to under 1 trillion through 2020. The total coming to just under 9.5 trillion in deficits over 10 years. Romney is proposing to add 10 trillion to that figure. Thus doubling. I'm not going to pretend your 40 trillion is twice 15. I have no idea how to help you use Google either.

I don't know what your angle is, but if you're going to make up numbers and distort things, then I can only assume you're woefully misinformed, lying, or simply paid to lie.

Romney himself is a creature of this capital flow. His old man made cars. What did Mitt make? Capital slosh. His entire enterprise existed because of the destructive though unintended results of the Reagan tax cuts. In reality, whether the writers understood this or not, that was the message of the movie Wall Street. The father ran a small commuter airline. The son got mixed up with someone who bought the airline, with intention to strip it down and sell off its pieces. Greed is good, says the guy who exists only to profit off the slosh.

Paul M, well said.

That 30 year experiment turned us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation thanks to President Reagan who did learn the lesson but too late. Sadly, the Grover's of the party continue to push Reagan's voo doo economics even though Reagan tossed them out a year after he tried them; Bush 43 doubled down on voo doo. After the 2008 collapse, one would think the lesson that was learned twice would have been sent to the trash heap but there's Romney, Santorum and Gingrich selling the same bag of trash to the gullible who hope to be rich without recognizing the deck has been stacked against them.

Paul M: What did Mitt make?

Businesses. He was in the business of taking failing businesses and making them successful. I pity you if you don't understand the importance of such a role. "Capital slosh"? What in the world are you talking about? Those were real jobs for real people. Save your references to fictional movies used for low brow entertainment. People that take risks, and there were many risks in Romney's line of work, must work hard to re-establish those failing businesses. Realignment of businesses needs to happen for those businesses to be competitive, and it is difficult and risky work.

It's too bad you fail to see the light Paul. The government can only pump money it doesn't have at things it deems worthy, and when things fail like we see with Solyndra, the government doesn't learn its lesson, but just keeps pumping the money at something else. If the government makes a mistake, it's the taxpayer that pays for that mistake, and we certainly are paying for Obama's mistakes with low GDP, high unemployment, and high debt.

JoAnna - he didn't make businesses. He bought them and sold them, and produced nothing but profits.

Back in the old days - you know, those dark days when we were prospering under the higher taxation levels - there wasn't an opportunity for vultures like Bain to exist, at least not to the degree they do now. Then M&A happened when a large company that actually produced a good or service buys a smaller company that produced a good or service. Sometimes you'd see pure mergers between companies that produced a good or service. Now, there's a mansion industry of capital slosh movers who exist only to buy and sell companies.

Paul,

Wouldn't a move like this (Romney's plan) almost force the world economy to base its standards on another currency other than the American dollar?

Paul M: oAnna - he didn't make businesses. He bought them and sold them, and produced nothing but profits.

These were troubled businesses, many on the verge of going out of business. Romney and his crew revived them using their own capital to finance those businesses recovery. Risky stuff. And you call that "nothing"?

Sorry Paul, you're way off base on this one. Best to stop digging.

Look at it this way. There is very little the government can actually do to influence the economy other than taxation and monetary policy. Are we on better or weaker economic standing today than we were in the 50s and 60s?

If you think we aren't, then you ought to ask yourselves why. These are complicated situations, and I'm not saying I figured out the lone secret here. But in the 50s we had 90 percent tax rates. In the 60s we had 60 percent tax rates. We've never had our top tax rate under 40 percent except for two periods. One was the decade before the Great Depression (the roaring 20s, or as I call them, capital slosh I). And the second period is the current, extended one.

When immigrants came here 60, 70, 80 years ago, what did they do? Most took jobs, and the more ambitious did what they couldn't do where they immigrated from - they started businesses. It might be a lunch counter, but it was theirs.

How many of you now are financially ambitious? How many of you have investments, but never felt the need to take the risk of starting a business? Seeing the connection? When an investment works, at worst you pay the short-term rate on the gains (assuming your short-term rate is higher than capital gains rate). Ratchet up those rates, and that ambition would have to be funneled into something other than investing your way to riches and early retirement. You'd need the tax write-offs that come from business ownership. Some of those businesses thrive and grow, which is what creates jobs.

JoAnna - in Romney's own words, if they were troubled businesses, they should have gone out of business. The thing they produce would still have whatever demand it did when they were in business, opening the way for new businesses to fill that void. That's market forces 101. You know, Adam Smith... remember?

Your defense of Romney's vulture practices is completely inconsistent with Romney's attacks on public assistance for companies like Detroit auto makers.

In reality, companies like the Bain vultures existed because so much capital was artificially pumped into the investment side of the economy, via lower tax rates. It wasn't tied up in business growth - it wasn't tied up in ingredients in a pantry of a sandwich shop, to go back to that immigrant example. It was free to chase other sloshing capital. Which made the profit incentive for companies like the Bain vultures too hard to resist, as well as contributed to all the bubbles and busts we've had in an incredibly short time.

Cowboy capitalism at work. Risky? Sure. There are losers in cowboy capitalism. But arguably the biggest loser is the national economy and all of us who are forced to live with the consequences of this total abandonement of conservative market practices.

Phine - I think we're headed there anyway, but as I said above, this plan would speed the process. The dollar's days as the global reserve and trade currency are numbered - though we can change that number. At least I think so.

Paul....I believe you've got it!

I'm quite sure I see a pattern here between tax rates and our depressions/recessions. History tells us what low taxes will do to our country. It also tells us what happens when the divide between the haves and have nots is as great as it is right now. The R's just REFUSE to see the facts put before them. Go figure -

Paul: Your defense of Romney's vulture practices is completely inconsistent with Romney's attacks on public assistance for companies like Detroit auto makers.

The inconsistency is that Bain had to have the companies it re-aligned make a profit. That wasn't the case with GM and the government bailout which is still billions in the hole to the American taxpayer.

Paul: In reality, companies like the Bain vultures existed because so much capital was artificially pumped into the investment side of the economy, via lower tax rates.

So what you're saying is is that the government could have done a better a job with that money. As per your GM example, the government pumped billions into GM, and they are still underwater. Bain Capital had a 75%+ rate of success with the businesses it revived, and they made a profit, and the businesses also made a profit. Not really seeing the proof of your theory Paul. It sure looks to me that private business is much more responsible, accountable, and successful than governments misadventures into the business world.

Now these businesses that were revived by Bain, they paid taxes correct? And the workers, they paid taxes too, correct? Certainly that's true also for GM, but there still is that $14 billion they owe the taxpayer. When does that get returned?

Romney's claim of letting GM fail is not inconsistent with the bankruptcy laws of the country. GM would have went through the process, realigned their business, settled with their vendors, renegotiated with the unions, and maybe had help from some private company like Bain to complete the process. All without government involvement. Just like every other struggling company does.

... and the bs on GM just continues ... one more time ... there was NO private equity that GM could hope to find. Banks did not have the liquidity and nor did private investors to back up a GM chapter 11 bankruptcy. GM, if not for the Gov. bailout, would no longer exist.

ideo: .. and the bs on GM just continues ... one more time ... there was NO private equity that GM could hope to find. Banks did not have the liquidity and nor did private investors to back up a GM chapter 11 bankruptcy. GM, if not for the Gov. bailout, would no longer exist

That may be true ideo, but we'll never know. Many large companies go out of business. Eastern Airlines and Pan AM are two large airlines that went out of business, MF Global is near done. Circuit City, Bethlehem Steel, Enron, Schwinn Bicycle, and Lehmam Brothers, just to name a few, for reasons like faulty business models, management issues, under-capitalized, and/or someone else did it better.

A GM failure would not have changed the demand for the product. Others manufactures would have filled the void for that demand. But yet there was something special about GM. Lots of union jobs, lots of union votes perhaps? And its just the taxpayers that took the beating, but what's another $14 billion for them to be on the hook for when you propose a budget with a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit that the taxpayer is also on the hook for.

JoAnnSmith1,

I've had personal experience with Bain. I worked for a company for almost 9 years that had always made a profit. When they closed our office the company was a quarter of its original size. Yes, we were a small multinational company.

Investment companies do not put their own money into anything. They use other peoples money.

This is ridiculous. Go to the face of a GM worker and/or supplier and tell them that GM means nothing to this country. GM is more than just union workers. How do I know? I was a white collar, non-union GM employee until I took early retirement. Those folks who support the GM workers? Not union. The mom & pop diner, the local pub - all supported by GM workers. The fall out from the loss of GM would have been catastrophic. All over the country - and especially in the mid west. Millions would have been effected and out of work - destitute.

And this is what Mr. Romney and others of the GOP would have preferred?

PP:Go to the face of a GM worker and/or supplier and tell them that GM means nothing to this

Just because you work for GM doesn't give you the God given right to work for that company your entire career, nor does it give you the God given right to steal from the taxpayers to sustain your failed business model.

Honda, BMW, Toyota, or Nissan would have bought the GM plants and hired the workers. You do understand the demand for cars would not have changed if GM went under? Someone would have needed to fill that gap. And have you seen Detroit lately? Not much there to save. That's because that city's government model wasn't much different than GM's business model.

Think the government will bailout the business you work for PP? Yeah, that's right, not a chance.

Oh wow!!!! Romney wants to lower taxes!!! What a courageous position that is!! I’ll bet he doesn’t believe in torturing puppies either.

Jas1

So, you would prefer a foreign owned company to an American owned company? The profits of that company going to another country. Face it. It is nothing but an ideological argument for you. Had it been someone from the right that made the deal you would have been all for it. Just like the left likes it because the current president is on their side of the aisle.

But, for the folks at GM and the people who depend on them. They didn't care which side helped. They just wanted the help.

JoAnnaSmith1: Remember all those 65+ that had IRAs and 401Ks loaded with worthless GM stock. They are out there trying to find work or now working at cut-rate wages to simply live. Retirement is just a word.

One additional comment: Before the Republicans completely destroy this Nation, learn how to raise vegetables and, perhaps, some type of meat source. YOU WILL NEED THAT KNOWLEDGE TO SURVIVE. ESPECIALLY IF YOU LIVE IN AN URBAN SETTING.

Ideaologyspoilstheview--sorry but GM was making an operating profit and just had too much leverage. There is no way GM was going to liquidate and go out of business it just needed to eliminate its debt or work the debt out. It is true that they could not get debtor in possession financing which the government should have and did provide to keep the working capital it needed during the work out process. The government didnt convert GM from an operating loss to profit it just eliminated the debt and handed over ownership to the unions in contravention of established bankruptcy law. What would have happened absent government intervention is that the lenders would have been forced to work it out in a manner that allowed GM to retain its operating profit for working capital and as you can see GM is just fine when it no longer has to service its debt. This idea that GM was going to liquidate and the auto industry was saved is a large political myth because tell me the name of any company in the history of the US that has been liquidated and gone out of business when it was making an operating profit?

As for Paul M, you clearly dont understand how private equity works. You realize that Bain is making money for its investors which are primarily union pension plans right? You do realize that when it borrows money and if it intentionally bankrupted a company by doing all of those bad things, the bank would never lend them another dime right? They buy companies no different than Buffett buys companies with the view that they can either operate them more efficiently or better or can turn them around from a distress standpoint. When Buffet buys a company, he eliminates all the so called fat (eliminates payroll, revamps purchasing to obtain economies of scale, leverages up the company etc) so he can operate and sell the company in a few years for a shareholder return commensurate with the risk. Bain operates no different than your buddy Warren or Soros private equity etc so attacking Romney for being successful is really a stupid concept because you want him to be successful. You may hate his politics but you certainly shouldnt hate his success.

pp: So, you would prefer a foreign owned company to an American owned company?

It's a global economy. The stockholders own those "foreign" companies, many of which are in the US. If you have a 401K/IRA or mutual fund, odds are high that you hold some of their stock. Now isn't that ironic!

pp: Face it. It is nothing but an ideological argument for you. Had it been someone from the right that made the deal you would have been all for it.

My, the anger. Now you're a mind reader. Amazing. No pp, business is a tough business. When businesses fail, it's usually because someone else is doing it better. We have bankruptcy laws on the books, and for the most part those laws do the right thing. Businesses come, and they go. Someone is always trying to do it better, faster, and cheaper. GM just got behind the curve, and the government gave GM a mulligan, at the expense of the American taxpayer.

JoAnn the only "mulligan" at the expense of the tax payer was given by Bush because he didn't make them loans like Obama did, the money Obama gave was paid back.

Remarkable ... all the other auto companies were just going to jump in during a falling economy and buy up GM's assets. I guess they were hoping to sell cars to the estimated i.5 million additional unemployed who would have lost their homes and further exacerbated the credit market.

If it is one thing Republicans seem to know a lot about, it is failed economies.

Why would other auto companies need to buy up GMs assets? GM's assets wouldnt need to be sold or liquidated. If you make 50 dollars and you owe 100 dollars annually in interest and principal, and if you eliminate the $100 dollars of interest, how much money are you making? Thats all that happened very simple

Kirk-2957282

are you asking me or JoAnnaS1? It was her statement.

JoAnnaSmith1 - and many companies fail because executive management is greed and/or incompetent, but they still walk away with very handsome salaries and bonuses while dragging a company down. And for all the clamour over corporations and the need to "unregulate them", when many companies fail, they are very quick to ask the governement (taxpayers) bail out their over-promised pension plans - American Airlines being the latest one.

@Joannasmith1

These were troubled businesses, many on the verge of going out of business. Romney and his crew revived them using their own capital to finance those businesses recovery. Risky stuff. And you call that "nothing

Don't tell that to the 700+ people who lost their jobs here in Kansas City because of Bain. The only think Romney revived was the unemployment line.

OK, as an independant/moderate liberal, and father of 4 great little girls, I made the mistake of voting for Obama in '08, I can't justify having my children paying for the deficit that we are now creating. I wish to vote Democrat, however if Obama is the choice, I will have to vote against him...

I realize that many politicians are crooks, I can't even believe that I voted for a "Chicago" politician to begin with, but I definately wanted the promised "change"!

No more, I urge fellow independants to do the same.

Bain Capital would look for businesses with lots of assets but a low stock price, buy a controlling interest in that company, then fire people and offshore jobs to cut costs and temporarily boost profits, use that to get big loans, charge extravagant multi-million dollar "management fees", then spin the company off laden with debt. Usually, the company ended up going bankrupt from the debt, but Bain always made millions. There were a few rare cases of businesses that somehow managed to pay off that Bain debt load and eventually went on to profitability, and those are the ones that Mitt and friends like to point to.

UAW,

With revenues already short a billion dollars a year Romney needs to tell the citizens how he will fill the additional revenue shortage.

Will it be with spending cuts (where, how much) or new tax codes that eliminates loopholes or what?

UAW, you're straying from your party's recent talking points, aren't you? Wasn't the primary concern among House Republicans how to pay for the payroll tax deduction?

Dennis,

How are you today? Good I hope. I agree that if one is going to talk about tax cuts they should say how to make up the difference. But politicians don't do that, everything is a sound bite. Most know that their promises or ideas will not be accepted.

Before we start looking to cut taxes more, I would, as I have said many times, cut spending, revise the tax codes to do away with subsidies, loopholes, tax credits, special perks and tackle the waste and fraud. I would also let the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire along with the temporary payroll tax cuts.

Come on guys, From a taxpayers point of view; Paying 20% less taxes is just that. Now for you liberals, the "how to pay for it" means you come up with your own money to pay for the stuff you thought someone else would cover.

Paul the Republicans know that the "payroll tax deduction" is really just the money going into Social Security. They are smart enough to know that "entitlement" is already ingrained in our society's head. Just because Obama is giving you the "payroll tax deduction" doesn't mean you liberals will understand that is money you didn't pay in therefore shouldn't be getting it in years ahead when you do retire. We should either lower that SS entitlement or take it from some other source. (that would be considered the government "paying for it" thru money they have already taken from the citizens who pay taxes.....

Paul M: UAW, you're straying from your party's recent talking points, aren't you? Wasn't the primary concern among House Republicans how to pay for the payroll tax deduction?

Shouldn't that always be the concern for both Republican and Democratic pols? Or don't you understand why we now have $1+ trillion deficits?

Hi Sarge,

We have agreed on these ideas before and again today.

Romney says he is the “true outsider” that he is the businessman that our country needs. Then he should act like a CEO that tells the stockholders and employees what his business plan is. In what business segments will sales/revenues raise or decline and what impact that has on the company as a whole.

Dennis: Then he should act like a CEO that tells the stockholders and employees what his business plan is.

It certainly should not include a 40% new debt load added to each years spending. Think a company doing that would be sustainable Dennis? How about a government?

The next President has a tough job. He needs to tell the American people "No". No we can't just run around throwing money at things. No we cannot keep piling regulations on top of regulations. No we can't have new and expanded entitlements. No we can't keep spending money we don't have. That sure isn't the guy we have now.

JS1,

Whoever is elected President he/she WILL run a deficit every year for at least the next 6 years.

Frankly the best way to get this country's spending in order is to cut the revenue ie taxes and pass a balanced budget. We know cutting spending is virtually impossible. Especially with Obama in office...

Dennis: Whoever is elected President he/she WILL run a deficit every year for at least the next 6 years

Got something to back that up?

And by what year will that President halve the deficit? Obama said he'd do it by this year. He was way off. With that in mind, should we now be skeptical of his economic predictions?

Because that is what the Ryan budget calls for and
according to the Right he knows more than anyone about budgeting.

Dennis: Because that is what the Ryan budget calls for and
according to the Right he knows more than anyone about budgeting.

Well at least someone has a plan.

Dennis, no one said getting the budget in balance would be easy. It will take time. But what we can't have is what we have now where the proposed cuts/revenues come later, but the spending continues unrelenting in the present. We need to see a clear path to the deficit being reduced year-over-year. What we have now is unsustainable.

What we'll see when the House and Ryan present their budget is ads from the Democrats showing a Ryan look-a-like pushing grandma over the cliff. Do you think that's productive to the conversation Dennis?

President Obama's long-awaited business tax plan would lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28% while slashing popular tax breaks enjoyed from Wall Street to Main Street, making it unlikely to get far in Congress in this election year.

Thanks Obama. Nice cave BTW. Rebs have been asking for this for 3 years and now that he has done it watch all the lefties wet themselves over what a great idea this is.

I'd rather have no plan than Ryan's plan, it would be awful for middle class & poor people & only great for rich people, it would destroy the country within 5 years and cause a bloody revolution.

I'm with you Charlie, until we can get a better leader in the White House. no action is far better for the country...

About as productive as the venom you've been tossing about above, JAS. You're all bark, all grumble, no ideas. You complain a lot which ads nothing. So in recapping your posts above regarding how we solve this mess, one arrives at this conclusion.

...

If would be nice if you actually had an idea that wasn't going to take something from someone else so you could line or protect your own little greedy pockets. That is the problem with the Republican message as of late, it is all about self. When you all can get past "mine mine mine" maybe the rest of us will be more willing to take your arguments seriously.

For God's sake, UAW, cutting taxes does NOTHING to balance the budget. NO F***ING THING!!!!!!!!! IT DID NOT HAPPEN UNDER REAGAN. What makes you think it will happen now????? The solution is simple; reduce spending, reform entitlements, and increase taxes. Why is it so hard to admit that???? Are you so against taxes that you think nobody ought to pay them???? What is wrong with the GOP???? Don't they have at least one shred of common sense????

And for all those who are criticizing Obama's deficit reduction, admit this. Obama's isn't that large ($4 trillion over 12 years), but it is a great place to start with. And that could be boosted with tax reform, additional cuts, and entitlement reform. Unfortunately, the GOP have yet to provide a credible, bipartisan deal. The Ryan plan privatized Medicare (far right wing), didn't do much on tax reform to raise revenues (right wing), cut massively from social services that benefit low-income Americans (far right wing), and repeals Obamacare even though it shaves billions from future deficits (far right wing). All they propose for reduction is spending cuts, tax cuts (tax cuts will pay for themselves), and estimated economic growth (not gonna happen). Just raise the top tax rate to 47.4%, eliminate 70% of tax expenditures, reform the tax code, repeal about 2/3 of the Bush tax cuts, cut spending by $2 trillion, and reform entitlements, you could eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt to more sustainable levels. Only Obama comes close to that, and we need to give him a chance.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Fresh, Do you really beleive Obamacare is going to reduce our deficit??? Granted that is really just a back door tax increase on people who wouldnt buy health insurance anyway. Obama isnt reforming entitlements he is putting an express lane in to increase the ranks of people who believe they are entitled to someone elses wealth....

I'm not saying that he has made real entitlement reform, but Obamacare is a start. Plus the CBO said that Obamacare would reduce the deficit by billions over the next decade. And I don't see any proof of how it would hurt the economy OR the budget. And by facts, I don't mean right-wing propaganda. I mean facts from NON-PARTISAN sources, like the CBO.

Yep, Jody. Another message change from the weather vane, who only is saying this now because he has to figure out how to look conservative.

Romney has given up on making real policy.

If the plan is revenue neutral and distributionally neutral, why do it?

Steeler Fan makes the perfect point.

Because he wants to appeal to small-government conservatives that he wants to cut taxes but also appeal to fiscal conservatives who want to balance the budget. But he does nothing to add to revenues except promise more from "robust" growth and cut out the budget. I favor a 1:1 ratio between tax increases and spending cuts. That is a real compromise.

Job, they'll say you just cut spending. See, simple.

When you get into specifics, they will be less reluctant to answer. Let's see. Half of our discretionary spending goes to defense. No way. Not going to cut there. And the rest is divided up among everything else. Maybe we can tweak the infrastructure spending down a little. What's a bridge or two falling?

But obviously discretionary spending minus defense just isn't going to get you anywhere near the $1.3 trillion deficit, not to mention the additional loss of revenue Romney is proposing here. So... ah, I know! Entitlements!

Paul, if you cut defense to zero and discretionary to zero, it wouldn't close a 1.3 trillion hole. Of course making it bigger would make the problem worse. While Romney is at it, why doesn't he just reduce taxes to zero and pay for it with all the wonderful growth tax cuts have given us!!

We can read Obama's budget here.........

Where is Romney's? In your imagination?

Apparently it's fine when Republicans have no plan, and awful when Obama outlines a 10 year budget with specific policies and initiatives on top of what he has already signed into law since that isn't specific enough.

Gotcha, double standard with hypocrisy and a dash of detachment from reality/lying.

Technically it created a few hundred jobs-the Republicans in office today, and more lobbyists.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

END THE BUSH TAX CUTS!!!!!! WHERE ARE THE JOBS????? HIGHER TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama Biden 2012

Here is a plan that wipes out the debt and balances the budget in 4 years.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

And plunges us into a second Great Depression via reducing the size of the national economy by an immediate 17%.

Bonez-Wait a minute. How would cutting taxes AND spending boost the economy??? Why couldn't Ron Paul raise revenues simply by raising rates???? I mean, what is so wrong about raising taxes??? And cut education??? What is wrong with the federal government funding education??? There are some things that should be left to the federal government, to the state government, and for both. Education ought to be managed by BOTH the states and the feds to maintain national consistency and flexibility. America doesn't need anymore failed trickle-down economic policies or spending cuts; the real reason why we are in debt is because of stupid foreign adventures, the recession, tax cuts, and growing entitlement costs. Simply reform entitlements, end the war in Afghanistan in a few years, fix the recession, and raise revenues to cut the deficit. Why won't Ron Paul raise taxes??? I thought he was supposed to be balanced and fair??? NO MORE TAX CUTS.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Poor You! Sorry , but I don't feel like supporting you. You are not entitled to ANYTHING but the right to be able to make a good living.

Said the oxymoron

Raising taxes ONLY creates more spending which in turn creates higher debt.

Someone please explain how high taxes help the middle class?

The first amendment prohibits your idea. Sorry about your luck.

Mike-1499840,

Conservatives just don't get that labor IS business. As a creative and innovative 35-year entrepreneur who has employed his fair share, I am the first to toot my egotistical horn; but, I also take the lead in recognizing that my teams have contributed far more to my success than I ever have or ever will. Talk all you want about innovation, growth and economic leadership... it will never happen without a motivated and equitably-rewarded base.

Ocean,

I understand your point...I am all about taking care of the folks that elevate you/me....you are spot on...I just don't see what that has to do with my comment about why its necessary to offset payroll taxes, but not income or capital gains taxes.

Again....you are spot on...Good Leaders always give credit to the efforts of the troops.

Regards,

Mike

Mike, technically, the income tax does not promote enough economic growth to pay for itself because it is a progressive tax system. Reducing taxes in a progressive system effects the rich more than the poor. The payroll tax is for labor, and thus a regressive tax that focuses on the lower-income brackets. Lowering a regressive tax will help the poor more than the rich, and since the poor spend more money it will help the economy more. The payroll tax cut won't offset itself, but it will still grow the economy.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Mike, let's cut income tax to 0% than all the growth will pay for the government ,,,,,,,,right.....LOL, are you a libertarian?