E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe tax debate cometh: Obama and Democrats to focus on tax fairness… GOP to focus on tax hikes… American Crossroads to begin its advertising blitz soon… Crossroads also admits that Obama -- so far -- is winning the tax debate… Gingrich calls Romney “far and away the most likely” GOP nominee… Santorum remains off the campaign trail… Conservative groups begin their fire on Lugar… And over the holiday weekend, Grassley called Obama “stupid” in Twitter message.
Jason Reed / Reuters
President Barack Obama delivers remarks before signing the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in the Rose Garden of the White House, April 5, 2012.
*** The tax debate cometh: Given that Americans across the country will be filing their tax returns this week, don’t be surprised if the issue of taxes takes center stage in the political debate. Indeed, Democrats are emphasizing tax fairness and the so-called “Buffett Rule.” So the Obama campaign today is holding a conference call (with Sen. Dick Durbin, and Wisconsin Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin) demanding that Mitt Romney explain why he opposes wealthy Americans paying a lower effective tax rate (due to their investment income) than folks in the middle class. On Tuesday, President Obama (as opposed to candidate Obama) will deliver a speech in Florida on the Buffett Rule. (We’ve now reached the point in the election cycle where the White House and the campaign are holding back-to-back events on the same issue). While Democrats will be emphasizing tax FAIRNESS, Republicans will be stressing that such talk amounts to tax HIKES. The top communications aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell fired off this email this morning: “How many jobs would the Buffett Tax create? How will the Buffett Tax ease the pain at the pump?”
With tax day just nine days away, what can the country expect from the government? The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports.
*** Here comes the Crossroads ad blitz: The New York Times reports that premiere GOP Super PAC, the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads, is planning to begin its advertising blitz against President Obama -- probably this month. But Crossroads officials “said they would focus the bulk of the first phase from May through July, which they believe is a critical period for making an impression on voters, before summer vacations and the party conventions take place.” More: “Steven J. Law, the group’s leader, said the ads would address the challenge of unseating a president who polls show is viewed favorably even though many people disapprove of his handling of the economy. Basically, Mr. Law said, ‘how to dislodge voters from him.’” A Democratic polling firm found that, among independents it surveyed, Obama has a higher FAV rating than Romney even as these voters ideologically appear to be more Republican leaning. Democrats were on the wrong end of this problem both in 1984 and 2004 when the incumbent Republican president had a higher FAV rating with swing voters who seemed to be more sympathetic to the Democratic agenda.
*** Crossroads admits that Obama so far is winning the tax debate? Returning to our discussion above about the coming tax debate, the New York Times piece on American Crossroads’ ad blitz had the group implying that the White House is winning the tax argument -- at least for now. “Crossroads research suggests that Mr. Obama’s campaign has started to gain traction among critical swing voters by arguing that Republicans, including Mr. Romney, favor an ‘economic plutocracy’ in which middle-class voters can no longer count on financial security, even though they work hard and play by the rules. ‘His argument is: “The reason you feel bad is not because I’ve been an inadequate president but because the rules of the game are stacked against you,”’ Mr. Law said. Calling it a ‘dystopian vision,’ he added, ‘that narrative has some gravitational pull.’”
*** Gingrich calls Romney “far and away the most likely” GOP nominee: On Friday, NBC’s Alex Moe wrote that Newt Gingrich and his campaign march on -- but with fewer paying attention. And on Sunday, he admitted on FOX that Romney is “far and away the most likely” GOP nominee. He also said, per the AP, that running for president “turned out to be much harder than I thought it would be." And: "I do think there's a desire for a more idea-oriented Republican Party, but that doesn't translate necessarily to being able to take on the Romney machine.”
*** Santorum remains off the campaign trail: As NBC’s Andrew Rafferty noted over the weekend, Rick Santorum will not campaign today so he can continue to stay at the side of his 3-year-old daughter Bella in the hospital. "Rick Santorum will not hold any campaign related events on Monday so that he and Karen can remain in the hospital with their daughter Bella. The entire Santorum family is incredibly grateful for the outpouring of prayers and support," Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley said. Bella suffers from Trisomy 18, a chromosomal defect that claims the lives of most children born with it in their first year. The reason for her hospitalization this week hasn't been released. This, Rafferty adds, is the second time during the campaign that Bella has needed to be taken to a hospital. Santorum canceled events in late January after Bella was rushed to a Virginia hospital when she developed pneumonia in both lungs.
*** On the trail: In addition to Santorum, all the GOP candidates are off the campaign trail today.
*** Conservative groups begin their fire on Lugar: In advance of Indiana’s May 8 primary, the conservative group Club for Growth is going up with a new TV ad hitting Dick Lugar (for voting for the bailouts, tax hikes, and Obama’s Supreme Court justices) and supporting GOP primary foe Richard Mourdock, according to Politico. And the National Rifle Association is going after him with this TV spot, which states that Lugar “has become the only Republican candidate in Indiana with an ‘F’ rating from the NRA.” The ad then shows a photo of Lugar standing next to Obama.
*** “Stupid is as stupid does”: The day before Easter and the day after Passover began, longtime GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off a tweet calling President Obama “stupid.” The tweet: “Constituents askd why i am not outraged at PresO attack on supreme court independence. Bcause Am ppl r not stupid as this x prof of con law.” (Grassley doesn’t hold a law degree, by the way.) He then added, “Possibility of peace and freedom for Syria gets more remote as PresO plays along w the farce of Kofi Annans negotiatios there Barack wakeup.” First Read has reached out to Grassley’s office for comment, but has yet to hear back. Grassley’s tweets came a couple days after Nebraska Senate candidate Jon Bruning attacked GOP primary rival Don Stenberg during a debate for following his daughter on Twitter. “‘I'd like to know why does a 62-year-old man want to follow a 14-year-old girl on Twitter,’ Bruning said. ‘She said, “Dad, that's kind of creepy.”’”
Countdown to the CT, DE, NY, PA, and RI primaries: 15 days
Countdown to Election Day: 211 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Corporations End Support for A.L.E.C.
PepsiCo followed by Coca-Cola, Kraft and Intuit TurboTax have declared they no longer support the American Legislative Exchange Council, the secretive group that drafts legislation for Congress on behalf of (global) corporations.
A.L.E.C. ghostwrites just-add-water conservative legislation to be introduced into state legislatures across the nation; shapes bills and resolutions in almost all areas of American life; education, worker safety, immigration, worker and consumer rights, air and water quality, taxes and health care.
A.L.E.C. wrote the Shoot First (Stand Your Ground Laws) now in 23 states.
A.L.E.C. wrote voter suppression laws that rig elections by disenfranchizing millions of elderly, disabled, poor, Latinos and African American citizens across the country.
Via such proposals, GOP state legislatures vote to gut the minimum wage, weaken environmental, public health & safety protections, privatize Education, deregulate major industries, offshore U.S. Jobs, and maximise tax loopholes for big corporations and the very affluent.
Big Corporations like Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, AT&T, UPS, Pfizer, PhRMA, GlaxoSmithKline and Wal-Mart are changing the rules and undermining democracy in our country.
When will GOP elected officials be held accountable for putting profit above public interest?
Stupid Is as Stupid Does:
Recently there has been a lot of disrespectful name-calling coming from Republican politicians, pundits, and radio hosts. Now if Tea Partiers on First Read do it, then I regard it as RWNJs with an insufficient vocabulary. But one should hold the media to a higher standard and being disrespectful of the Office of the President or the person in the White House by calling our President a "THUG" (looking at you Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh) has no place in political discourse. I recall that on 9/17/2010 MSNBC's own Chuck Todd demonstrated some disdain for our President and called him "stupid".
This name-calling has moved to the Senate as Senator Jim DeMint (R SC) calls our President a "bully" and recently Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley called President Obama "stupid". And let us not forget Representative Joe Wilson who shouted "You Lie!" at the State of the Union speech. President Obama has been rather tolerant of these verbal arrows by saying, "it's OK to disagree without being disagreeable". Evidently, Grassley and DeMint did not get that memo.
So why has there been an increase in derogatory comments, bullying and name-calling? My guess it is born out of frustration. What do people do when they are losing a contest and not getting their way? Yep, they call their opponent names. If they were winning their case, there would be no reason to talk trash.
With the GOP war on caterpillars, the improvement in the economy and President Obama's increased support in swing states, plus having a wooden candidate like Mitt Romney; Republicans know that the conservative brand tastes like dog food. Unfortunately, I do not believe the rhetoric will improve.
Speaking of taxes...
Willard is under the false assumption disclosing only ONE year of his tax returns is sufficient to satisfy the voters...
WRONG again Willard - we want to know where else you have stashed your CASH!
What else is Willard hiding?
Looks like the stock markets are going to get punished today for Barry’s crappy jobs report last Friday. Stock markets were all closed for Good Friday. The futures markets for all three major indexes (DJIA, S&P 500, and NASDAQ) have been down all morning today. The Dow futures has been down triple digits all morning.
You’re doin’ a heck of a job, Barry!!!
Even though the stock markets will get punished this week for Barry’s crappy jobs report on Friday, today’s WSJ lead story is about how big US companies in the S&P 500 have come out of the recession stronger than they were before it. These companies have adapted to the changing global economy especially in productivity gains that allow them to produce more revenue and profits with the same or fewer employees. And that means higher stock prices and higher dividends!!!!
For Big Companies, Life Is Good
Large Corporations Emerge from Recession Leaner, Stronger—and Hiring Overseas
Big U.S. companies have emerged from the deepest recession since World War II more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt.
An analysis by The Wall Street Journal of corporate financial reports finds that cumulative sales, profits and employment last year among members of the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index exceeded the totals of 2007, before the recession and financial crisis.
Deep cost cutting during the downturn and caution during the recovery put the companies on firmer financial footing, helping them to outperform the rest of the economy and gather a greater share of the nation's income. The rebound is reflected in the stock market, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average at a four-year high.
"U.S. companies became leaner, meaner and hungrier," said Sung Won Sohn, a former chief economist at Wells Fargo WFC -0.44%& Co.,
The performance hasn't translated into significant gains in U.S. employment. Many of the 1.1 million jobs the big companies added since 2007 were outside the U.S. So, too, was much of the $1.2 trillion added to corporate treasuries. Two-thirds of Apple Inc.'s AAPL +1.48%$82 billion in cash and marketable securities as of Sept. 30 was held by foreign subsidiaries, for example.
Via Citizen's United, the Supreme Court gave A.L.E.C. cover by allowing corporations to spend freely on U.S. elections.
A.L.E.C. legislation suppresses the vote and limits our democracy, while writing Big Corporation and right wing agenda into law.
(The definition of corruption.)
Wisconsin State Representative Mark Pocan said “Once they set the rules for elections and campaigns, A.L.E.C. will pretty much call the shots.”
Good Morning Backhouse & Ron,
You can lead a Republican to the TRUTH, but, you can't make them THINK!
Excellent posts Backhouse and Ron!
Ain't that the TRUTH Feisty! ; )
Joe, are you seriously trying to connect daily market movements to any politician? Really? Come on, you know better. You just saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot, regardless of whether even you believe the cheap shot, and this course world of cafeteria food fights to the death, you flung your pea. Right?
In addition to what I posted below, I also miss the days when members of both parties acknowledged they knew better.
Backhouse
Corporations End Support for A.L.E.C.
Thank you so much for this post. It looks like our pulling the curtain back on the anti-American ALEC another Koch-funded group and the Color of change is finally coming to fuition.
Good on you.
Keep up the good work! How about a little Santana to keep it going?
Santana The Calling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrPjtnafuYs
Get ready , the people are ready to sweep the Koch away!
"The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute."
That's a sentence from Eric Holder's letter to the Fifth Circuit last week, a letter necessitated when earlier in the week the president stepped in it bigtime when he asserted it would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the Supreme Court to strike down his cherished health care law. He was of course quite wrong on that point, but calculated deception is central to the way this man communicates with the masses. But he was party to something else that was unprecedented: being asked by a federal judge to explicitly acknowledge that the executive branch of our federal government recognizes the power of the independent judiciary to declare a law passed by the legislative branch as unconstitutional.
This is an absolutely astonishing circumstance. We're not just talking about a policy dispute where folks with opposing views have different ideas about how to get something done. We're talking about an issue much more fundamental than that and much more consequential: a president who used menacing words that challenged the Court to exercise judicial restraint in the health care case lest this "unelected group" have the audacity to overturn the his signature legislative achievement. This suggestion was so far beyond the pale that a deeply concerned federal judge gave the president a chance to formally clarify his explosive remarks.
For a constitutional scholar, this guy sure as heck doesn't seem to care much about the powers distributed among the three co-equal branches of our government. To the contrary, he used his bully pulpit to try and intimidate the Court by portraying any action to strike down Obamacare as an unprecedented attempt to thwart the will of the legislature. Since last Monday, the president has been trying to walk back his ill considered remarks, which raises a question in the more objective minds among us: in his heart of hearts, what does the president really think about this issue? Is the operative statement what Obama said last Monday? Or is it what he and his PR flacks subsequently said later in the week as he tried to extricate himself from the mess he had gotten into?
Obama has already decided that his best hope of being reelected is to distract attention from his record by demonizing the opposition and creating divisions within the country . But now he has taken this strategy a step further by including the Supreme Court among the demons. So our shameless president has no qualms about eroding respect for our constitutionally established separation of powers in pursuit of his own political interests. In his mind, sacrificing the core principles which govern our nation on the altar of political expediency is no big deal.
This man is bad for America, and this latest episode is just one of the many reasons why.
I can't believe FT used my title. "Stupid is as Stupid does".
Ron, morning.
Must be a consensus out there.
It seemed to me a few on the Bench wanted to do the work of Congress.
It's surprising they didn't apply it to all of Obama's stumbles and fumbles from last week. Well, this is NBC, the "news" organization that fabricates stories, so no it isn't.
I guess they'll use "Dumb and Dumber" to describe Obama instead.
Grassley, this man calls our President "stupid". What an idiot. You may not like President Obama, but the last thing he is, is stupid. You don't go to Harvard ( that's one of the top University's of Education in the World, this is for all you low level, uneducated bottom feeding Repugs) if your "stupid". The requirement for admission is high educational marks and intelligence (Obama), or "not so bright students" with family connections and lots of money (Romney).
So Mr. Grassley, who looks REALLY stupid by your remark? I think we know that it's you.
Obama in 2012.
Speaking of taxes, I'm looking forward to seeing how much Barry's 1040 Foreign Tax Credit is for 2011. For 2010 he avoided paying $21,000 in US taxes by taking the FTC on his foreign book sales. Remember FR lefty liberals, the FTC is one of the major tax provisions you rail against for "rewarding corporations for shipping jobs overseas". But, I guess Barry taking advantage of this loophole will get a free pass because he's Barry.
LMAO!!!!
Feisty,
State elected officials don't even need to TRY and figure out what their sponsors want. Their sponsors write it themselves.
So, Obama calls a "women's conference"- with the objective of showing how closely aligned he is with women's issues. A conference to highlight his deep respect for women- his caring, and understanding of the issues uniquely felt by women.
So, he opens with this
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/obama_to_group_of_women_i_wasnt_going_to_come_until_you_settled_down.html
A, yes. Wreaking havoc. Of, course, a gaggle of women will, well, honk like geese, right? It's no place for a man until they've "settled down", right?
Perhaps it was just an unfortunate choice of words. After all, Obama is well known for his respect for women, correct?
So, explain this
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/obama_to_women_weve_made_progress_on_economic_issues_but_not_yet_on_dry_cleaning.html
Oh, I guess he needs to speak in ways the little ladies understand, correct?
These remarks, along with his giving the finger to Hillary Clinton during the last campaign- a petulant, immature thing to do- as well as the petty gesture of having Julianne Moore, (the actress who played Sarah Palin in that hatchet job of a made for TV Movie), as a guest at the White House egg roll, betray a man who has nothing but contempt for women.
A real news organization would report on it- but this is not a real news organization. This is an organization that deliberately doctored an audio tape in order to incite racial unrest, tried a lame apology to no one, then, finally, claims to have fired an unnamed person who may or may not exist, let alone be responsible for such a blatantly dishonest, despicable, and unethical act.
On behalf of the electorate, I thank you. Ask Dan Rather how well his phony hatchet job worked out.
By the way, over the weekend, while you found time to post a story on Senator Grassley's tweet- which you construed as -horrors! He kind of called the president stupid!- some real news occurred. Mike Wallace, a real journalist, died.
Funny thing- in all his long career exposing corruption, hypocrisy, graft, and other forms of hypocrisy and malfeasance, never once was he accused of manufacturing documents so patently false a child could see through them, or doctoring tapes to suit his narrative.
Some of you might learn something from the study of his career.
Ron Indiana
Stupid Is as Stupid Does:
With the GOP war on caterpillars, the improvement in the economy and President Obama's increased support in swing states, plus having a wooden candidate like Mitt Romney; Republicans know that the conservative brand tastes like dog food. Unfortunately, I do not believe the rhetoric will improve.
Excellent post Ron
Speaking of caterpillars, Wooden, Willard "Myth" Rob-mey, wannabe Pope Santorum, Grassely, Rove, and all other right wing fringes will have the farmers sitting on top of their Caterpillar tractors with nothing to harvest!
Let's not forget women.
Bet on women. There is nothing the GOP/TeaBagger women can do unless they come into the 21st century
Somehow, I don't think they can. Ann Romney is just as out of touch as her wooden robotic husband.
LOL Liberals have to be the most hateful, intolerant people I have ever come across. And I thought conservatives were bad.
Hi Bev and Don't Carry,
"Virginia lawmakers have introduced 50 ALEC-written bills; since 2001, the state has sent lawmakers to the group's conferences on the taxpayer's tab to the tune of $230,000.
In 2009, more than 200 of its model bills became law, NPR's Laura Sullivan reported. Lawmakers in Florida and Tennessee have introduced bills where large sections are copied verbatim from ALEC model bills."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/04/legislation-mill-spread-stand-your-ground-coca-cola-ditched/50770/
Backhouse,
If it were up to me, it would be mandatory elected officials wear their 'sponsor's' logo's on the floor - like NASCAR drivers...
Let us all see WHO owns them...
Feisty,
Brilliant idea. Sunshine is way overdue.
Ron and Backhouse - Excellent posts both!
ALEC and the Citizens United decision,brought to us courtesy of ALEC are both scary propositions.
Seems both of those fall in line with the script where corporations effectively taking over the U.S. - next stop - the World. (cue the maniacal laugh track here)
Beverly: I love the phrase "Wooden Willard". With your permission, I would like to occasionally use that phrase.
National Review Fires Derbyshire
The article entitled “The Talk: Nonblack Version”, first published on Thursday, was written in the wake of the shooting of the African American teenager, Trayvon Martin. In the article, Derbyshire advices non black parents to sit down with their children and tell them to stay away from blacks because it’s important for their own safety.
"Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally" and "Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians." Derbyshire wrote in the article. "A much larger cohort of blacks -- around half -- will go along passively if five percent take leadership" and "the mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than whites," he says, drawing some statistics God knows from where.
He also writes that before someone votes for a black political leader, his character should be tested with more scrutiny than in the case of a white politician while advising the non-blacks to avoid helping blacks in distress. The list continues for almost two pages, on how to talk with your children about their everyday dealing with African Americans.
The article has spurred fury among people belonging to all races, resulting in Derbyshire being fired from the National Review on being a racist. National Review editor Rich Lowry announced on Saturday that the magazine had decided to part ways with the contributor.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11888230-national-review-fires-racist-columnist-john-derbyshire
Obama and Democrats to focus on tax fairness…
Translation? Republicans pay more taxes, Democrats pay none.
Has Obama started building the "Celebration of Women" museum on the Washington Mall yet?
It can go next to the Air and Space Museum.
Disrespectful, unpatriotic, ignorant a$$!!! You can criticize the President without calling him stupid. And , btw, this President is about 100x smarter than you Crassley..
Keep the spotlight on A.L.E.C. Backhouse. That group needs more intense scrutiny to expose just how monstrous they really are. Nice job.
Backhouse
I'll bet 95% of the public doesn't even know that ALEC exists. Until recently, I didn't know that my friendly neighborhood phone company in on this conspiracy to destroy democracy. The corporate media sure hasn't covered what ALEC is doing. The Color of Change people and their use of the social media and the net deserve a lot of credit for convincing some soft drink companies that Things Do Not Go Better With Koch.
What a great idea, DCIA. After all, the other straw men did not quite work out, and, well, you've got the backing of Van Jones- a 9/11 truther!
That gives you all KINDS of credibility!
Too funny Ron. Let's have a quick look at the other side of the coin.
Marion Barry: “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go, I’ll just say that right now, you know.”
Belinda Luscombe (Time Editor) to Nikki Haley: “In New York City, which you’re visiting for a couple of days, a lot of our taxi drivers are Sikhs. If you get one, are you going to give them a slightly bigger tip?”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74904.html#ixzz1rYFucekl
Joe Biden:"I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking,"
Joe Biden (again) : "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,"
Harry Reid : Referred President Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect" in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Lee Whitnum (this weekend) : "I am dealing with whore here, who sells his soul to AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), who will say anything for the job," she said, in regards to Murphy. Whitnum also lashed out at another opponent, calling him "ignorant."
So, Ron tell me again that Democrats are the party of racial tolerance and diversity. Tell me again that they are civil (not even to each other) and polite in political discourse. And tell me that the leader of the party is not arrogant.
"You're likable enough Hillary".
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Maybe he could only find one year that the returns didn't reveal a lot of his predatory business practices.
BITTERhawk
Good alias. Suits you apparently. Why so bitter? So only Republicans are rich?
So by that logic and looking at my last pay stub, I must be a Republican.
Houston!
You would think someone who has been running for President for 5 years straight while making $57K per day would know better...
Then again, this is Willard we're talking about! ☺
No one can call Obama stupid, but a liberal can say anything they want about a conservative. Nothing like the endless double standard of liberals being able to do or say anything, but its the hangman noose for any conservative that dares to speak the truth.
Obama is completely out of control with spending and policies that have this country on a path toward financial disaster. American consumers are about to get hammered by inflation, it is on the doorstep, and gas prices will be the leader of the inflation parade. But not to worry, Obama will be sure to make it all better after the election.
Obama and the Democrats have no solutions, they cannot find so much as a dime to cut, but they see no end to the taxes they want to raise. Yeah, as if raising taxes will solve Obama's spending problem. There simply are not enough taxes to raise to solve the spending addiction of the Democratic Party, this country is simply doomed under Obama.
So lets get it out there. How much should the government allow someone earning 57K a day to keep? You want to tax him more, how much?
BTW, did we ever get to see Buffet and his secretary's tax returns to find out why Buffet pays (less, total or percentage).
Backhouse
Intuit Is Now The Fourth Company To Drop Voter Suppression Group ALEC
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/06/459973/intuit-is-now-the-fourth-company-to-drop-voter-suppression-group-alec/
=====================================================
It's amazing too I read many of the backers didn't even read the laws they backed.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could get rid of FOX NOISE or it least make them report the truth instead of LIES?
The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers are the Most Misinformed
And thus we find, at the root of our political dysfunction, a classic nurture-nature mélange. The penchant for selective exposure is rooted in our psychology and our brains. Closed-mindedness and authoritarianism—running stronger in some of us than in others—likely are as well.
But nevertheless, it took the emergence of a station like Fox News before these tendencies could be fully activated—polarizing America not only over politics, but over reality itself.
http://www.alternet.org/story/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed?page=7
=================================================
I hope you got a chance to run "The Calling" by Santana in the background. It just seems so appropriate to me. What the Kochs, ALEC, and the NRA don't get is money doesn't vote; people do that is why they are trying to suppress the vote in the states President won in 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/story/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed?page=7
Really pathetic attempt at spin & deflection, even for you Alan!
Go troll somewhere else, I'm not 'biting'!
I was merely pointing out how 'in touch' Willard is with everyday working Americans who bust their ass to make that much in a YEAR!
Certainly MORE then 13%!
NJNB -- Talk to me when you clear your head and get back to reality. Until then save you crap for someone else.
JoAnnaSmith1
I guess they'll use "Dumb and Dumber" to describe Obama instead.
Hey, Inspector Sniff1
You are always looking in the wrong places for a clue. Get a grip can you; instead of this?
http://betterhardwoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/home-inspector.gif
I love that people think taxes are somehow unique to them or their situation. We all pay them and we elect the people who write the code.
I'm sorry, I'm sure it was more exciting to be a "Freedom Fighter" or a "Revolutionary", but those jobs have already been filled and successfully completed.
Put the freaking tri-corn hats back in the costume box, stop whining, and pay your taxes, before your ignorant and skewed concept of "fiscal responsibility" puts us all in the poor house.
If you're really looking for something to get your panties in a wad about, Backhouse has it right, take a look at ALEC.
As-salam alaykum, my main Muslim Republican Brothers!
And ni hao, to my Chinese Communist Democrats!
I see nothing has been lost after the Easter weekend for vehemence. My contributions are congradulations for making the election between a government that doesn't work and government that doesn't work. Don't tell me you are for no government whatsoever, either, when you cling to either your Koran (I know you call it a Bible, that's the funny part) or your Manifesto (I know you call it thinking for yourself, which also is funny).
The important part is that we'll lose South America to China in the meantime. You know, the Chinese the Democrats think they aren't and the Chinese the Republicans fake hating. Good luck!
P.S. Sarah, why do you type so fast? I was trying to get this in first!
Alan, NJ
Romney paid less than 15% on his income for the single year he did release his returns. That's an absurdly low tax rate. During the presidency of that tax-and-spend liberal Dwight Eisenhower, the highest marginal tax rate was over 90%, and somehow the United States did pretty well economically.
Those are the long term Capital Gains rates. That money, when originally earned, was already taxed at the highest federal income tax rate, and is now taxed again from any earnings it generates. Perfectly legal.
You're mixing apples and tractors. One is federal income tax. One is Capital Gains tax. Know the difference.
No it's deflection from you. The President continually says that Medicare can be saved by taxing the rich "a little bit more". But there never any specifics. So far he's come up with the Buffet rule, tax millionaires 30%, but remove the ATM. You can't even come out and say 40% - 50% and debate the merits of that policy.
You want all these social services but you won't be honest about how much it will cost. Just like congressional Democrats who will not produce a budget, nor vote for the President's, because it's politically dangerous to actually tell voters what you are proposing.
Medicare, if not changed, will cost 100B a year more each year for 10 years until it is 1T more than today (Demographics not politics). Paul Ryan has proposed a plan. many don't like it but at least it's out there for debate.
What is your alternative and how do you pay for it?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot
You think voter fraud will get a fair hearing after the above video gets more airing?
How embarrassing for Holder and the DOJ! No story here, just move along. Yeah right!
JoAnnaSmith1
Has Obama started building the "Celebration of Women" museum on the Washington Mall yet?
It can go next to the Air and Space Museum.
Being the air-head you are, you should be the 1st woman whose head is filled with nothing but air in it; should put you there. Don't you think?
So is your answer 90%? If so that's great. Let's debate the merits of a 90% tax rate.
No stonndog you have that totally wrong. It's a proven fact that tea people Koch republicans are the most hateful, intolerant people you will ever come across.
Beverly in Chicago - ain't it the truth? Every time I see a post from JoAnna or no joe I am certain it will be the same nonsensical, no fact, all lies stupidity they seem to post from day to day. I am always amazed when any woman supports the GOP with their hatred of anything female that isn't tied to the kitchen; cleaning the house; and raising children. Don't get me wrong, if that is what a woman wants to do, fine. But, the GOP clearly doesn't think there should be a choice. For women to support such ignorance says a great deal about them, none of it good!
JoAnnaSmith1
I'm quite aware of the difference, since I have to pay income taxes on capital gains myself. As for Mittens, he wouldn't have Liked Ike very much. Face it, Obama is right: the Republican Party has become so extremist that not even Ronald Reagan could get nominated for president, let alone Eisenhower. That's why they have to settle for the robotic Mitt Romney who most people dislike but who has been programmed to mouth the nasty lies the teabag people who've taken over the Republican Party expect to hear from their nominee.
Why are no joe and JAS1 so against their own best interest?
We all know that voter fraud is a red-herring. Where are these dubious fraudulent voters being prosecuted?
Moreover, we are seeing where voterID laws are being proven to disenfranchise the elderly. Including states where the laws are on hold pending decisions on their constitutionality.
Mo- no joe and JAS1 are definitely dumb and dumber. Reality has no place in their lives.
So you got schooled on the tax issue, and now you've fluttered off on another talking point fed rant.
Do you ever have an independent thought?
ron (1.) -- you said -- "So why has there been an increase in derogatory comments, bullying and name-calling? My guess it is born out of frustration. What do people do when they are losing a contest and not getting their way? Yep, they call their opponent names. If they were winning their case, there would be no reason to talk trash"
The Majority Leader of the United States Senate called the President of the United States (Bush; 43) a "loser" and a "liar" and "dangerously incompetent" while the President was in office.
I am not sure there has been any increase, democrats were very hard on President Bush (43).
Maybe President Obama and the Obamatons and Obamapoligists are just too sensitive?
JAS,
Why don't you present us with Reagan's economic policies and platform, and show us how he fits into the context of today's GOP?
You know, prove your point, instead of discrediting evidence based on the mere fact that it doesn't align with what you want to believe.
And speaking of which...
Just because 5 + 5 doesn't equal "I Hate (Insert Minority Here), that isn't proof that it's a "DNC Talking Point" or a "Liberal Bias", it means that maybe your BELIEFS, are just that BELIEFS, not FACTS. Maybe there's some truth in them, and maybe there isn't, but when you automatically discredit anything that doesn't align with your preconceived notions, you're no better than a conspiracy theorist. You know, just writing off anything as "intrigue" instead of actually searching for the truth.
What some of you call "liberal media bias" the rest of the world calls, FACTS.
I really needed to put that out there. Sorry that it's slightly off topic.
TO: Joe in Albany who wrote:
I find that to be somewhat funny if not sickening.
Republicans must have LOVED being attacked by terrorists, being lied into phoney wars, and having a Republican POS crash the entire United States Economy.
Now that Democrats have come in and fixed up a bunch of the Republicans' devastation forced on the American People, NOW all YOU have to worry about is whether the Stock Market is up or down.
Aren't you fortunate.
Obama / Biden 2012
@james-1937467
If you do that now, and you're a Republican then you are racist. However, if you're a Democrat and you refer to the President as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect" then it's no problem.
Hey, if you get rid of a world with printed facts,
you get Iran! Or North Korea.
And people probably think I am using hyperbole when I talk about the Republicans and Democrates. Wouldn't it be nice if was?
On the tax issue, Reagan is widely considered to have done good tax work when he simplified the tax code. Two points of note before Republicans think that means they scored a touchdown when they bring this up.
1) Taxes were higher
2) Reagan would be hated by his Republican peers today for even trying to fix the tax problem. He'd probably have to be an Independent.
JoAnnaSmith1
To JoAnnaSmith, any inconvenient fact is just dismissed as a talking point.
Of course, people who aren't just talking parrots like you are have the capacity to observe facts and reach the same obvious conclusions, such as the fact that the Republican Party would not nominate Ronald Reagan with his deplorable history of tax hikes. I arrived at that conclusion INDEPENDENTLY a long time ago, along with many other people with functioning brains. You can't deny that's true, so you throw one of your daily tantrums.
Oh, by the way, I don't buy the new argument that Mittens shouldn't have to pay taxes on capital gains because he already paid income taxes on the money he invested. Income is income, and capital gains are income that is gained without doing any real work. Mitt Romney hasn't done any real work for years (he even joked about being unemployed, yuk yuk).
Come MSleftBC,
Put an actual news story up. There's video of Eric Holder's ballot being handed to a white guy. The video is going viral. Wake up.
You people can remain in the bag for this Administration to this extent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw
For the people getting upset about the "Obama is stupid" comment, my question is, did you also get upset when Bush was called stupid? Bush graduated from Harvard and Yale...
I can find a Youtube clip of a cat playing the piano, does that mean we have to worry about growing feline intelligence and what that might mean for humans as the dominant species???
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/truthaboutvoterfraud/
No Houston, it's not income, it's capital gains. Congress set it up that way in a time when they thought people's money was their own and that level of double taxation was enough. It's not a new argument, it's the way it was when Congress put it into law.
[Reagan diversion eliminated for brevity]
Neither has Obama.
Please tell us who the Majority Leader of the Senate was at the time? I would hazard to guess that since there was a Republican in the White House at the time you are alluding that the "Leader" was a Democrat. What was the context of his comment?
Now, personally I don't agree that any elected representative of the American people should resort to demeaning language towards the President of the United States. Any reasoning that uses the "they did it before we did" equates to a juvenile level of reasoning and/or justification. We are and should strive to be better than that.
While you may see this as tit-for-tat, I believe that the level of in-civility towards President Obama has risen to a height not seen since the era of the Great Depression.
In short, I disagree with your assessment that "I am not sure there has been any increase,..."
JoAnnaSmith1
Money made from money is income. Money made from the sweat of our brows is income. The federal income tax is a tax on income. All income. If I make $50k selling tractors and you make $50k selling apples, we should pay the same rate.
I was confused when I first heard the term, "Capital Gains Tax" many years ago, but my confusion only lasted a few moments. Capital gains tax is a con perpetuated by the wealthy to put most of the tax burden on their hard working employees. That is the difference.
[Reagan diversion eliminated for brevity] = I can not respond because I'm incapable of dealing with facts that don't support my preconceived notions.
We know he graduated from both schools. Now tell us what his GPA was upon graduation! Let's also talk about how he got into those two schools since his pre-graduate studies GPA alone was not high enough to warrant his entrance?
SayitaintSo,
I may be wrong, but what I hear you saying is, it doesn't matter what Bush or Obama did...I'll always bash a Rep and support a Dem...
If one has paid all income taxes due on income earned, is it anyone's business where he/she invests after tax dollars? Sounds like just more class warfare BS, which appears to be developing as the central theme of one party's 2012 campaign.
Sarah dear, I'm not bringing up Reagan, others like Houston are. He's claiming Reagan would not get elected today because of the current climate in the GOP. It's up to him to prove it, not me. Your challenge is with him.
You really need some help in reading comprehension and staying with the flow of the thread. Maybe if you weren't such a reactionary you'd do better.
That makes things better for you? Lets hope so.
Not according to the US Tax Code.
Alan, NJ
It's because our tax laws favor the "Buffets" over the "Secretaries" and that is exactly why people are pee'd off.
Before you will tell me that the rich pay the "majority" of the taxes, remember this: if the 20% own the 80% of the wealth, they would be expected to pay 80% of taxes. Now, I understand that the tax brackets go up as you income goes up - simply said the more you make the more you pay in taxes. That looks great on paper.
Romney's earned $21.7 million in 2010 and paid a 13.9% tax rate. Yes, I know the capital gains blah blah blah...The point is that every economist (many of which were Nobel Prize winners) told the Bush administration that lowering taxes during the time of war (or 2) would be suicidal for the country. Either wars or tax breaks but not both. Instead, we borrowed money and robbed the Social Security Fund to pay for the wars. The interest has been acrruing on this mortgage for over 10 years now. Now, you guys call Obama the spender and the borrower - yet, you will not admit to the fact that the bills did not get zeroed out in Jan of 2009 when the new administration took over. We are told - don't blame Bush.
We have been in this situation before - maybe not as severe. Clinton, without any Republican vote, got the Omnibus Act passed; he managed to raise taxes on the top 1.2%, paid off most of the debts, balanced the budget, and lowered the unemployment to a little under 4%.
Now we have Obama who, again without a single Republican vote, is trying to do the same but for the obvious reason cannot. Regardless of the consequences, the Republican Party has one goal, and one goal only: make this president a one-termer.
Still no answer on what you consider a fair tax rate Fiesty. Not surprising as you have no answer. You would take all income if you could. It's no surprise that your state is in such a mess fiscally. Why don't you just admit Cheney was wrong and deficits do matter.
So I guess Illinois's last tax hike wasn't enough. I just wonder what you're going to do when the Federal government wants 90% to pay for Medicare and Illinois wants 20% to pay for public pensions and benefits. Civil war maybe?
What part of;
Do YOU not comprehend darling?
@Bayllie
I don't disagree with you. However, before we rush into a Buffet rule, which will actually produce less revenue that the status quo because it eliminates the AMT, why don't we actually examine the two tax returns and find why Buffet is paying such a low rate compared to his secretary. For example, the carried interest that hedge fund managers would seem a good place to start to close a loop hole that only 400 very rich people benefit from. Does Buffet pay himself a "below market" salary and avoid payroll tax? It's all very well having the symbolic $1 salary but it is a form of cheating. Would it make sense to institute a "fair market" salary to stop this type of cheating. As to Capital gains and Dividends what will be the effect of taxing them as income? I don't know but I want to hear the pros and cons.
BTW Bush did not raid SS. SS is being killed by demographics and the fact that since the 60's SS has been part of general revenues. Even Clinton did not balance the budget if you remove SS revenues. Also Clinton had the dot com boom. Something that no other President was lucky enough to experience. And I do agree with you on Bush cutting taxes at a time of war. Unprecedented. What I don't understand is, if you think Bush was fiscally reckless, why do think Obama is different. He is spending more, extended the Bush tax cuts and cut the payroll tax.
JAS,
That was your response to Houston's debate point, where he claimed even Reagan couldn't get elected by this GOP, because it has become to extreme. Now, in a debate, you're supposed to go point/counter point, not point/I'm not answering.
So can you answer to his point that the party is becoming to extreme, and that the man your own party ackowledges as "The Great One" did what you claim to be economically incompetant?
And I'm not your dear, I'm a bi*tch, remember?
Oh for the love of....
Damn it!!! Why is it so hard to admit that we need more revenues to solve the deficit???? It is a fact that revenues are below the 18-19% average to GDP. It is also a fact that taxes for the wealthy are the lowest in decades. Why not let the Bush tax cuts expire??? I mean, they did nothing to help the economy, and repealing them (along with keeping the automatic cuts) would lower debt to GDP significantly according to the CBO.
Capital gains should be taxed as income. I don't care that it is investment income; it's income nonetheless. Quite frankly, I'd gladly pay more in taxes. That would go a long way to lower the deficit. And Alan, nobody said go to 90%; he was simply stated that we had prosperity while having a 90% rate. I'd rather put a 45% top rate, followed by 38.5% for the second bracket. Why do Republicans seem to ignore the fact that revenues are needed to solve the deficit problem??? It seems that they have lost all sense of reasoning and logic. Oh well, better for the US if they are destroyed....
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Just exposing you as the troll.
Describes you exactly.
It really isn't an admission so much as a statement of truth that revenue must be increased and via taxes. IF we did even go back to the Eisenhower era of taxes, we STILL wouldn't pay back this countries deficit, so the other point is that spending also has to be cut.
BUT DON'T ask our Muslim Repubicans and Chinese Democrats about that, becasue they will still argue about WHICH one is evil, when both need to be done. In other words, go ahead and keep breathing fumes when you have the either/or conversation about this, and stamp a huge SUCKER sign on your forehead while you are at it.
That cat can also open a pistacio nut. Tell me you aren't concerned now?!
JoAnna,
I don't get this Capital Gains shouldn't be taxed thinking. My pay is taxed,both federal and state, but I still pay taxes when I make purchases. If I should happen to win the lottery, I'll still pay taxes even though the dollar I purchased the lottery ticket which was taxed when I got my pay check. Oh yeah right, I'm not rich, so I have to pay taxes
I hate to bruise your delicate, although engorged ego little buddy...
I have been called much worse by much better posters than the likes of YOU!
Is this where I'm supposed to feel insulted? ☺
If so, it's not working! lol
Liberals are hateful, uncaring, smartasses? Never! Well, maybe sometimes, but only to the dimwitted mental dregs who identify themselves as "right wing" republican patriots. Basically, it is always our intent to be intelligent, yet, humble.
Freshiee,
As Derek pointed out, just increasing taxes on the wealthy isn't going to solve our problem (it won't come close even if we pass all of the tax increases Obama has asked for). Revoking all of the Bush tax cuts would be significant, but just changing it for the upper 1% isn't really that much money relative to our yearly deficit. We will also have to cut costs.
As to taxing capital gains, keep in mind lots of non-wealthy depend on capital gains. This is where many retirees get their income. Also, we are competing for investment money with the rest of the world. If we raise our capital gains tax rates too high, more investors may go to tax friendlier countries - which would hurt the poor and middle class Americans the most. I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the rate, but we need to keep in mind there are potential negative consequences.
What a comeback. You really are an irrelevant troll. Probably describes your physical appearance as well.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Feisty -
The only way we will ever have a "fair" tax rate is when all taxpayers are treated equally and taxed equally. That means that everyone is taxed at the same rate.
That is the purist definition of being "fair".
My own idea would be that current tax code, for individuals, be thrown in the nearest furnace and forgotten. Then take out a single piece of paper that states:
That is simple and fair, which means ofcourse, that it would never happen.
I love it - Easter Monday and the Head Vine Clown and the Clown possee are out in force dividing the takers from the providers. Ya gotta laugh at the Cut and Paste Clown for her attempts of trying to act like a big girl.
Ah well, Easter's over, let the sinning begin anew!
LOL, Mac!
This sentence is incoherent. BTW, "The Great One" is Mark Levin. I can barely interpret that first part of what you are attempting to say, and it is Houston's claim the party has become extreme, but I disagree. So once again, your question should go to Mr. Houston on why he thinks that.
Everyone has to be something.
The Capital Gains tax rate is 15%.
JoAnnaSmith1
If capital gains aren't income, how come I have to reported on my 1040I INCOME TAX form?
Ah, yes. The good old days. But why stop there? Why not get rid of the income tax completely. Since it's "your" money, why should the government get any of it? Capital gains is taxed at a different rate than regular income, but if it's not "income", I guess we'll have to donate to a food bank so poor Mitt Romney won't starve to death, him not having any income and all.
You mean the Reagan fact that you eliminated because you can't deal with the fact that Saint Ronny of Raygun couldn't nominated for dog catcher these days in the Republican Party, despite how the wingnuts worship the plaster idol that has nothing to do with the real person.
Unlike Romney, Obama has been gainfully employed as President of the United States. (Sorry to aggravate your Obama Derangement Syndrome. I hope you don't chew up your carpets too badly).
JAS,
Why? That's your point. Our point is they're too extreme. We point to the tax/revenue increases Reagan passed, we point to the Norquist pledge, we point to the complete inability to mathamatically solve the debt crisis without revenues and the GOP's adament refusal to even look at them.
So what are your answers than to our point???
Shocker.
Touche. I accept what I'm best at.
Mac,
I'll take it!!! Better than being an uncaring, hateful, dumbass, right??? Lol.
What an absolutely STUPID comment!
Hey MO (ron)... unlike you libtard... some of us are focused on what is best for our COUNTRY as a whole... focused on the FUTURE.
You libtards are so into yourselves and what YOU can get out of it, that you would GLADLY sacrifice the future of our country, our children's and grandchildren's future!
You selfish son-of-a-BIOTCH! You personify the ME-GENERATION! Get your BIG HEAD out of you arse and think of someone else for a change!
(show me that large clown nose, fisty!)
JoAnnaSmith:
But you can't back up your disagreeableness with any facts. That's why you throw a tantrum every time it's mentioned that most past Republican presidents couldn't get nominated in today's extremist Republican party. The word "moderate" has even become an epithet to Republicans. It's now a dirty word that Rick Santorum has been tossing at Romney (and it's unfair to Romney, because he's become an extremist, too, althoug it took him many flip-flops to get there from actually calling himself a "moderate with progressive views" a few years ago.
Is this where I'm supposed to feel insulted? ☺
If so, it's STILL not working!
Care to try again? lol
Say, why don't you hurl an insult about my weight... those are always a hit with the right wing nut jobs... ;o)
The GOP has always been for low taxes, smaller and distributed government, pro-business, and pro growth. The fact that the government has gotten so bloated calls for spending cuts first, and raising taxes later. I myself am for Simpson/Bowles which does require a restructuring of the tax code along with a raising of taxes.
Democrats OTH are for raising taxes without cuts. Other than Defense, there have been no cuts to any government agency.
JAS,
You don't get to simply say this, and have it be true. Show us. What are the amounts of the discretionary, defense, and entitlement budgets? What are we talking about cutting? From which budget? What would be the economic consequences of these cuts? What effect would they have?
How is the government too big? In what departments? Why should cuts come first?
What is the source of the problems we have? What's worked in the past?...
I could keep going, but I won't. What you do is the fallacy of proof by assertion. Simply stating something doesn't make your point.
Do you honestly think that this is solely the responsibility of the Democrats?
Here's a quick lesson for you, NEITHER party is going to go on a "cutting spree" because each politician in congress or the White House, is beholden to some big money interest, be it defense contractors, big pharma, the NRA, you name it.
That's why sh** doesn't get cut and government gets bloated, because they're all throwing fillet mignons to the lobbyists and campaign financiers.
Sarah-3043284
Her answer is similar to the famous line in an old novel by Ring Lardner: "SHUT UP, she explained"
JAS:
False on both counts. Obama HAS cut taxes almost as many times as Ronald Reagan raised them. The only taxes that have increased under Obama are on cigarettes and tanning booths.
And there have certainly been cuts to government agencies. Obama imposed a wage freeze on federal employees. And due to the deficit hysteria, the TSA is going to cut back on the number of agents in airport security gates and it's been estimated that the average length of time you'll have to wait in line will double. So, next time JoAnnaSmith is stuck in line for an hour and misses her flight, she can console herself by remembering she is suffering for the greater glory of the Republican Party and its deficit-cutting dogma.
Nor do you. But that's all you've done.
My, you're full questions. You're full of lots of stuff.
See the House Budget for 2013 for details. I agree with it. I think it's marvelous. I would think you're for the Presidents budget? You can't be for the Senates budget, Harry Reid has opted out again.
You should taker your own advice.
A lesson? You act like you've just figured this out. Are you that stupid?
If it is the case that the pols won't do it, we'll leave our creditors figure out our financial difficulties.
First off there is a big difference between effective rate and income tax rate. We have a tiered tax system. So the last part of the money you earn is taxed at a higher rate than the first dollar you earn as job income.
Calling something a Warren Buffet rule, law or tax code, when he pays himself a dollar as a salary, is very misleading. Hathaway, his company has disputed their taxes since 2002. If he was such a stand up guy, he would pay himself a salary and pay taxes on it.
Capital gains is an investment income. Yes I will agree that it is a yearly income, but it is made in a different way. There is a risk involved. The risk that you have with a salary is the risk of losing your job. That is totally different than the risk you take on investing in a company, either by buying their stocks directly or investing in a mutual fund.
A mutual fund is a way to spread your risk out between a group of companies. I would pretty much guarantee that if you have a mutual fund you have money invested overseas. Complaining or stating that someone is un American for having money invested overseas, is a double standard. We all have money invested overseas. Now we might not have money invested directly in a specific currency, but it probably is a foreign company.
What is your definition of middle class? I consider myself middle class and my effective federal tax rate was under 10%.
What about Acorn? They seem to do a lot of the same things that you are complaining about.
Attack on women.
Look up the abortion rate. I think that it should be legal, but averaging one Million a year seems to be extreme.
JAS,
First, how do you answer to the holes in the Ryan Budget???
And, Romney...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/romney_economic_plan/index.htm
Furthermore...
The deficit??? Get real. Romney's tax plan, according to Forbes, would add 3 trillion to the deficit, over the course of 10 years. Not to be out done, Gingrich's would add 1 trillion, in a single year. And Santorum's would have federal revenues declining by about 900 billion by 2015.
According to the CBO, on average our discretionary budget is about 1.35 trillion. Our defense spending is about 1.45 tillion. And, of course, approximately 1.56 trillion on entitlements.
So, basically, if you wanted to offset Romney's or Santorum's revenue decreases with spending cuts, we would have to not spend a single dime. On anything. And Gingrich's, well that wouldn't even be possible
You want my plan...
Why not start with defense spending? That's where most of the waste and expenses are. Than we'll take a look at entitlements, raise the retirement age and means test.
Than, let's reform our trade policies, stop China's currency manipulation, take away their MFN status, and stop exploiting their human rights violations. Here's an idea, let's force them into the 21st century instead of racing them back to the 19th. And you know what that will do??? That will bring back jobs, ergo expanding the tax base and increasing revenues.
Than, let's look at Wall St. and how their interests are misaligned with the the citizens and the only thing they create is debt. They make bazillions, dolling out debt, and no longer even bother investing in innovative new ideas. And you know what that will do??? That will create more jobs, ergo expanding the tax base and increasing revenues.
Than, will move on to our tax code that resembles Swiss cheese it has so many loopholes in it.And you know what that will do??? That will create even more revenue. Repealing the Bush cuts alone, would bring debt to GDP under 50%
The only thing standing in the way of that are two SCOTUS decisions, Buckley v Valeo and Citizen's United. Those are the two decisions that allowed moneyed interests to buy our politicians.
It's not about more spending, or less spending, but SMART spending. Not more taxes, or less taxes, SMART taxes. Not more trading, or less trading, SMART trading.
I've posted this before, but you must really love reading it, huh? And yes, I guess I am stupid enough to think that our Politicians shouldn't be bought. Get the money out of politics and what's left is nothing but math. Of course you'll probably say there's a liberal math bias than, but who gives an f, we'll have solved the problem.
JoAnnaSmith1 - you should not be calling ANYONE stupid considering your 1st grade posts. You rarely post any facts but choose instead to belittle those who do. Please, you represent everything that is wrong with the GOP.
Sarah, please - you're confusing JAS with facts! That is NOT allowed.
Good post by the way!
It's better than the plan we have now from Democrats. You got something better, than your side better get to work on it and pass it in the Democratic controlled Senate. Obama of course punted, again, on his budget.
Well then you do support Simpson/Bowles and much of the Ryan plan.
Welcome to the GOP.
2010 is the latest numbers I have:
Try $663 billion
Try $2 trillion + the service to the debt, that was $164 billion, so about $2.2 trillion, which is about the amount of taxes the IRS collects. Discretionary spending is all borrowed money.
That is true in a zero sum game, no growth economy. You know, the economy Obama has brought us to today. We're hoping for better from the next leader.
JAS - that would actually assume the GOP was running a LEADER. We all know that is NOT the case. Plus, as usual, you just make up figures.
The Democratic controlled Senate? You already know the stupidity of that statement but you continue to post it? Please - at least try to make sense!
JAS,
How is it better?
Sources??? What do any of these numbers mean if you don't have them in context and without looking at the entire picture?
Prove your point.
Wooden Willard? I was going to go with Mittronic Rombot (warranty void if exposed to air or sunlight). Don't forget, Hecho en Mexico, assembled in U.S.
And the simplest solution of all, just jack those tax rates up to Eisenhower administration rates, because Eisenhower was a great American, a good Texan and a fairly decent Republican. Ooooooooorrrr, we could go back to the Clinton administration tax rates. See, conservatives, now you have a lovely choice, because that Bush crud just isn't cutting it.
It exists, it can be debated, it has passed half of Congress, it can be criticized by Money magazine.
Google Keywords: 2010 US budget wiki
Great tool that Google. You should try it. And I don't recall you stating your sources when you made up your numbers. Just say'n.
Still waiting for you and the Democrats to have one.
JAS,
It exists? That's your substantive answer? "Twilight" exists too, does that mean it's better than "Harry Potter"??? (Which quite clearly it is, and YES I'm channeling my inner tween for this post, deal with it)
The simple existance of something doesn't give it credence or value. For example, your posts exist, that doesn't make them inherenlty more valuable than anyone elses. The individual points of each need to be examined, studied, and debated to determine that.
Compare the numbers in your Ryan budget to the numbers from the CBO, and non-partisan sources.
Look at the big picture in context and explain why his budget is a good one.
No, why should I make your case for you, and why would I make it based off of two years ago?
Prove your point.
Sarah, why do you keep saying the Romney plan will add $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years without saying that Obama's budget will add $10 trillion. Seems to me that means Romney's budget saves $7 trillion and reduces the deficit to about $300 billion annually from where it is today at $1.4 trillion. That sure is alot better fiscal policy than we have from Obama at this point. You cut and paste and post as if you understand this so why do you keep repeating Romney's plan as if its bad economic policy? I understand if you dont believe it for whatever reason you want to attack it but you cant use the outcomes as bad in comparison to Obamas.
As for China, you also keep repeating that you want to punish them for human rights abuse and take away MFN, but you seem to think that american products are not sold in China nor do you seem to think other countries would continue to use China as a low cost of labor environment to produce their goods to sell and compete in the US. For the life of me, I cant see how your approach isnt a huge job loss for the US worker and huge losses in international sales etc. Can you explain to me how your foreign trade argument would work to create US jobs?
Freshiee--you realize that revenue as a percentage of GDP is down because the economy hasnt recovered right? You realize that tax collections from the wealthy have never been higher in the history of this country right? If we went back to the Eisenhower days when tax rates were the highest for a very small type of income, we would have a huge tax increase for the poor and middle class right? The tax code needs to be simplified and made more fair and progressive but lets not act like the wealthy dont pay all the income tax. Maybe they should pay more in a more fair and equitable manner but lets not create a starting point that is false.
That and the rest of it. You seem to be selective in what you read and have a primordial reaction to it. Shiny things distract you too?
Really? So lets debate the House 2013 budget. You seemed to have a lot to say about it, so it must have value. You wouldn't debate something without value, would you Sarah? Now lets debate the 2013 Senate budget [crickets chirping].
Gosh, quit pouting. So cite the sources for your numbers. Prove your point!!!
I thought you'd be the least bit inquisitive about the subject, but yet you want to be spoon fed. I gave you the path to the source, so be a peach and go look at it.
Kirk,
Because I'm not advocating for Obama's budget. That one won't work either. No one's put one out that actually addresses the issue... Money in politics.
MFN can only be revoked through the WTO, not just by the U.S. China is clearly in violation of the tariff policy that developing nations are supposed to adhere to in order to be granted MFN. They fix the tariff issues, they no longer can establish lower prices than American manufacturers, making us competitive again. You punish multi-nationals, through the WTO, for making use of human rights violations and incentivize them NOT doing so, they have no reason to keep their plants in China. Not to mention we're the largest market for Chinese goods. They're up sh** creek without us to buy their stuff. That gives us as much leverage over them, as they have over us.
The entire world is getting the shaft from China. The entire world should pull said shaft out of its ass and club China over the head with it.
JAS,
I know the facts. I know that the senate hasn't passed one, but that's not what you and I are discussing. We're discussing why you, personally support the Ryan plan and think it would work. Since you support it, please answer my question.
Why? Why will it work? What about the contracdiction I posted?
OK, I am all for getting the budget balanced but I dont think Romney's plan is a fiscal disaster given where we are starting from today. Its like saying Obama should have unemployment at 5% a year after the Bush disaster. But if we can do better than cutting a Trillion off the deficit annually from the Obama administration thats a pretty good plan but your right we can do better.
I have been to China on business a bunch of times and I agree with you that they dont trade fair. However, I dont think that would bring jobs back--the types of jobs that were lost to China are I think permanently lost. Lets say you fix the tariffs or even better you force their currency to fluctuate with ours, its not as if those jobs are coming back. Countries with a low cost of labor are a dime a dozen. Companies are already moving to the Phillipines, South America especially Brazil and Argentina to produce and take advantage of low cost of labor. What is important is that those countries open their markets to our goods so we can compete effectively and bring jobs home in that manner. I think long term China will actually be a huge market for our goods like India is becoming today. We have more leverage over China than we act but that wont create jobs. Our biggest leverage is continuing to print more money to try and create more inflation which will devalue the T-bills they currently hold and inflate our ability at least in the short term to pay off our old debt with cheaper dollars in the future.
Ron Indiana -- Agreed. But Grassley's name-calling will only turn off Independent swing voters, so I say bring it on, along with the tax debate.
I mention Meet the Press and religious hypocrisy in another thread, but it is most applicable to the tax debate. If the churchy folks out there are going to claim that religion is not being used as a test for POTUS (though of course it IS used as a test to run for POTUS), and claim that "policy" is the test, then how could any churchy person support the Paul Ryan / Romney budget?!
The differences between Teapublican "trickle-down" tax cuts for the rich and the president's upcoming vote on the Buffet Rule is a stark difference in policy, in which the GOP/TP are the least Christ-like. I don't see how the religious-Right can defend spending cuts in programs for the poor, elderly, and sick in order to give more breaks to the rich and corporations, and/or to increase defense spending?!!!
Where is the hard-hitting, honest debate in the media? It sure as heck didn't happen on Meet the Press yesterday.
Income tax reform for a flatter and simpler tax plan
Reduce federal work force by 10%
Medicare reform kicked to the states with block-grants
Shrink government by 20% in 10 years
Reduce debt/GDP ratio
Debt reduction is substantially better than Obama's "plan" in the next 3 years. Again though, the House plan is real and has been passed. Obama's plan is just a theory.
Now back your numbers and claims.
JAS1, how will a flat tax help us??? It may raise more revenue (doubt it, but possible,), but it will either give the middle class a huge tax hike or the upper class a huge tax cut, and either one of those will hurt the middle class and increase income inequality, which will in turn hurt the economy.
I could go for reducing the workforce, but where do you propose to make the cuts??? In the Dept. of Defense??? Interior??? Homeland Security?????
And why the hell would anyone trust the states with Medicare??? That's a recipe for disaster. The states are too volatile fiscally to take care of social services because they cut them the moment they go into the red. That, and I think the federal government manages Medicare better by providing a national standard and keeping things consistent in each state.
Since when has shrinking government helped the economy??? For 30 years we've cut taxes substantially, deregulated our economy, and relied on the theory that "government is the problem," and look where we are now. Trillions in debt, a fragile economy, and class warfare against the poor and the middle class. Shrinking government will only hurt the economy even more.
How do you propose to reduce debt/GDP ratio??? Be specific.
And Obama's plan is a theory, but so is Ryan's. It relies on the basis that Obamacare will add to the deficit, which is debatable; that revenues will go back up to 19% in the next few years (from around 16% today or less; and on economic growth estimations. Many people have stated that the Ryan budget could actually increase the deficit due to a lack of revenues because of the tax cuts and a lack of specificity on which loopholes will be closed.
And where are revenues??? Tax reform might work, but I doubt it raise enough after lowering rates.
Back up YOUR numbers, and then we'll talk.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Flatter tax. Not flat tax. Simpler in that it reduces the rate and reduces the exemptions. The tax rates would still be higher for higher incomes.
Every department.
Because the Feds have done such a good job?
Because government is so inherently inefficient.
It is, and like Obama's, it's probably based on rosey scenarios. This is why government is inefficient. In the real world, these types of budgets would be laughed out of the corporate board room or out of the back office of the small local business. You can't run anything with year over year bloated deficits and building debt. That is why government needs to get smaller. It won't innovate because nothing is forcing it to do so.
That's been the overall theme today. Tell you what, you back up Obama's and I'll do the same for the House budget.
Freshiee--you are wrong--under Clinton and Bush, tax revenue as an absolute number and as a percentage of GDP where the highest ever. After Clinton reduced the capital gains rate he helped fuel investment capital into the internet boom reaping huge revenue gains. It is true the Ryan budget could increase the deficit but thats not the intention and you know it. The Obama budget increases the deficit $10 trillion over the next 10 years and the Romney budget reduces annual deficits to $300 billion annually. Thats a $1 trillion annual difference from where we are today. Obamacare will clearly increase the deficit and as more of the unintended consequences come to light, the annual deficits from Obamacare just keep getting bigger. I am not advocating that we dont address our healthcare issues but lets be real about the cost of ACA.
I hope you are not like True Patriot who says thinks like tax cuts for the rich and corporations on the back of the poor and elderly crap. Government assistance is up 80% across 70 welfare programs to $900 billion annually and there doesnt seem to be any dent made. There is no cut so TP makes his partisan BS up to make nice sounding talking points. The elderly are the wealthiest segment in our society controlling over 80% of the wealth in this country and social security entitlement payments to our seniors are one of the causes of income inequality because we are taking money from our working poor, middle class and giving it to our wealthy seniors (not an editorial just our current system).
I can understand why you like Obama/biden on many partisan platform issues say the environment (energy policy) or pro choice policies but certainly not on his economic policies.
Katheryn Brandy– We are becoming a plutocracy (rule by the rich) at the minimum. With the GOP/TP having moved so far to the Right, we should be concerned about fascism (pro-military, corporatists) and/or theocracy – None of which bodes well for our Republic. Just look at Teapublicans in Michigan lying about 2/3 majority to become an autocracy (dictatorship), and the SCOTUS ruling on strip searches that smacks of a police state. If I heard that a curfew and suspension of habeas corpus (Martial Law) was going into effect somewhere, I wouldn't be surprised—sadly.
Bitterhawk – (in follow-up to posts by Bryan E., PA and Ruken) -- Please explain Red States receiving more federal funds than these states contribute, and how it is that Democrats pay less in taxes? Aside from the richest 1% on Wall Street and Big Oil, with Big Oil being exclusively Republican, and the richest 5% voting for Romney in the primary, and the rest of the Teabaggers out there who love their write-offs to show zero income, or use of tax credits such as the $1,000 per child to pay little if anything in taxes – Look at the GOP/TP and that is where you'll find all the missing tax revenue.
Backhouse, Dont_carry_it_all, Houston!, etc. – A.L.E.C. helps explain how so much damage has been done with Teapublicans doing so little work (one week worked for every two weeks off). Like the Chamber of Commerce, this became a twisted fast-track template to usurp democracy and implement the far-Right agenda -- And was being done without the knowledge of many companies. Now that A.L.E.C. is being exposed, many are leaving. Let's hope enough leave to collapse this diabolical process.
Rick-3416939– Dubya's credentials are not as impressive as President Obama's, but why even go there? The reason Dubya was criticized was because of incompetence in regard to a long list of policies, most notably the unnecessary and costly invasion of Iraq, and of course voodoo economics on steroids that caused the Great Recession. Stop pretending that Dubya's unpopularity has only been biased partisanship.
Wizard61, and others like you – A fair tax is not the same as a flat tax because of percent of income required for basic needs. In other words, Warren Buffet uses the same percent of his income to buy food as you do, but that percent is a teeny tiny fraction of what he earns in comparison to what you earn. Get it? That is why we can't go to sales/consumption tax only either. Getting rid of all tax credits to make taxation flatter would be great, because lifestyle choices (i.e. having children) should not be relevant to how much a person pays in taxes. But we will always need progressive income tax rates to have fairness between the rich and poor.
We've already tried "trickle down" tax cuts for the rich, and all it has done is make the rich richer. Enough. We need a fair and balanced approach to reduce deficits. Throw out the Teapublican "starve the beast" anarchists – Obama/Biden – 2012
TP--so you want to use tax policy to avoid self reliance and personal accountability? So if Albert Pujols is better at baseball than you, you should tax him in order than he doesnt make more money than you? Has anyone in this country prevented you from getting rich? So go out and open up your own subway or small business, work hard and put the level of effort in to do it. No one forced the teacher to become a teacher or the cop to become a cop or the dunkin donuts owner to work hard and make more than both of them. Those are called choices and personal accountability. Buffet is wealthy because of his talent, and financial acumen not because he was lucky. Progressive tax rates are not enacted to create fairness between rich and poor as if that were true why not move to Cuba where you can have the ultimate fairness. They are progressive because the wealthy need to shoulder a larger burden of the government budget in order to pay for government services required by our country including infrastructure and security. The poor dont need assistance out of some sort of concept of fairness they need it because as a society we have a moral and ethical responsibility to have a safety net but not for the permanent creation of generational entitlement spending in the interests of fairness. Do you think we should turn into Greece and France?
The President is obsessed with the idea of increasing taxes on the "rich". I am sure that if the "rich" felt that the economy could be turned around by their paying a little more in taxes that they would be the first to propose it because they would have the most to gain. Obama himself said that taxes should not be raised during a recession.
Without any conditions, the President vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. To keep the President's promise, the 2012 federal deficit cannot exceed 229.27 billion dollars yet Obama's own white house is predicting a 2012 deficit of not more than 1.3 trillion dollars which is more than 5 times what the President promised. I want the President to explain to the American people how he is going to keep his promise regarding the federal deficit. His promise was not contingent on raising taxes or for that matter any act or action of congress.
Wth a national debt of over 15 trillion dollars, I estimate that the money that the federal government borrows in 2012 will end up costing the tax payers more than 10 trillion dollars to repay over a period of 170 years. I would like the President to explain what it is going to end up costing and how long it is going to take to pay back all of the money that the federal government currently owes.
The President needs to be reminded of some words of wisdom that were spoken back in March of 2006. The words were as true then as they are today.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
Bull@!$%#. @!$%# small government and low taxes. We had that policy for 30 years and it nearly destroyed. I am for raising taxes NOW and spending cuts NOW. And I am a Democrat. And we have already cut $2.4 trillion for 10 years. I think it is time to raise taxes.
Oh and we have agreed to $450 billion in future cuts to discretionary spending, along with $600 billion slated to be added. It's tax hiking time.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Frankly, the Feds HAVE done a good thing with Medicare. It has helped millions of people escape the poverty line. Sure its got some financial troubles, but we could simply raise revenues and lower outlays; and still keep it at a federal level. The states have messed up education, and so I wouldn't trust them with that, let alone my retirement.
And there you go repeating the old right-wing mantra that government is inefficient. Note that I asked how shrinking government has helped the economy; instead you answered why. We spent the last 30 years doing what I said; reducing government. You know what that got us??? Huge income inequality, a mounting debt, and an economy that is fragile now. @!$%# small government. Government may not be the most efficient organization, but hell, at least it answers directly to the people and not the shareholders. The reason it has become inefficient now is all the special interests and anti-government BS that is strangling it. So why don't you stop spouting right-wing bull@!$%# and come back with a better argument.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
False. What Sarah was saying was that Romney's budget adds to the current deficits. That would total around $9 trillion over the next decade. Obama's deficits are totaled at around $6-7 trillion. So Romney would actually add to the deficit and be more lavish than Obama.
In addition, deficit hawks and fiscally-aware people like me can cheer if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2012. That and the scheduled cuts will severely cut the deficit AND reduce debt-to-GDP ratio. Check the CBO.
False. That $663 billion applies only for Department of Defense spending, not defense spending in general. In 2012, we are expected to spend $1 trillion and $1.4 trillion. Check this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#
Audit_of_2011_budget
How could we jump from $660 billion to over a trillion in two years????
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
That is a lie. Here are two sites to prove it: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Revenues+to+GDP&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=709&tbm=isch&tbnid=yeoEkjtm1YwikM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011072814/ignorance-index-iii-revenue-problem&docid=HidQzmqF5MXBqM&imgurl=http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/RevenuePercentGDP-Graph.jpg&w=640&h=335&ei=1XCDT7uoCM_ciAKs04mLBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=447&sig=116205445471032845727&page=1&tbnh=103&tbnw=197&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:73&tx=110&ty=40
and http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/
Also show me your proof that Obamacare increases the deficit.
And as for the budget, neither the Ryan budget nor Obama's budget mean to drive up the deficit.
The main reason why welfare is growing is because of the recession. People lose jobs, go into poverty or get unemployment checks, cost goes up. Simple as that. And yes, the Ryan budget gives huge tax breaks to the wealthy on the backs of the elderly and the poor. Seniors will be forced to pay over $5,000 a year for their medical care (expensive for them) and the middle and lower class will lose benefits and their services and safety nets will be cut. Quite simply, the Ryan budget will exacerbate the wealth gap in America.
And Obama is scheduled to run $6-7 trillion in future deficits. Ryan will cut the deficit to maybe $3 trillion, but it could increase because of the rosy projections that Ryan proposes, like assuming that revenues will rise to 19% of GDP without any tax increases. And I have yet to hear any proof supporting your argument.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
I never said that it was lower absolutely. I only said that it went down compared to GDP, which it did. Check post 1.130.
No, tax increases on the wealthy won't completely solve the deficit, but it's a start.
*** The tax debate cometh
As the republicans get more stupider.
What possesses the right wing fringe group to continuously call this President more disrespectful, hurtful names than any other president in history has everything to do with him being a Black president.
The more they name call the more they will turn people off. It has gone beyond ridiculous.
Obama in 2012
Ron Indiana
I can't believe FT used my title. "Stupid is as Stupid does".
Dr Ron you have always been a voice of reasonable interpretation. Yes, you may used Wooden Willard ; but please use it in this context Wooden "Myth" Romney . The "Myth" emphasis there is a reality.
Was not a problem for you when President Bush was called names. I think all presidents regardless of party are entitled to be respected. I do not agree with Preident Obama but I do call him President Obama. What are we teaching our children?
Beverly- Is there any real value to name calling? All you've given this dialog is vitriol, completely worthless. Here's a thought- how about a rational, educated dialog? I'll go first:
On the article- Firstly, MSNBC again is clearly in the democratic tank- but I knew that because of the authors noted. They even BOLDED democratic "fairness" vs Republican "cuts". Let's be a bit honest here, both parties have a bit of a resonable argument here. Democrats want the rich to pay more, ok so we need to change some tax laws. Republicans want some cuts to stimulate the economy, so we need to figure out which taxes would best cut to stimulate job creation. Ok so we need to leverage the new personal income taxes the democrats with the Republicans incentives for businesses to grow. That should be doable, IF we decide that both parties can talk to each other. Unfortunately this is an election year, so don't expect either party to extend a hand that might actually be helpful (that's a weakness).
See Bev, this isn't so hard, is it?
Now on to the rich and the "Buffet rule". My greatest problem is that this is a disengenuous argument. Mr. Buffet is a massive tax cheat, yet he's in the President's good graces so he gets a pass. Mind you that most of his "gains" are capital gains (money you make post income and income taxes- aka your investments), so him paying less than his secretary is really a joke as she lives off of her actual salaried income. They are taxed differently. Where Mr. Buffet cheats is in business taxes. A number of his companies are not paying their taxes and Birshire Hathaway owes the government over $2 billion from 2005 alone. You see, he's working the system from both ends. As long as we can talk openly about the issues we can work this out.
I do think that the really wealthy can afford to pay more in taxes, but I don't think that the $250,000 threshold is the right point. Most metropolitan areas cost significantly more to live in, so that $250,000 may be needed to own a home and have generally average services. I'm not saying that it's not a lot, but I am saying that markets should be considered. I'd set it at $300,000 or $350,000. One issue I do have is the amount of additional taxes the rich pay. I'm not rich, but I do understand that if you took all of the money and property they have you wouldn't fill the spending gap ($1+ trillion) for a year. Then what? So, you can't make things "right" just by taking money from the wealthy. You can make adjustments, but you HAVE to cut spending too.
On the "fairness" front, I'm all for everyone paying something in taxes. That way everyone has a reason to be involved and concerned about government overspending. Yes, it all comes back to you. So I'm fine with putting $100 down in taxes for the $10 a low income person puts in, but we'll both be represented more equally. As a percentage it IS possible for everyone to pay something and it does set up some fiscal responsibility.
lulu98
The difference now is that it's Republican LEADERS who are engaging in this name-calling, not just us loud mouths on the net. There were very few times when that happened while Bush was president. There were a few exceptions, of course. Republicans wailed and moaned when Harry Reid called G. W. Bush "a loser". Reid shouldn't have said that, even though Bush obviously was the biggest loser to sit in the Oval Office since Warren Harding.
As for Grassley, he's the loser who used to be for individual health insurance mandate until Obama was for it.
Like a sitting Vice-President telling a Senator to "Go F*ck himself" on the Senate floor...
The "Dick" is a real class act...
Joe you didn't really expect any of them to actually respond to a debate like yours did you? I don't I've ever once seen any of the usual suspects engage in anything other than vitriol and divisiveness. That's all their here for, that's all their good for and they take their cues from their political masters.
Of course we could solve the tax problem or any other problem if reasonable people sat down and practiced the age old art of diplomacy. But that isn't what the political scene is about anymore, it's become something where you deny your opponent any kind of "victory" while constantly and steadily moving the line of hate speech in the wrong direction. I hope that when it all comes crashing down that people like Bev and Feisty will still be as vocal about being part of the solution.
Ruken
So by that logic and looking at my last pay stub, I must be a Republican.
Rightfully so; Ruken!
Unless, you have a brick on you taxes are oil executive, corporate CEO, or a war profiteer your taxes went down.
I'm waiting for someone to develop a chip for my television that is able to detect a "crossroads GPS" advertisement, and shut off the sound to my T.V.
Technology vs Citizen United.
JoeNY
Beverly- Is there any real value to name calling? All you've given this dialog is vitriol, completely worthless. Here's a thought- how about a rational, educated dialog? I'll go first:
Go where to get educated? Even the sand box is too much for your feeble intelligence. See? You are too stupid to go anywhere
Ha Ha ☺
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Cheney was obviously the role model for the wingnuts who post to this forum.
Posting this here modified from an earlier comment I made in another discussion that relates to this supposed "Buffet Rule." This relates a lot to what Joe also mentioned above.
"Why do people constantly confuse long term (over 12mo) capital gains taxes with income taxes? Granted we have a convoluted tax system, but it is pretty self explanatory. When you make money at your job, you pay your SS and medicare taxes on your gross income, and you pay federal income tax on your earnings after deductions. In the above example where by Mr. Bus Owner he was paying 21% overall federal income taxes! This is because we have a progressive tax system where you pay 15% on the first $18k or so, and then 18% on the next bracket, and then 25%, and on and on and on. Now, if you take that money and put it in a 401k, or stock options, that amount is deducted from your taxable federal income FOR THE TIME BEING. This is to encourage you to save for your retirement or invest back into your company. When you go to sell your stock options, or start withdrawing from your retirement accounts you THEN pay the differed taxes. This allows you to make interest on that additional differed tax amount as long as you hold that investment. SEPERATELY any money that you make on those stock holdings or retirement accounts above and beyond your initial invest amounts are considered capital gains and taxed on a totally seperate system than federal income. Obviously if you use any money in your bank account to buy stocks you have ALREADY PAID federal income taxes on them, thus any increase in those stock values at the time of sale is once again, a Capital Gain. In 2011/2012 the maximum capital gains tax rate was 15%. The US tax system has a multitude of available deductions, apparently Mr. Romney qualified for enough deductions to bring his overall average down to 13.9%.
It is not a conspiracy, it is not "unfair" he is not "paying less than you" or any such nonsense. The tax system in this country may be complicated, and difficult to even begin to understand, but even the most basic of familiarity with the DIFFERENT TYPES of tax rates make it easy to understand why someone who is making the majority of their income from INVESTMENT appears in the short term to be paying less in capital gains taxes then someone who is WORKING and paying federal income taxes."
I personally think it is sad that President Obama is trying to essentially use America's ignorance of our bloated tax system to get people to agree with raising all captial gains taxes to be treated as regular income tax, which will completely destroy the investment market in this country. And this will effect every American, not just the rich, if capital gains taxes are essentially eliminated.
What America needs is to massively simplify our tax code and cut the fat out of the system. Come up with flat taxes at all levels, eliminate most if not all deductions, and make sure everyone is paying a share. Not only then would everyone have skin in the game, and not be able to essentially vote themselves out of paying taxes through policy makers, but we would eliminate all the money that is unneccesarily taken out of the system each year by tax professionals, filling costs, and IRS oversight. We could durastically simplify the purposes of the IRS, make it so any American could file their own taxes without the need of years of education, software, or a paid professional to make sure they are doing everything right and getting the most deductions possible. I think we would free up a lot of money that is spent each year just making sure we are all paying taxes correctly, to be spent on other goods and services we actually want/need to have.
JoeNY...thanks for your intelligent comments...your contribution based on facts and critical thinking is a requirement for any viable argument.
Also Joe, you are very much correct with the absurdity of this $250k/yr household income number. It all very much has to do with the cost of living where one is as you mentioned. There are some places in this country you could practically be the king of town with $250k a year, and some places like NYC that even without living an exorbitant lifestyle, with a couple of kids to take care of, you might be doing just a little better than living paycheck to paycheck comfortably. That is just $125k/yr per spouce if both are working, and in a big city like NYC with its high costs, that would hardly be an inattainable number.
I live in a place with higher costs of living then much of American, South Florida, but still not as high as NYC, but I can definitely see how having an arbitrary number that the government considers "rich" and in need of paying "their fair share" doesn't take into account any other factors in play and is naive.
And why is it that we want to punish couples making $250k/yr in income, who are likely to be small business operators, mid level management, and even higher income blue collar workers?
JoeNY
You are mistaken. Here's what First Read article above said:
Note the equal emphasis on the words "fairness" and "hikes". You should read more carefully and stop imagining liberal bias where there clearly is none.
Obama has cut taxes several times already on individuals and businesses. More tax cuts are unlikely to do much to stimulate the economy as long as people aren't spending money for a variety of reasons. There have been enough tax cuts. What's needed is more investment in things like infrastructure and education that have short-term stimulative effects and long-term value to the economy and the welfare of the people who live here ("welfare" in the US Constitution sense of the word, not the derogatory meaning preferred by conservatives.)
They capitalised FAIRNESS and HIKES... seemed fair to me...
Oh for God's sake, why do we need more tax cuts???? The Bush tax cuts cost over $3 trillion over 10 years and did NOTHING!!!!! Why do we need any more tax cuts??? Cutting taxes in a progressive system benefits the wealthy far more than the middle class. I agree that we need diplomacy, but we don't need to negotiate on things that we know won't work. That's why I say repeal the Bush tax cuts, increase the top rate to 45% and second highest to 39%, cut $2.5 trillion in spending over ten years, and reform Medicare and Social Security. If the GOP want tax cuts, let them go to payroll tax cut, as it is a regressive tax system and will benefit the middle class more.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Freshie- Thank you for your comment! Finally, someone whom wants a dialog of ideas, not more political BS.
If it was up to me, I'd throw out the tax laws as they exist and go with either a flat tax system or a simple progressive tax structure with no write-offs (>$100,000 = 10%, 100,000-150,000 = 15%, etc.) I'm sure that brighter minds than mine could figure out the right percentages, but you get the point. Again, by everyone having some commitment to our national budget, we'll have more people interested in the bang we are(n't) getting for our bucks.
Then I'd start reforming, like you noted, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. It's clear that anyone receiving Social Security should continue to receive it, but the younger ones of us should get it by now that we can't have it like it is (time for higher age requirements, possibility of a percentage being invested in alternate- maybe even government run- systems, etc.). All of the big domestic programs are insolvent and running up our unfunded debt. We can't afford them as they are. If we could cut the waste/fraud out of Medicare and Medicaid we'd save billions/year.
Then there's the cutting- I'm in for reforming/cutting defense and all other government divisions. Everyone knows that there is a lot of waste in defense spending (IE- Congress moving the Osprey program along while the DOD said they don't want it), so cleaning it up will save billions. We can do this across the board.
I do believe we can right the ship before we hit the rocks, but with hack partisan bickering we won't and then we'll all just sit around the ashes pointing trying to blame each other for us having nothing left.
JoeNY & Freshiee,
Thanks for the reasoned posts! Personally, I feel the number one thing we need is a balanced budget amendment. This would force politicians to be honest about what things cost. If we want everyone to receive the current level of benefits and we want to maintain the current level of defense spending, then fine - we'll have to significantly increase taxes to pay for it. If we don't want to increase taxes, then fine - we'll have to make cuts.
What we are doing now is not sustainable. I don't think we're about to be the next Greece, but I think this could happen in another 10 years. If we ever do become another Greece, it's not going to be pretty...our economy is too large for anyone to bail us out. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail long before that happens.
Freshiee--so you would create a top rate of 45% that along with any of the state and local rates would mean that over 55% plus payroll taxes go to the government. So when our local small business owner gets to keep 40 cents out of every dollar of income and he says I want to open up the next Dunkin Donuts, Hallmark store etc, for the risk of his investment you want to allow him to only keep that much of his hard working efforts. Wow, you do realize that economists of every single political persuasion understand what the cost of investment capital means for job growth right? When the cost of capital gets to the point where the benefits are so small in comparison to the risks, they dont invest. A top rate of 45% would be a huge jobs killer. Its not the top rate that needs to be revised but eliminating social engineering and all of the deductions and loopholes. Reduce the rate while increasing revenue will actually spur investment. Dont get caught in the class warfare BS being spewed by guys like David etc who dont understand basic economic behavior.
I would create a top marginal rate of 45%, but then again I would make the effective tax rate to approximately 36% by tax credits. And that is for income tax. Capital gains would be approximately 25%, with a maximum effective rate of at least 21%. And tell me this, the top rate in the Clinton era was approximately 40%, and people still invested. Why didn't people stop investing.
And whose saying class warfare??? Not on the left. All we want is a fair progressive tax code. In my opinion, the right has declared war on the middle and lower classes for the past 30 years, cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating the economy, which increased income inequality, ballooned our debt, and caused our economy to implode in 2008. And when the left suddenly says that they are tired of cutting taxes for the "holy job creators" and wants to put fairness back into the tax code they are blasted for being anti-success. Why don't you target your class warfare chants against Romney??? His tax plan raises taxes on those who make less than $40,000 while giving over $100,000 in tax breaks to the wealthy??? Where the @!$%# is the class warfare now???? Class warfare my ass. Go ahead and keep spouting that class warfare stuff, but you know in your heart that it's a lie. To quote Warren Buffet, there is class warfare, and right now the rich are winning. We worked well in the 1950s when the tax rate was 90% and the effective rate was 40%; why not raise the marginal tax rate to 45% and the effective to 36%. Are you that beholden to the rich that you refuse to raise taxes even when our current fiscal and economic crisis requires it????
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Freshiee--Why do you need a top marginal tax rate of 45% why do you not want to make the code simpler, fair and eliminate social engineering. Your correct, the Clinton era top tax bracket was 39.6% but he lowered the capital gains rate helping fuel the investment boom into the internet. I voted for Clinton both times and think he was a great president. He also adopted Newt Gingrich's contract for America and reformed government spending to some extent. The wealthy pay a higher percentage of federal income tax than they ever have in the history of this country. Income inequality is not because of tax policy but because of many things including the education gap (the largest driver), government assistance programs in which our poor and middle class workers pay into a social security system that pays for the benefits of our wealthy seniors, legal and illegal immigration, the move to businesses owned in flow through entities where instead of building up wealth (owned in corporate stock), they build up wealth via income earned in flow through entities showing up on the individuals tax return etc. Both parties have been responsible for creating this mess, but the idea that Obama's economic policies have been helpful is just not consistent with the facts. Romney's plan doesnt give tax breaks to the rich and you know it. He is reducing the rate while eliminating loopholes and deductions which is likely to attract more investment capital and grow the economy faster much like Clinton and Reagan did. I am not beholden to the rich, I want to see a fair more simple and yes progressive tax system and I want Obama to stop making up stuff about the wealthy and see you continue that by acting like the poor and middle class even pay any income tax at the moment. I dont have a problem with the wealthy paying more in a more fair system, but lets quit acting like the poor and middle class have even been payiing anything.
Kirk-The rich pay more because they CONTROL more money. The top fifth controls 93% of the income earned in America. They get taxes on that, and eventually they pay more. We can at least mitigate the tax policy issue and then focus on other factors.
Obama's policies HAVE helped the economy. The stimulus was PROVEN to help the economy and created millions of jobs. Note how job losses turned positive after the stimulus passed. Romney's tax plan DOES; check this site: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10010062-wealthy-would-benefit-most-from-romney-plan?threadId=3313426&commentId=61335691#c61335691.
You do also know that many who don't pay income tax cannot pay because they are poor, unemployed, or retired??? Not all are freeloaders. And I do want to encourage investment here. But taxes is only part of the problem. Investors will invest if they can make a profit, and frankly I don't see how they would forsake profit for paying just a little more in taxes. Plus why don't we move capital gains to its rate in the Clinton era, which was higher than it is now. And what is Obama making up bout the wealthy??? Most who can pay an income tax DO. Even under your 47% assertion, that is true. And those who don't make enough to pay income tax still pay payroll taxes and other things. Don't think there is a major block in America that pay no taxes. And let's quite acting like tax cuts for the rich will lead to another economic boom. Economists doubt that.
Oh and Romney doesn't state which deductions that he is going to eliminate or reduce. We don't even know that he will do that.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
A History Of Republicans Slamming Judges
StumbleUpon
Instapaper
Reddit
digg
Brian Beutler & Sahil Kapur April 6, 2012
If the week of April 2, 2012, goes down in political history, it’ll be for the fact that Republicans suddenly rediscovered their reverence for the third branch of government.
This is a rich new twist for the GOP, which has made decades of sport out of attacking an out-of-control judiciary for legislating from the bench. You literally only have to look back to this GOP presidential primary to find examples of Republicans questioning the courts’ legitimacy and even threatening to neuter them using powers reserved for the other two branches of government.
Here’s a brief digest:
— Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) now says Obama is trying to “bully” the Supreme Court. But in 2004 he sponsored legislation that would have drastically altered the nation’s system of checks and balances — it would have allowed Congress to overturn a high court decision with a two-thirds majority in each chamber.
— In 2005, furious at the courts over the Terri Schiavo case, Majority Leader Tom DeLay vowed that the Republican-controlled House would “look at an arrogant and out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president.” He said the “time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.”
— At the Palmetto Freedom Forum in September 2011, Newt Gingrich argued that “the legislative and executive, on occasion, have a right to correct the judiciary, or the judiciary is the dominant branch and can dictate to the rest of us.”
— In Iowa one year ago, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that the federal government can “limit the subject matter that justices can rule on. We have it within our authority to decide what judges can rule on and what they can’t.”
— At a GOP primary debate last October, Rick Santorum said same-sex marriage was authorized in Iowa because “seven justices forced gay marriage on the people” and in response, he went to Iowa “and made sure that those three justices were defeated.”
— Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), a member of the GOP leadership, warned against “judicial activism in July 2009 on the Senate floor. He said overreach by the courts “has the necessary consequence of taking power away from the elected representatives and thus the people themselves, and conferring those in life-tenured, unelected judges.” Years earlier he said a spate of attacks on courthouses might be linked to overzealous judging. “I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. … And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have.”
— Mitt Romney slammed the Massachusetts Supreme Court when it “inexplicably” permitted same-sex marriage and said that he “fought to have a stay on that decision.”
—Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said “activist judges” assume the judiciary is “a super-legislature of moral philosophers entitled to support Congress’s policy choices whenever they choose.” He said the Constitution “solely tasks the Congress with creating law, not the courts.”
— President Bush argued that “judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government.” On the campaign trail, he declared judicial activism a province of the left: “If you think activist judges should be allowed to redefine our country and issue new laws for the bench, vote Democrat. But if you believe the role of the judge is to strictly interpret the Constitution and leave the legislating to the legislators, vote Republican.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/a-history-of-republicans-slamming-judges-video.php
______________________________________________________
Oh puleeeese
A reporter asked for an Opinion from the President. He got an opinion from the President.
First of all let me point out that Opinions are like A$holes most everybody has one and if the Bushra that is put up here every day is any indication nobody has made any attempt to restrict the practice no matter how inane.
So the President has an opinion. Last I checked the Constitution did not preclude that. Feel free to agree with it, disagree with it, ignore it or just plain old disregard it as I’m sure that most of the Supreme Court is. Personally I’m not real sure of old Thomas I think he has Rabbit Ears just like a bad baseball umpire but I’m pretty sure that the rest of them are secure enough in their station either real or imagined that they aren’t paying much attention to it.
But spare me the Faux Outrage especially seeing as how some of you’ll Yahoo’s have made a career out of it and said and attempted to do a heck of a lot worse.
Well said, IR. Oh how they squeal when the tables are turned...
Thanks IR:
I find myself in a virtually constant state of disbelief thanks to Republican projection. Republican legislation mandating vaginal penetration with a foreign object against a woman's wishes is just what women want. Lefties, who object to this state-approved rape, hate women.
Republicans giving tax cuts to the rich, who by definition have plenty of money, while raising taxes on the poor is not class warfare. Lefties who note that people who do not have money cannot pay taxes, are fomenting class warfare.
Republicans who are opposed to paying for health care for the poor are Christians. Those who favor health care for all, like that hippie guy Jesus, are savages who hate God.
President Obama still faces a fight and for three reasons. The first is identity. Republicans are going to vote Republican regardless of whether they deliver on their promises. The second is based on the color of the President's skin. Bigotry is alive and thriving in the G.O.P., all the empty protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. The third is simple stupidity. That there is such a large number of people unable to see that the G.O.P. is the party of lies, dishonesty, and disinformation is stunning.
Stamp out Republicans. Educate their children.
The question a reporter asked was this: "How would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those Americans who've become insured as a result of the health care law?" The president then used that question to go into his riff about how the Court striking down the law would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary" action. There is ample precedent for the Court to strike down laws as unconstitutional, and the president with his background as a constitutional scholar knew – or should have known – that his remarks on this point were completely wrong. The issue in play here is not one of the president's "opinion" but rather on his deliberate misuse of facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-selective-memory-of-supreme-court-history/2012/04/08/gIQARSnK4S_blog.html?hpid=z1
So David, according to you Republicans won't vote for Obama because they are stupid, racist, sheep.
What an incredibly uninformed narrow world view you have.
Pathetic.
A recent article pointed out that 3 former Presidents publicly rebuked the Court in the past. Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR. Presidents are indeed able and entitled to give reasoned statements speaking to their concerns. That freedom is written in our Constitution. Are you for suppressing someone's rights Bill? Don't answer that. I know the answer.
Excellent commentary David.
WCA:
That is not at all what I said. Overdosed on your breakfast of dogma food, did you?
What I explained was why many Republicans vote for Republicans. I said nothing about race. I have always maintained that race is a straw man. We are ALL descended from a common ancestor. Bigot, WCA. That's what I said. BIGOT.
So, once again for the comprehension-challenged, many Republicans will vote Republican because they are identity-driven, they are bigots, and they are stupid.
What the rwnj's like to pretend to "forget" DCIA, is that the onus is on the judges keep the courts out of politics all together. That slide began when the Supreme Court inserted itself into a Presidential election.
That judge on the Fifth Circuit gave a full demonstration of why he does not have the temperament necessary to be on the court, and should be impeached.
So Bill the Presidents misuse of the “facts” are somehow different from Republican/T.P. misuse of the “facts” to attack the Supreme Court and they’re decisions. That is disingenuous even for you. You ought to be ashamed if you can’t do any better than that.
IR -- He has no shame but should. Sad but true, IMO.
No David, many of us who have voted for Clinton and other democrats in the past, realize that Obama is in way over his head on economic policy and is driving this country to bankruptcy. We dont walk around spouting off extremes as you just posted and want economic policies that dont eliminate self reliance, personal accountability and attempt to create equal outcomes for all. When we have comments like Fiesty who thinks that having money offshore is somehow bad but she doesnt seem to understand that her boy Soros probably had 10 times the amount offshore or Buffet or any wealthy person because diversification is normal. You seem to think education would make people who vote for a GOP candidate think differently but have you actually read some of the stuff True Patriot, Backhouse and Beverly write? Do you guys spend your days reading Robert Ludlum books and thinking Ronald McDonald is taking over the world because he is a big bad evil corporation? You guys remind me of Chris Farley when he says "You guys have been smoking doobies in van down by the river" I wonder if its not crack too.
The excuse machine is already coming up to speed for Obama and his little minions like Mr. Walker. Of course Obama wants to make this about race, what else would the most divisive president in modern times do? And trying to pin the "dishonesty" and "lies" label on the GOP and ignore the Democrats is a real heavy lift for any Liberal.
And you left one out Mr. Walker. You forgot that people will vote against Obama because of the thing he least wants to talk about, his failed record.
DCIA,
It's an inherent trait amongst the GNOP!
DWalker #3.2: The second is based on the color of the President's skin.
DWalker: #3.6: I said nothing about race. I have always maintained that race is a straw man.
All in three posts and a few minutes DW contradicts himself. It's almost like two different people are posting on the same name. Multiple personalities perhaps?
David did you know one of the main characteristics of race is ones skin color?
Stereo-type much? You have really gone off the rails and into the high grass.
Seems the Gee OH Pee have too many "inherent" traits. Let's add hypocrisy and fabricators. Two of the more outstanding traits that come to mind! ; )
JAS1:
Again with the comprehension issues. WCA is not alone. Same dogma food?
I lined it out for you. Our species is commonly referred to as the human RACE. Distinctions within that race simply refer to new sup-groups based on any number of characteristics, color being merely one of many. In your world, an organ's melanin content defines a race.
All of us, even you low-intellect types, are descended from a single ancestor. Where did that race issue arise? The answer is, it didn't.
Here's a nice little quote from WikiPedia:
Of course, that's science, and as we know one of the defining characteristics of Republicans is that they don't understand, and consequently hate science.
David, you are really struggling today.
Just between you and me, you completely have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
What a complete buffoon you are to make that statement. It really shows how ignorant you are.
JAS1 -- I think you are struggling. Grasping for anything but the truth. What's the matter, did the word Science throw you for a loop?
Get out of the tall grass JAS1, otherwise you might be trampled by turtles and giants.
DCIA,
Come on now... let's not pick of Snuffy...
She still believes you can get pregnant from sitting on a toilet seat! ;o)
If ignorant is bliss - she's in PURE ecstasy!
LOL Feisty, ain't that the TRUTH again! You are on a roll today. You truth teller!
Man Walker you need to put down the shovel.
One more time s l o w l y, you said:
Republicans are going to vote Republican regardless - Sheep
based on the color of the President's skin. - Racist
The third is simple stupidity - Well, stupid, I guess.
Then you said :
What I explained was why many Republicans vote for Republicans. I said nothing about race
Then you said: Our species is commonly referred to as the human RACE.
Then you posted some Wikipedia junk and more snivelling.
Like I said, it has been fun watching you dig this hole, but you ought to put down the shovel.
Are you implying that Republicans won't vote for Obama because he his HUMAN? Cuz, that would really be a problematic position for Republicans to take.
Dont_carry.... I'm still chuckling over the turtles and giants phrase. Maybe you should throw in snails!
Seeking -- Perhaps I assigned the wrong classification to JAS1. Virus, maybe? I can think of a few others that snails could indeed trample too. LOL I Think it over.
JoAnna, it is you who are showing your ignorance.
You read as far as the line in someone's post or speech that causes the dog whistle in your mind to sound. Off you go on a rant, ignoring the body of the post.
Then, when others try to discuss the topic, you double down, accusing others of any variety of misdeeds. And you call them names.
WCA:
OK, OK, I'll put you in the stupid category. That seems to be what you're after. Here you go with the Rovian evasion:
I implied nothing. My explanation was point blank. There is a subset of Republicans that will not vote for President based on bigotry. Give it up on the race nonsense. I have now explained this twice. What's the deal? You guys have to have everything explained three times?
I don't know how many times you have been exposed as a one-dimensional right-winger. We get it. You can stop now.
Ah, JAS1, spouting more right-wing propaganda??? I think Obama has talked a lot about his record. Let me start off with healthcare reform (compromise with GOP), successful stimulus package (saved economy; ask any economist), supporting a fair tax code (no more tax cuts for the wealthy), two years of consecutive private sector job growth, showing political compromise during deficit talks in the summer, attacking Republicans for "War on Women," rational foreign policy that toughens stance on enemies (Iran and al Qaeda) and reasserts American dominance, refraining from sending the F-18s and using diplomacy to settle disputes, and killing bin Laden and over 20 of his fellow commanders. Got anything else to say, JoAnna???? Didn't think so. Why do you right-wingers come to MSNBC anyway if you hate it??? Tired of listening to the crap that Fox News throws at you???
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Sorry Walker, but Merraim-Webster disagrees with you:
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
You can try to walk this back a dozen times and it still won't change the fact that you are a narrow minded bigot yourself. Cuz, this definition fits you to a "T".
Independent Redneck Va.#3: Accurate historical facts there, good Friend. Just proves again, republicans can, and often do, talk out both sides of their mouths when they wish to address the general public with hypocritical outrage. They reserve speaking through their anal orifices while addressing their membership base though. Regards
WCA - are you really going to stand behind the claim that racism was the motivating factor behind the Germans exterminating the Jews, or the Rwanda genocide, Croatia-Serbia massacres, Kosovo slaughter? Silly me, I thought that was all ethnic bigotry, which describes many in the GOP to a tee (sprinkled with gender bigotry).
Red, can you read the definition of bigot that I pulled from the dictionary?
I highlighted a specific area on purpose.
If you look closley you will see it has 2 components.
Are you guys really this slow or is it just because it's Monday?
Thank you, Bubba Watson, for reminding us that it's okay for men to get emotional. Congratulations on the big win.
That was awesome, eh Noid?
That approach on the 2nd playoff hole was incredible. a 160 yard - hook wedge 10 feet from the cup.
Always been a big fan of Bubba's. Happy to see him win.
Second shot at 10 in the playoff was the stuff of legends...and he made that shot blind (he couldn't see the green) and had to hook it about 30-40 yards to hit the green.
(I could hook it 30-40 yards but not on purpose.)
...and he needed the crowd to tell him it was good.
No shame in Oosthuizen coming in second yesterday...especially after the albatross on 2. Unbelieveable!!!
Yeah, Louis double eagle shot had eyes for sure. That was cool.
My game is a lot like Bubbas. Kind of. I end up in the woods a lot, but I don't get out of them nearly as well.
I agree too, that it was cool to see his emotions. So much is said of the "robotic - no emotion golfers" that it was refreshing to see Bubbas reaction.
It is always encouraging to me to see them recover from bad shots---as WCA says, we all make them and it is nice to see them turned around.
Glad for Bubba to have a major and to be a new dad---a momentous year for him.
It always makes me smile when I see a man get emotional after a well-deserved win like Watson made. To see him appreciate what he had done so much was absolutely perfect for Augusta. And, for him to get to go home to his new son afterward - what a great Easter!
What seems stupid to me is a United States senator lowering himself to idiot tweet shorthand. I miss the days when elected officials (from both parties) would look at this stuff like the crap communication it is.
Amen Paul!
Hope you had a wonderful Easter!
I am, Feisty (still going on). Thanks, you too!
I agree with you Paul.
When I see a headline that starts out "Senator/Congressman,etc tweets...." I cringe.
Doesn't matter what side. These folks ought to know better.
Or at least have someone smart enough in their inner circle to stop them.
Holy Crap Dude!
I voted you up again WCA! : )
"...I cringe."
Think that's a lot of us, WCA. I'm probably on the extreme end, though. I still cringe when I see color pictures in the Washington Post. I tend to think just because you can doesn't mean you always should. The old black and white had a classy look, and it doesn't seem many care about that anymore. Now it's just make everything as fast and flashy as technology allows, rather than the older focus on intelligent content. Well, an overstatement perhaps, but I do think with some degree of truth behind it.
Paul,
I wondered when I read the remark from Grassley does he really know how to tweet, text etc? Or does one of his aids do it for him?
I remembered a CEO of a hospital here in MN. He had a all his emails transcribed every morning by his personal secretary onto pink phone slips so he could answer his email. He would write the response and then his secretary would answer his email.
So lets see old Grassley prove he is a modern guy... waiting for the video.
I'd have slightly more respect for him if he was having his thoughts translated into tweet babble. I'd have more still if he just ignored that Twitter existed and stuck to more mature forms of communication. Same for all politicians, who seem more than ready to prove their idiocy... er, I mean their modernity.
To me, seeing a middle aged elected official tweet something like what Grassley did is akin to a 1960s elected official using the word "groovy" in a floor speech. Just looks awkward and forced, and embarrassing both for the individual saying it and for the people who elected him or her.
Now, that's not even discussing the content of this particular Twit message. There also was a time when office holders didn't just throw out these insults: "You're stupid." "No, you're stupid." "Oh yeah? Well I'm rubber you're glue..."
They had heated debates, but actually spent the time required to think of more intelligent ways to win those debates.
Guess it's more evidence that Idiocracy wasn't just a comedy.
What the hell is "Twitter"?
Seems to me that regardless of the medium in which it delivered, the message shows once again a deplorable lack of respect for the President.
And it astounds me that the Republicans speak with derision of the President having been a constitutional law professor at one of the pre-eminent law schools in our country. Only in the world of the right wing can this be a negative.
Steeler Fan - I think the derisiveness when referring to Harvard is more jealousy than anything else. Most of the ones putting President Obama down wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting into Harvard. Most of them aren't qualified to carry books for students from good schools!
All politicians should undergo Twitter and Facebook "training" before they use any social media. As WCA mentioned, I cringe when Twitter is used in any headline in a political forum. These folks either post idiotic words or sordid pictures, which is fine except when you're representing others! They ought to stick to email, which already causes them enough trouble.
SeekingSanity----the President taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago School of Law. He was President of the Law Review at Harvard. These are accomplishments that should be respected and instead are spoken of with derision. I think it goes beyond jealousy.
And Romney suggests that the President spent "too much time" at Harvard when Mitt was there a year longer. It is right out of the Republican playbook of false accusations and deflections. Could anybody be more out of touch than someone who thinks nothing of putting elevators in the garage at their beach house?
Steeler Fan - so true! I think the elevator in the house will be coming up in sooooo many ads this fall. I would have the background music "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer". What a moronic thing for ANY politician to do. Just shows this man cannot think logically!
Well said Steeler.
Hey, Joe in Albany, aren't you usually the one who points to the underemployment number when the jobs report comes out? Why don't you want to talk about it this time?
Maybe it's because underemployment fell to a 3-year low of 14.5% in March and the drop in underemployment of 447,000 in March represents the 6th-biggest drop ever.
Hoopy doopy Noid.
I notice that you don't say anything about the 2.5 MILLION that aren't considered underemployed or unemployed, but have just given up looking because there's nothing out there.
Only idiots talk about how the "underemployment" numbers have fallen and think that it shows signs of "recovery".
Explain how you and Obama are going to explain those 10,000 that Sony is cutting, along with the 6,000-9,0000 retail stores that will shut down this year.
Plenty of fast food jobs for them to choose from.
You want Obama to explain why a Japanese corporation is cutting jobs?
Sources please?
You reading the tea leaves just ain't gonna cut it honey!
Does this mean Joe in Albany is an idiot for talking about how bad the underemployment numbers were whenever positive job numbers were being reported?
Just remember - the GNOP and their supporters find facts hard to fathom - they rather deal Faux (fox) news facts....fact is "THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
Oh, Noid. Not using the old noodle again.
See, an anemic jobs report resulted in a drop in unemployment- strictly through the magic of the amazing, disappearing civilian labor force. Another 184,000 people either hit the lottery, inherited big from some 1% relatives, or, otherwise, found a way to exist sans employment- or the need for such.
Now, let's do some extrapolation, shall we? Remember, please, that the unemployment numbers are based on a household survey- so, do you think that
A. Some of those "underemployed" folks are among the lucky lottery winners, or
B. the survey was off?
Probably a bit of both- but pay closer attention to "B". Why? Hours got cut last month.
That means there a re a lot of folks who WERE working full time now working part time.
Against their wills and better judgment.
Da Noid asked:
"Does this mean Joe in Albany is an idiot for talking about how bad the underemployment numbers were whenever positive job numbers were being reported?"
Yes, it does. However, there are other many other reasons to believe he is an idiot as well.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikamorphy/2011/12/31/2012-another-bad-year-for-store-closings/
Google Keywords: 2012 retail stores close 6000
Your continuous placement of your head up your butt amounts to the same thing.
Funny thing - NO where in the entire article did it mention they have CLOSED...
Get back to us on 12.31.2012
A position you are all to familiar with Snuffles especially today...
Be a dear, and at least try to bring your 'B' game to the field - I'm actually embarrassed by the ass kicking your taking today...
It's painful to watch... NOT!
Here's Dumb Fux and friend going to the voting polls in Illinois the other day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efyrzAewjz8
Poor thing - you get your ass handed to you yet again & this is the best you could do?
LMFAO!
Rather then searching YouTube, be a dear and highlight where those 9,000 stores closed per your 'source'...
Come on old gal, you can do it!
Feisty
Its too funny watching JAS1 try and change the subject when you AGAIN point out she cant site her "source"
Screaminglib,
Unlike the right wing nuts who will eat anything you put in front of them, us loony liberals actually check their... ahem... 'sources'! ;o)
Apparently you can't read. See post #6.8.
No change of subject, Dumb Fux was too stupid to find that article herself, so it was hand fed to her, like most things have to be. And it's "cite", not "site" you illiterate idiot.
Blah Blah hiss hiss from the left.
It's not about taxes, it's about SPENDING, something that NO Democrat anywhere, anytime is willing to stop doing.
Look at the national debt clock, look at your state's debt clock. They're spending it FASTER than they're taking it in.
Funny you would say that last line about spending it faster than the money is coming in, yet you militantly refuse to acknowledge above that the "taking it in" is part of the equation.
It's not just about spending, or just about taxes, but rather how those two balance against one another.
My state has a surplus, we're paying down our debt.
Stop the incessant, unnecessary spending on tax subsidies for massively profitable corporations, especially the oil companies. They make plenty of money without the taxpayers having to chip in EXTRA.
As far as the usual wing-nut response that they will raise the prices, they are doing just fine on that already.
...which, of course, explains why Ryan's budget restores all of the defense spending cuts from 2011.
Historically, haven't we always reduced the defense budget after a war ended? Or have we reached a state in which perpetual war is accepted?(with only less than 1% carrying the burden? And no raised taxed to cover either the fighting nor caring for the soldiers when we let them go?
You can't support a strong domestic program and a strong defense program at the same time.
Countries that continued to increase their defense budget to the detriment of their domestic concerns were countries with different societal priorities than the U.S.(Japan,Germany,North Korea)
Katheryn, it's important for us to spend roughly half of all the money in global defense budgets, just to keep those pesky Japanese from hitting Hawaii again.
and Paul - here's the scary thing - when we get into our next major conflict ( I hear Iran saying they have an open date from right before our elections till ten years down the line) - do we increase the defense budget again?
ps - heard our defense budget equaled the entire world's budget for defense aquisition - is that true?
I believe that we spend a quarter of a trillion dollars every year on our overseas bases. The way I see it, we could approach this problem in two ways. One is to reduce total troop deployments in Europe and send most of the savings to America while transferring some troops to the Pacific. The other way is to go to each nation where we have a significant number of troops and tell them to cover half of the costs of keeping troops over there or paying us a "rental" fee for deploying troops, somewhere in the range of 40-50% of the expenditures. Before anyone says that they won't pay, remember that the bases are a major boost to the local and national economy. We take out our troops, and places like England and Italy could slip into recession. They would probably pay some of the costs, allowing us to use those savings to cut the defense budget.
So, why doesn't the media do a comparison/contrast of the Republican rhetoric towards the Judicial Branch when their party held the Office of the President?
No, real journalism and reporting has taken a backseat to sensationalism and the "entertainment" scooping of a story, whether true or false, before a rival network breaks it first.
As to the remark from the Republican Senator, it only further demonstrates the outright disrespect that these elected office holders have for Barrack H. Obama. I'm sure that if you go back in history you will find similar instances of this level of disrespect for the man elected by the country to hold the Office of the President but what makes this current round of "hate-speak" so vile is the immediacy of how it is communicated to the public by today's media. Whatever is said no matter if it is relevant or not is immediately published via the internet, tweeted by Twitter, Facebook-ed, Vined, etc. and thus immediately becomes available to a wide range of individuals. This immediacy was not the case during previous times of "hate-speak". During those eras the only means by which the public received the news was by virtue of printed papers or radio programs.
Today, everyone is a reporter, critic, expert, and editor of their own "media empire", but until "We the People" become more than sound-byte recipients who base their voting choices on whatever the latest political talking point of the moment is, we will continue to get people like Senator Grassley as our representative of American politics.
Too bad politicians like Senator Grassley have so little regard for what light comments like his cast to the rest of the world regarding the civility of all Americans, not just their politicians.
All economics boils down to supply and demand. Until we return to a progressive tax system and re-instate the inheritance tax the wealth of the nation will continue to accumulate at the top, leaving the middle class (demand side) poorer. Demand will continue to decrease and the economy will continue to falter.
As we have continued with a policy of trickle down economics, China has adoped basically a Keynesian model and their middle class has expanded, ours has shrunk. Think about it.
Just tax capital gains as 'unearned income'.
Get real... corporations kicking into campaigns for the right is no worse than Unions kicking in for the left... it's about time shareholders had the same opportunity to affect election results that union thugs have had for decades...
Fed Up - there is a total difference. Unions are made up of Americans. The corporate contributions are not filtered and many are coming from other countries. Our White House was never for sale to the highest bidder until the Supreme Court totally lost their collective minds.
Fed up, the total membership of unions is only 7%. Levels not seen since 1932. 7% of anything isn't even worth mentioning. Sounds like you're scared of a myth,about how powerful unions are these days. Get the facts before ranting and raving about something you obviously know nothing about. Typical right winger, stumble and blunder from one day to the next. You can't dazzle us with brilliance,so you try to baffle us with BS.
Rich-298746 - that's all the right has - BS.
Hey Pres, stop the bulls--t! Don't worry about ETCH-A-SKETCH, he's done, he's OLD NEWS! Push for a FLAT 8% FEDERAL INCOME TAX for EVERYONE, NO EXCEPTIONS; for EVERY individual, for Every corporate/business & ESPECIALLY for EVERY so-called "NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION/FOUNDATION"! You can reduce the size of the IRS and make it a viable FRAUD investigation & collection AGENCY.
Vote STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC, the life you save may be your own! And, if this doesn't work, we, the 99% American People will change to a NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT!
This message is being brought to you by a LIFELONG REPPUBLICAN, does that tell you something??
Flat taxes are horrible. They are hard on the poor and lax on the rich.
First off, it tells me that you are nowhere near being a life-long Republican. A flat tax will never be passed as long as we have Democrats in this country. About 1/2 the people don't pay federal income tax now; how will they EVER be able to pony up 8%??
I remember over the years during the campaigns Democrats calling the sitting President stupid and worse. Both sides need a better dialogue.
For the past 3 years americans have listened to the president blame the preceding president for all the bad. Some wrongful spending bt some federal employee has recently came up and the president blamed the preceding president that it was happening during that term as well.
Who cares. Fix the damn problem, that's all that needs to be done. The over spending abuse could go back to Kennedy, or the Eisenhower administration for all I know. Just stop blaming the world and use the time constructively to fix the issue. I have about came to the conclusion if former President George W. Bush is the one responsible for everything, then this President is responsible for nothing.
I want a President who is responsible. Obama and the Democrats keep saying George W. Bush is responsible, good let's vote him back in.
While he was President at least he said he was responsible, I do not remember in his 8 years him blaming Clinton. I do not remember Clinton blaming Bush Sr. or Reagan, or Carter.
We need unity in this country, for we have had division long enough. As of late those campaigning are all using name calling as their platform, we need none of the above.
We need President Responsible for the next 4 years. Our ears need a rest.
Obama cannot just conjure laws out of thin air. He needs Congress to actually pass laws for him.
Congress hasn't been doing that.
Ruken, there is no need for new laws to take care of the problem of waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds. They exist already.
Three quarters of that department should have been summarily fired, but only the head of the department was forced to "retire". What does that mean? Full pension.
She should have been terminated for misfeasance.
No, that was not Bush's fault. It was, and is, Obama's.
What the hell are you talking about?
The same thing reality was talking about. This
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/gsa-spending_b_1411916.html
Since you responded to reality, but had no idea what was being discussed, I assume your response was just a knee jerk reaction to anything negative about Obama.
Then you people try to tell me your not in a cult.
My response was a "knee jerk" towards someone who doesn't even understand the basic operational principles of our system of government.
Oh, and it's "you're", not "your". That's the difference between "knowing your sh*t" and "knowing you're sh*t".
During the past 6 years. 5 of them we had a majority of democratic congress, Barack Obama was among them before being elected President. This last year we have had a majority Republican House, the Senate is still majority Democrat as well as the administration. The Democrats were given a golden platter, they passed health care, which as a result is making it a challenge for many workers to afford health care, because the premiums keep going up along with everything else.
The democrats would still have the house if they had of included the voters instead of insulting our intelligence. The way it was handled was irresponsible, hurried through when it needed more thought and time, for this effected not just us, but our children and grandchildren. We needed Health Care Reform, however we are the ones who will live with it the same as we live with Social Security. The Democrats were in charge for the majority of the past 6 years, they forgot the people and their families they represent. They blame the republicans, but they as well have not been perfect either.
Can the Democrats learn from their errors? Or is all they can do is blame the other party?
Senator Brown introduced a bill, both sides passed it with little squabble and the President signed it into law this past week. Now that to me was cool! No squabbling, quick action. It was an abuse that I guess has been happening for years. now it is against the law for congress to participate in it. Problem resolved and the voters are happy.
No Joe,
Thank you. Yes that was what I listened to and heard the Presidents response on it .
When he got through with pointing out it was also happening in the previous administration, I thought to myself. Do I really want to hear for the next 4 years about the previous administration. Just fix the problem.
Ruken: that may be the most accurate, to the point response that poor no jo ever got on FR! Really funny and a laugh is a good way to start the week off. Thanks.
no jo: you are becoming increasingly frantic, simply because you do not get the attention that you think is due you. It is a singularly unattractive characteristic. When you post things that are accurate, people MIGHT take you more seriously.
No, Ruken.. In the context in which I used it-your reaction- I, properly, used the possessive. You're is the contraction of you are.
Get the difference?
As to reality's comments, to which you responded without knowing what the subject matter was, Martha N. Johnson was named head of the GSA in February of 2010.
Surely you remember who occupied the Oval office at that time. Here is a hint- it wasn't Bush.
Reality,
Actually in 1984 President Reagan, while running for reelection, was still blaming Carter for our countries economic woes.
Really?
Please try again no joe, no bo, nj.
Reality - you should actually know what you are talking about before you start spouting off. There was a filibuster proof Democratic congress for 7 months of President Obama's term. It was from July 7, 2009 to February 4, 2010. And, even then Senator Kennedy was out ill and there was recess for 14 weeks. Unfortunately President Obama tried to work with the GOP during that time - to no avail. Seriously, there is no reality in your world.
When is income not the same as income?
When you're a Republican who can't stand President Reagan. Sadly, that's 99% of today's Republican party. They idolize millionaire Mitt and the billionaire Koch brothers instead of working families.
I'm ok with allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if we could get the socialists to cut some of the annual deficit.
In 2009, the Obama commies TRIPILED the annual deficit from about $400 Billion to $1.3 TRILLION,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,there is easily $900,000,000.00 in waste we can cut from that number,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if we did not need it before 2009,,,,,,,,,,,,we do not need it now.
Obama adds more than a trillion a year to the national DEBT, all by himself.
As of today,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no democrap/socialist/communist elected official in the U.S. has offered to reduce spending on any government program. They only offer to slow the GROWTH of the programs to under 6% annually,,,odd when they claim there is no inflation.
Romney in 2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it is time for a president who can lead.
Obama offered the "grand deal" to Boehner last fall; cut spending by 3t and raise taxes by 1t. It was initially accepted and then refused. All GOP candidates agreed that they would not raise taxes even one cent, regardless of how much expenditures were cut.
BTW, Obama didn't initiate any programs that had $1.3 to the deficit. It was the result of declining tax receipts due to the deficit, two wars, bush tax cuts and relief benefits arising from the recession. Just so you know.
It also was due to President Obama putting the cost of the two Cheney/Bush wars on the budget, which Cheney/Bush kept off the budget to make their deficit spending look better.
paidmyfee - don't you realize that when you start dropping words like "socialist and communist" you make any comments you post totally worthless. That kind of stupidity is sooooo old. And, Romney couldn't lead anyone out of bag with holes in it. He has no leadership abilities. He has no plans. He has no thoughts. He has no spine. He has no integrity! But he does have you little right wingers fooled! Pathetic really!
Socialism:
is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system.
advocate redistributive taxation in the form of social welfare
Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
You are a socialist,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,get used to it. Karl Marx expects you to become a full blown communists at any time. Just like your president.
paidmyfee - nope! I'm not a socialist or communist. But, you prove over and over that you are an imbecile!
How does calling me names make it untrue?
It only makes you seem mentally weak, intellectually challenged and unable to form an intelligent response.
paidmyfee - so YOUR calling people names makes it true? Your lack of intelligence is only overshadowed by your lack of integrity. From the first day President Obama took office the far right has tried to frighten their less intelligence crowd by throwing out the "socialist" and "communist" words - as well as "muslim," knowing it will frighten those groups. They have played to their most ignorant in order to get votes. How sad that your party has to stoop so low knowing that you can only get votes by using scare tactics on those who intellectually challenged.
Okay this is gonna take some time so prepare yourselves because this is gonna be long.
Dude, check the facts. The 2009 budget was signed by Bush, and the expected budget was $400 billion. It actually was $1.4 trillion, thanks to the Great Recession.
Obama isn't necessarily responsible for the deficit. The majority of it is because of less revenue and increased spending on things like unemployment benefits because of the recession. For God's sake, you and the rest of your party (even Ron Paul) needs to read a book on economics.
As for your hateful rhetoric, I would advise you to stop calling people communists. This is 2012; not 1956. There isn't any Red Scare; no Joe McCarthy to bully the American people or scare the hell out of lawmakers and newsmen alike. Your party reminds me of the plutocrats in Tsarist Russia and pre-Revolution France. Always coddling the wealthy while hassling the little guy, eh???
For the budget cuts, what about the plan Obama offered to cut spending by $2.8 trillion and throw in $1.2 trillion in revenues in the summer of 2012??? If we had passed that, we probably wouldn't have been downgraded. And Obama did sign $2.4 trillion in cuts, so check and mate.
And since when will Romney balance the budget??? His tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to future deficits, raise taxes on the poor, and would require an astounding 5.4% GDP growth every year to be deficit-neutral, which was more growth than during the tech boom in the 90s. Romney is another right-wing snob and a sellout to the 1%. I would never vote for the Republicans if they put a gun to my head. Ever since they abandoned Teddy Roosevelt's positions they have been a party to despise. They were moderate in the 19540s and 50s, but raced toward the right in the 70s and 80s.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
I like the 14 traits of an Obama regime,they are all true.
Especially if you look at the way socialists abuse women in the media and through surrogates on radio and TV. Bill Mahar, David Letterman and Ed Schultz for instance calling for conservative women to be raped, have their children raped, calling the prostitutes and the like.
Obama and his minions have an endless list of enemies and publicly abuse and complain about anyone who dares to question the regime. Obama angages in endless blame and name calling to explain his nearly endless string of failures.
Obama has signed every onerous "national security" edict and piece of leglislation that has came down the pike in order to increase domestic spying on his enemies. He even has a White House web site dedicated to reporting those who disagree with him.
http://www.attackwatch.com/ If you know people who disagree with messiah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,report them here. Isn't it great,,,,,,,,,,,,like Hitler or Stalin got the internet.
I'm sure the fact the 100% of companies that got freebie loans from Obama contributed to his campaigns or to the DNC. Check out the list of those "green companies". OR GMC which got billions and Obama turned the company over to the unions as a reward for support him.
Now, thats rampant cronyism in a nutshell.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57367228/obama-backed-car-battery-maker-goes-bankrupt/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-12/obama-team-backed-535-million-solyndra-aid-as-auditor-warned-on-finances.html
http://www.examiner.com/business-and-finance-in-national/obama-free-taxpayer-money-for-green-energy-companies
http://www.investorplace.com/investorpolitics/another-obama-backed-green-energy-company-goes-bankrupt/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57358484/tax-dollars-backing-some-risky-energy-projects/
Here is a great story of a CEO from a company that PAID ZERO TAXES, and is now working for Barry in the White House.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/obama-picks-jeffrey-immel-ge-jobs-overseas_n_812502.html
Speaking of voter fraud,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/07/2008-voter-fraud-investigation-heats-indiana
Yeah, I know it is Fox, but it saves time to use this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVapPVz0VG8
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/27/acorns-stimulus Speaking of cronyism and voter fraud in one sentence.
CONTROLLED MASS MEDIA,,WHO IS KIDDING WHO? NEARLY ALL MEDIA WORKS DIRECTLY FOR OBAMA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6377910/White-House-aide-says-Barack-Obama-team-controlled-the-media.html
Like I said, you are socialists, with the typical traits of national socialism/facism. Your political party is intolerant of others, embraces voter fraud, cronyism and disinformation is advanced through government controlled media outlets. Your party uses overstated crisis and contrived crisis to drive it's agenda. You are actively engaged in a war against wealth and property. You have branded christians and upper class Americans as you once branded Jews. You are led by a man who does not know there are three co-equal branches of government.
and as always,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,when anyone dares to question the socialist agenda or your messiah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you resort to calling names, race baiting or accusing others of having your political views in the hopes of steering the discussion away from your glorious leader and his failures.
Intolerance and the hatred of women are themes of leftist politics. Providing "birth control" does not mean you support women in any way, shape or form. The vile things you say about women like Sarah Palin pretty much sum up your views of women in a nutshell.
paidmyfee
Can it, righty. I am damn tired of this stupid commie bashing. This 2012; not 1956. We don't live in the Red Scare anymore. So shut up. You right-wing fascists seem to kiss the ass of the wealthy. You do know it was the conservative part of America (now a part of the GOP) who bashed the Jews and the wealthy, right???
And wasn't the conservative part of America that opposed feminist rights, abortion, and equal opportunity for women??? So shut the hell up and crawl back to the cold cave where you came from, you fascist.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Got nothing but name calling,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sad little lefty.
I agree you are correct about one thing. It is not 1956. You are a communist/marxist/socialist and you believe the same things you always have.
You would gladly send anyone who opposes your dogma to a gulag or concentration camp,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,your kind always resorts to that solution. Given the chance to don a pressed brown shirt and join the party elite on an extermination campaign you would goose step into history.
New frontman,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,same old story.
Hahahahaha. You call liberals communists, and then you cry foul when they respond. Poor righty.
How the hell do you know that I am a Communist??? I'm going to bet that you don't know the difference between liberalism and Marxism. And you really think I would love to send somebody to a gulag??? Way to go with the hypotheticals, man.
Your side always reduces to name-calling and commie-bashing. My side also throws mud, but we don't always call our opponents fascists. Or Nazis, for that matter, as both are to the right of the political spectrum. So go ahead; call me a Communist. It won't change anything. You'll still be spouting right-wing bull@!$%#. And you think that we are dividing America.....
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Read the definition of "liberal" sometime if you have a chance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
You and those like you who post here are in no way "liberal".
You do not believe in free speech in any way, shape or form. You demand those who question "messiah" be banned from radio, TV and print media. Anyone who dares question his socialist ideas is shouted down, called named or has their intelligence questioned.
You do not believe in "free and fair elections" on any level and depend in lying, cheating and voter fraud to win most of the time. God forbid, the very same ID you use on a daily basis be required to vote.
You are violently opposed to people freely expressing their religion,especially if they are Christian. If they worship Satan or Allah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they of course have free reign to do as they please.
You despise capitalism and oppose it as a way to build an economy. You somehow think dividing the wealth and assets of hard working Americans among those not inclined to work will make everyone rich.
Take a moment and review the way you treat women who have different political views than the typical socialist. Your public commentators call for them to be raped, assaulted or murdered and you laugh about it. The most vile things are said about any woman who opposes your socialist masters and you laugh and mock along with them. Any man who take millions from the likes of Bill Maher and David Letterman has no right to claim he is concerned about "women's rights".
Take a look at George Zimmerman. Thus far your favorite media outlet (MSNBC) has altered and edited tapes and information to make his behavior fit the approved story line of "race baiting and hatred of Caucasians". The man is spanish/hispanic of all things. They broadcast death threats and offers of bounty to people who would murder him and our socialist Attorney General does nothing. They abuse ans threaten the witnesses who came forward to report what they actually saw and even your president came out on the side of "Trayvon Martin" with no proof of wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman. You and you political party demand he be killed/jailed without due process.
Rule of law is the farthest thing from your mind. Take a look at "Operation Fast and Furious" the plan by the Obama White House and it's attorney general to provide weapons to Mexican drug cartels in the hopes that increased murders and violence would cause a public outcry for more gun bans.
Thus far the DOJ/BATFE has provided 2000 weapons to drug cartels, assisted in the murders of at least THREE American law enforcement agents in the US and Mexico, assisted in the murders of more than 200 Mexican citizens and countless other crimes and continues to destroy evidence and records of their behavior.
Your typical and predictable answer to getting caught doing something illegal and morally questionable? Blame George Bush.
Whatever "freedom" you believe in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,does not include the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights and certainly does not include all Americans.
Now go take a look at the definition of "socialism" or progressive or communism. The tenants of Obama include most of those ideals.
1. Income redistribution thru massive taxes and property seizures, all constantly advocated by Obama
2. State control of the economy( the heads of most major unions Trumpka[teamsters and UAW], SEIU and AFCME) all attend regular meetings at the White House and have seats on the National Labor Relations Board. Recently the NLRB sued Boeing for trying to build an additional plant to construct airplanes in South Carolina, costing America thousands of jobs. Since Obama came to power, new regulations that cost American industry $60,000,000,000.00 a year have been put in place.
Obama has even set workplace standards for goat herders than include free cell phones, special cooking areas and requires indoor living quarters with "a comfortable bed and clean mattress".
3. State control of the media. Currently the president of General Electric (owners of NBC/MCNBC/CNBC) works directly for Obama and has an office in the White House. ABC has a Clinton party hack working directly for Obama, he even corrects Obama mistakes for him to assisit in conveying the message. (George Stephenopolus-sp) CBS had a reporter cursed, abused and shouted down for even asking about "Fast and Furious". Tow the party line or be removed from the pool is their mantra.
4. Near constant lies and disinformation from you political leaders. Do you really think that every bad thing for the last three years is, "George Bush's fault"? You cannot possibly be that stupid? Apparently, even $1 million dollar GSA parties are GWB's problem. High gas prices? GWB, really? I guess we could ignore the Department of Energy Secretary who says getting gasoline prices to $7 bucks a gallon will be good for "alternative energy".
Yes, you always and I mean ALWAYS resort to calling people "nazi's or facists" when they disagree with you. Even Hitler was a socialist,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so he would have been slightly to the right of the typical leftist. He was FAR from what is considered "right" in America.
It is simply left-wing slight of hand to claim someone who is slightly conservative or moderate is somehow a "fascist" for believing they have a right to own property or keep most of their income for their own use.
I am far from "right-wing", I am pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-business and believe this nation needs serious education reform. I support abortion and a woman's right to choose. I also happen to think if you go to Georgetown University for $150,000 a year and your boyfriend's daddy flew you to California on his private jet,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you can afford your own rubbers.
Reconcile your behavior and the behavior of your political pundits and party masters and get back to me sometime.
I am no closer to "right wing" than you are to "liberal". I am a moderate and you are an intolerant socialist.
Thanks for playing.
To all you Libs that cry the tax code isn't fair, even though the top 50% of earners pay 100% of the taxes and the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes and the top 1% pay about 40% of the taxes...source...www.irs.gov...What is your proposed concept of fair?
I'd like to know what is the Democrat proposed tax code. Then, please reconcile that with the spending that the federal governement does. My 12-year old and her classmates don't deserve to be left with $50,000 in us government debt when they graduate from college ($20k of which was accumulated in the last 3 years)...and, with Obama's budget, that $50k goes to over $100k when she graduates from HS.
So, tell me your "fair tax" rates, and then reduce spending accordingly. And, please note that I believe the top 1% earn about $600 billion in income combined, so you take 100% of their money, above what they already pay in taxes, and it funds the US Government for about 45 days. So, again, it's not a revenue problem, but a spending problem.
So, Dems, what is your tax plan?
I noticed you forgot an important statistic.
Tell us how much % of the private wealth in the USA each of those %-ers you quoted control.
Are you suggesting that the bottom 50% control no wealth - that they don't have a penny in their pockets? If not, then why wouldn't you want them to pay some percentage - even if it were very little? The onlyy way we can stop this corrupt bloated bureaucracy from wasting our money is to have 100% of the people vested by paying something! Why should you be concerned about the waste if youu have nothing in the kitty?
I'm suggesting you post the entire facts rather than cherry-pick the statistics you want.
I'm waiting.
Ah Ruken-
Where is your tax plan versus simply slaming the GOP and others on here. Typical Obama kool-aider...complain and moan while the other side tries to do something. Until you propose your tax rates, please keep the debate to intelligent folks. BTW, check out the www.irs.gov for governemnt revenue. Was about $1.8 trillion when Bush took over and skyrocketed to over $2.5 trillion in 2005 after the tax cuts took full effect, so don't say lower taxes doesn't increase revenue. It does...
Perhaps when I get paid to draft new tax law, I will take the time to come up with one to appease the itty-bitty internet troll.
But in the meantime, I don't need to be a chef to tell when my dinner tastes like sh*t.
Paul I love the way you tea people Koch republicans like to insinuate cutting revenue increases revenue. Let me ask you Paul, if your employer cuts your salary 10% does that mean you have more take home pay than before? Only in tea people Koch republican world does less mean more.
Hey Mo-
Why don't you check the IRS data before slamming me. Lower tax rates expand government revenue because the people have more to spend in the private sector, the economy expands, and everybody wins. BTW, if Obama has the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, are you taking home more pay then before? Why is it OK for the government to take more of people and corporation's money and blow it on who knows what, but it's not OK for private citizens and corporations to keep the money they earned and spend it as they see fit.
Did you get a pay raise when the health care costs of every working American went up after ObamaCare? I thought Nancy and Obama promised that?
If Obama cares so much about the little guy, why doesn't he donate 10% of his ridiculous $1 billion of campaign contributions he will raise to help offset the debt, provide for 20% of the medicare funding he's moving for Obamacare, etc. You people amaze me that you trust our elected officials, many of whom on both sides of the aisle, haven't had a real job ever, moreso than you do corporations, which have profit, shareholders, and good employers to hold them accountable...
No Mo BUT if my employer cut my taxes by 10% it would increase my take home pay.
Paul-
Have you ever thought that there might be other factors than the tax cuts that caused the increase in revenue??? Like inflation, or job growth, or economic expansion???? You do realize that revenues compared to GDP went from 21% in the 1999 to 16% after the Bush tax cuts were passed, right???
And if lower taxes creates more revenue, why did revenues stay at less than 19% of GDP??? Why didn't we create tens of millions of jobs??? Why didn't the GDP explode at a fast rate???? Face it; tax cuts don't work anymore. At least not when it comes to the income tax. As for the 47% who don't pay taxes, don't you think that some of them are retirees??? Or disabled??? Or poor??? The reason why rich people pay more in taxes is because they control most of the money. 93% of all the income made in the US goes to the top 20% in America, with nearly half of that going to the top 1%. Is that fair???
And politicians are accountable to the American people. If only we could take the power of money and special interests out of politics; then we could get moving again.
And here is MY deficit reduction plan, Paul.
I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.
I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie…)
II. Economic Recovery Package
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Obama first allows 47% of voters to pay no income tax and then suggrests that the 53% should pay even more - specifically the top who already pay much more than their fair sahre. Is it no wonder that he gets support from the majority since they are paying little or nothing even while leeching off the others? He should at least stop the lie that somehow this is about fairness! How can "nothing" be the fair share of 47% of the population? Once again we see that if you say even the most outrageous of lies loud and long enough the truly stupid will begin to believe it.
47% is out of date.
Please quote statistics not from 2008, when Bush was President.
Sorry. Seems you are right and it is 50% today.
Really? You have a source for that?
Because every source I can find said it fell to 46% and is still falling.
The only change that the president has made to the income tax code is a continuation of the Bush tax cuts.
And that change was made due to a work-stoppage by GOP.
Watermoon, it was President George W. Bush who passed the tax cuts that increased the earned income tax credit which gave the country the 47% number for not paying federal income. Were you yelping about them during Bush's two terms? As always, the right never mentions that these same people have payroll taxes deducted, pay State income taxes and pay sales taxes. Since they make the least amount of money, those taxes are regressive meaning they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do those who make considerably more money.
Watermoon did you ever think if those 46% had to pay taxes they wouldn't be able to buy food and the other products that probably keep you employed.
The tax code has ALWAYS contained the provision that there is a certain amount of income that is necessary to allow a person or family to have the minimum necessities to get by and DOES NOT TAX THAT MINIMUM. Don't you think the people who earn so little that every penny goes for the basics would love to have more income and pay taxes on it?
And let's not forget that those people paying no federal income tax are paying social security tax, sales taxes and probably state and local income taxes.
Republican mantra: Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that person behind the tree.
Tragically, they keep offering incentives for unnecessary tree abatement.
Disrespect in the GOP is nothing new. I remember when President George H. W. Bush referred in a speech to Bill Clinton and his team as a bunch of Bozo's. My mom used to say that people who resorted to name calling did that because they had no arguments based on logic or common sense.
And yet Bush is being incredibly respectful to this president even as Obama is slandering him daily! He has not come out with a single statement to defend himeself against Obama's lies and half-truths out of respect for the office.
Watermoon
Bush has honor and leadership ability. Obama has none of either so he can't be held responsible for what he says. Same as his blind followers.
I didn't know draft-dodging classified as 'honor'.
Nice Puken - I'm sure you're served in the military right? No, you live in the liberal s!hithole known as Madison, WI right Puken. Military bad...Obama and Birkenstocks good. You are pathetic. You can provide glib answers and correct grammar with the best of them, but you are nothing more than a little punk.
At least Bush knows he has no defense of his policies that destroyed this great country. It has nothing to do with respect to this President.
rukidding - Bush has honor and leadership ability? What rock did you live under during the 8 years he put this country into an economic tailspin? Where were you when he proclaimed "mission accomplished" while his policies continued to kill thousands of our brave men and women? Where were you when he stated it didn't matter if we got Osama bin Laden or not. It just wasn't important. Bush wasn't qualified to lead a parade down main street of Crawford Texas and his honor was gone long before the White House was bought for him.
I really have to wonder. Why do people (especially rich ones) resist taxes so much. I live from week to week. I used to own my own business. I live in a lower income area now, but my problems are my own. I feel I created my own environment so no reason to whine. I have always paid my taxes and have never seen any reason to cry. The GOP and their tinkle down policy in my humble opinion has not helped the employment in this country at all. If it did then where is all the tinkle. The large corporations are doing pretty well. The stock market is doing well. So where is the tinkle.
On the other hand employment has showed modest gains. I really feel that a slow growth is better than a rapid growth. This is a good thing for the country, not a bad thing. Rapid rise leads to a rapid fall, it's over whelming to deal with, and leaves little time to adjust.
Just give the super rich another $150,000 tax break this year and all will turn around
It will all "trickle down" and the American public will be better off. BS,BS, BS.
Even if it did work, it would take a good decade to finally see the effects of it all. This really only makes the rich that much richer and that's it. Most will just sit on it and gain the interest and make even more money. It's a big Republican scam.
The super rich are not the ones being targeted by Obama with his deire to tax higher incomes. It is income that he is taxing - not wealth. The super rich who rest on their yachts and mansions are living off trust funds so they are not making huge incomes. It is the producers -- especially the small business owners (and small business can have 500 employes and make 20 million in revenues.) They want to put profits back into hiring and expanding the business but instead their money is siphoned off into the bloated useless federal bureaucracy which the GAO says wastes 180 billion a year. Obama undermines the economic recovery with this class warfare divisive tactic and then blames others.
Wrong. The super rich are the 1%ers that he should rightly target. The super rich are not the small business owners as you say. As usual, when you can't defend trickle down (you can't) you change the subject.
Watermoon is parroting Fox (aka tea people Koch republican lying propaganda machine).
Right, Watermoon. For there to be class warfare, both sides have to be fighting. All I see are the rich at war and the poor surrendering.
And asking the rich to pay just a little more to help our nation is class warfare??? Where is the class warfare when it comes to the Ryan budget??? It cuts taxes by $2 trillion and disproportionately favors the rich while cutting benefits for the poor and the middle class. What about the class warfare with Romney's tax plan??? He cuts taxes for the wealthy by $150,000 while raising taxes for people who make less than $40,000??? Where the hell is the class warfare now??? Class warfare my ass. I'd gladly go and fight the rich; might as well. The rich are dominating in this class genocide, and we need to stop it. So the can the class warfare @!$%# and find something useful to say you right-wing robot!!!
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
CLASS WARFARE MY ASS
And, BTW, until Obama releases his college transcripts, no one can attest to his "brillance". Frankly, when he's off teleprompter, by 12-year old uses fewer "umms and ahs" then he does. And, his understanding of Econ 101 leaves a LOT to be desired.
Affirmative Action allows for underperforming minorities to get opportunities that equally talented white's can't get. Not going to debate the merits one way or another, but just because an African American gets into Harvard and graduates, doesn't mean he's brilliant. Sorry. Met too many non-medical school Ivy League grads to know that is very much the case...
Yea, like the TP's agenda of "trickle-down economics". That's one of the first things we learned in modern US history and Econ 101:
It. Does. Not. Work.
Rubken-
And taking money from succesful people does? Show me where? Trickle down works just fine, it's just you don't like it when the successful CHOOSE not to spend the money they earned...
BTW, Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich, he stole from the King who took too much in taxes...
So where are all the jobs since Bush cut taxes to the rich or "job creators" and Obama extended said cuts?
Tell me, where are the jobs?
JFK was the first to argue for and then prove that tax cuts for the wealthy not only increases jobs but also increases tax revenues as more people work and payy taxes instead of leeching off welfare. Oh yeah - he was a Democrat!
Obama has done more to cause job loss with his regulations and the uncertainty caused by his energy and healthh policies. That is why you are not seeing jobs being created even while the Bush tax cuts remain. Do away with them on top of the Obama anti-business agenda and we will see real suffering.
Paul-4412303 - the stupidity with the teleprompter again? Really? Every President in modern time has used a teleprompter. It's just that President Obama can use big words - unlike Bush - so you may notice it more. And, his transcripts? You think he got into Harvard on his transcripts? And, only the brightest head Harvard Law Review - no affirmative action group got him into that leadership position. Your post shows that you are totally ignorant and know nothing about Harvard or any other ivy league school. President Obama got in because he EARNED it! Get over it! He can walk circles against all the buffoons the GOP is putting up and you just can't stand that, can you?
Debate on taxes? The government wants money to spend on more useless programs and they feel the people have it....end of debate.
Useless programs like tax subsidies for massively profitable corporations, and a defense budget that is unbelievably bloated.
Don't forget the necessary and important GSA conventions to Las Vegas.
And the only subsidies given to corporations are to the Green ones! Tax credits for research and deveelopment - including drilling for energy - are not subsidies. Taking less is not a subsidy. Flat out giving hundreds of millions to Green corporations are subsidies - and then they fail anyway.
Therman, are you talking about the same corporations that supply jobs and pay taxes?
I can't get on the thread up above but a comment about the President paying foreign taxes and claiming a credit for them. He has sales of his books internationally. In many of the countries where the books are sold he pays foreign taxes on the sales. It is basic tax law to then claim a credit against his U.S. taxes for the foreign taxes he paid. This is NOT outsourcing jobs or anything nefarious. In fact, the only tax return that Mitt Romney has released also claims credits for foreign taxes that he paid.
Obama
He knows nothing of taxes or business or running a company or a lemon aid stand. Yet you elected him President. I read the posts and I pray for wisdom to deal with you people.
It is time for him to go. He has failed and we need someone different.
Why are you wasting Internet bandwidth by posting garbage?
You calling someone's posts garbage.
That's funny. You have posted nothing worth reading in months yet here you are. Al Gore will just invent more bandwidth for you
rukidding47 - and I keep praying that the far right will grow brains and develop integrity but I fear it is in vain. The stupidity of you right wingers is beyond belief yet you keep posting lie after lie.
You would vote for Romney who never saw a job he didn't want to ship to China. Who would take women's rights backward by about 100 years. Who would destroy this country in his quest to become President just so he can say he did better than his father. Who has no plan; no ideas; no integrity; no nothing. Pathetic!
SPENDING is not the only problem revenue is you cannot balance the budget while having tax cuts that's not possible to do. At the same time there is a lot of waste we need to change how the government purchases basic things. Also companies that contract with the government need to be held responsible. When I was in the military I saw projects that got way more money than they should have and corporations NOT providing the services they were contracted to provide, never mind massive cost over runs. The government should never pay a dime in cost over run costs for a project done by a contractor the contractor should have to eat those costs as they were hired to do a job for a specific amount. Fixing that would fix quite a bit of our problems I think.
Paul, reading your posts, I really have doubts that you have met "any" grads, Ivy league or otherwise.
Judging by the misinformation he spews, I think high school might even be a stretch.
Ah, funny Agflew....
Two degrees from Georgia Tech, both with highest honors...full ride for grad school...I'll take that against any Ivy Leaguer...and yes, needed to pass Econ 101...
See, I actually studied, worked, and chose a rewarding career that actually benefits other citizens. My apologies when I see the government blowing it repeatedly and people getting into nicer cars than me, but using food stamps.
And, yes, the Ivy Leaguers I met are very much like Obama. Elitests that think they know how the world should work, but frankly, don't have a clue...
So, maybe you should go back to school and try again...
well said paul, it gets harder and harder to read some of this bs lots of cool aid drinkers
I can lie on the internet too!
P.S.: It's spelled "elitist". I find it funny that someone with two degrees could miss that, even with spell-checking software.
See Ruken-
If you actually knew anything, you'd realize that engineer's can't spell (nor do we claim to be good spellers)...but, we are pretty darn talented at designing systems to meet budgets and solve complex problems. There's a reason why there aren't any engineers in Congress (but there are a ton of Ivy Leaguers)...it's because people like you don't want to hear the real solutions that are needed.
This computer engineer can spell just fine. Maybe that's because thoughts are more highly valued if they are able to be communicated.
Your argument is invalid.
@ Ruken I too have worked with and for many Ivy League graduates and their degrees do not always equate to their level of intelligence. My favorite was a young man I had working for me who used to brag he never went to class after freshman year. He said he didn't have to because he paid others to take his exams and his father was a big contributor to the school. I inherited him when I took over a new area. Not saying all graduates are like this but I learned not to be overly impressed by the university someone graduated from. Their real life experience and actions were more telling.
I have a brother-in-law who is an engineer. Worked on GE engines for years. While I don't agree with him politically, he has no trouble spelling. Now he didn't get his advanced degree from an ivy league school, so maybe that's the difference!