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:
Oh also his tax breaks at same time of starting two wars is why the debt is so high. YOU CANT fight wars while lowering taxes that's the most idiotic thing he possibly could have done.
Can't fight wars if you slash 11 billion dollars from our budget for our Veterans as republicans want to do.... Nobody will fight the wars
Their idea is to play "hide the salami" with the budget as they did for war spending for 8 years by emergency supplemental spending bills
It makes it imposable for any long term planning & long term programs for veterans they already have from this administration
Tiffany, if you check out the facts the bipartisan Bush-Era tax cuts were passed into law PRIOR to the 9/11 attacks. We were not at war when that tax legislation became law.
Ummm petey,.. 2003 is not "prior" to 9/11.
I mean, are you really this simple?? LOL!!!
""Dateline: April 17, 2003
The White House this week announced details and mechanics of President Bush's proposed $550 billion tax cutting program designed to stimulate the still-sagging U.S. economy.""
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/taxes/a/bushtaxcuts.htm
What did we get from the Bush tax cuts? We received record revenues to the federal government, which helped pay for the war. I that you are just repeating democrat talking points, but the fact remains that the Bush tax cuts increased money to the fedral government.
The rich got rich, but everyone else fell behind with Bush's tax cuts
Marginal rates were changed in 2001 to their current level and account for the vast majority of the tax revenue loss. The 2003 tax legislation lowered long term cap gains rates which, as they have always done, spurred economic growth. Kennedy and Clinton also signed bills reducing the LT cap gains rate and both times it also spurred economic growth. The Clinton cut was larger than the Bush cut. In all three cases tax revenue increased after the LT cap gains reductions.
Ok so raise the rates on the rich! who are the rich? owners of companies that make products like cell phones, cloths, shoes ect. what do you think will happen to the cost of those things? they will raise the price of the products to cover the rise in taxes! Do you use any of these pruducts? of corse you do so they are really raising the taxes on YOU!
Do you get it now?
Bush had an $800 Billion dollar deficit at the end of his 8 year term, Obama has a 5 Trillion dollar deficit after only three years.
I'm confused as to who you are complaining about?
"How many jobs would the Buffett Tax create? How will the Buffett Tax ease the pain at the pump?”
Nobody say's you have to just collect more taxes. You can even it out. Get rid of all the needless tax breaks for the rich and fund a middle class tax break. That would probably create jobs. You could also use the money to get rid of the gas tax (though I wouldn't) and that would aide the pain at the pump.
Just so you know--Republicans are already on record saying tax cuts for big business and rich people are good, but tax cuts for the poor and middle class are bad. Therefore, in their perfect world, there would be no taxes on the rich and the rest of us would end up carrying it all.
"Deficits don't matter."--Dick Cheney. Unless the Democrats inherit the ones from the previous administration; *those* deficits are Bad, at least till the next Republican inherits them, in which case he or she will increase them.
Nice try, but incorrect. The official Republican position has always been to extend ALL the Bush-Era tax cuts. I believe they should ALL be allowed to expire, but let's keep the facts straight.
the democratic plan is to extend all of the tax cuts for those that need them, not for those who do not during the recession- like the 1%.
Didnt your party run on the motto country first in 2008? Why dont you try living up to what you preach?
excess.....don't lie. That is a flat out lie and you should know it.
putamerica first- no idea what you are referring to.
Peter, the existing top tax rate is 35%; Ryan's recently House passed budget bill would lower the top rate to 25%.
Bruce - exactly correct, everyone would see lower marginal rates. That would be offset by eliminating most deductions to keep it revenue neutral. That is an approach supported by Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission and many on both sides of the aisle. It is called tax simplification and makes the tax code more fair because most deductions do not apply to everyone. Many believe that tax revenue would actually increase because it would broaden the base.
except the ryan plan reduces the govt revenues and does not balance the budget until 2050 or some outlandish figure like that. Also what offsets Peter17- this is the SECOND year Ryan has come forth and Neither time does he state what deductions are coming off- will it be the home interest deduction but not he oil depletion allowance. Where is the Republican Transparancy?
Even Ryan does not attempt to put in a full "fix" for what ails us financially. People are not ready to hear how bad the situation is long term. Until the American public is fully aware of how grim our long term finances are, it is not possible to begin putting full solutions on the table. The Ryan budget is only a start. Reid could certainly push the Senate to come up with an alternative so the two bodies could work it out in a Conference Committee, but don't hold your breath on that one. What is most unfortunate is that the longer we wait, the more draconian the solutions will be, and the more negatively the middle class will be impacted. That is exactly what happened in Greece and several other European countries.
Peter17- for the Ryan plan to solve the problem but it waits 38 years to do so and then does not tell us what tax deductions it is removing to offset the fall in Govt revenue is not a PLAN.
If a worker presented this to you with as many holes as it has you would fire his ass.
What tax cuts are you removing- Pell Grants, Earned income credit, medicare block grants? what the heck are you getting rid of so how could ANYONE support something if you dont know what it is. Unless your an IDEOLOGUE
Steve: Hate is blinding.
This is much more than a tax debate. It is a question whether we want to live in a democratic country where the potential for the American Dream is open to all vs. a libertarian society which only benefits the wealthy and large corporations. Most of the mainstream media chooses to distort what this discussion is all about to prevent the truth from coming out. The Tea Party is pushing the clock back to the time of the wild, west.
djj,
What I heard you say is; "everyone should work harder, to give you and the others that don't, most of the profits, because that's what you want". Sorry, but most individuals want to help the ones that truly can't help themselves, but feel they don't owe you or the less ambitious a damn cent. If you want more, work harder!
djj....I agree with you about this being whether or not we want to live in a democratic country or one that benefits only the wealthy are large corporations. That is why I support the flat tax and other republican plans that make the code more fair and don't support the presidents plan that keeps the status quo of protecting the ultrarich and corporations.
"Tax debate takes center stage"? How about stopping the runaway, sloppy, spending this Administration seems to languish in. If the doorknobs at the GSA meeting, wasting over a million dollars of taxpayer money, and the $3 million, spring break to mexico for the President's daughter, last week, won't wake us up, to where the real problem is, nothing will!
That GSA problem is systematic of many government agencies including the DLA & has been an unchecked problem nobody ever did anything to stop as long as I've been alive & I'm 64
You fight every government supervisor & GS pay grade trying to stop it, trust me, I tried... You become a one person army.
An incident occurred a while back in San Diego at the supply center in which an employee was killed on the job for trying to out them. It was never investigated
So,.. the presidents daughter going on "spring break" is a big issue for you??
Really...
There aren't,.. possibly, larger issues to be addressed??/
They should also take away the keys to Michelles 747.
Dave D. obvioulsy doesn't know WTF he is talking about
k1200.....Yes wasting $3 million on a daughter's spring break trip is part of the big issue......Wasteful government spending.
K,
Oh I don't know, a few million here and a few million there may not seem like much to you, but it adds up and I don't want to pay for it, period. Let me ask you this, ..... did you spend $3 million to send one of your daughter's on spring break, this year on taxpayer money? This Country is mired in debt and the first family flies around the world, on multimillion dollar vacations, acting like taxpayers are their private stash and then they have the audacity to say we aren't giving enough. Yeah, I guess, considering the times and the fact that 22 million workers are idle and struggling to survive, to me it's a big issue.
Bush spent more on his daughters vacation to South America,,,, Knock of the silly garbage
Jim,
I'm not talking about what Bush did, I'm talking about what Obama is doing now.
Open your eyes, pal.
Jim.....why do you always defend Obama by showing us that he is doing the same things that Bush did. Most of us did not like what Bush did and wanted someone different instead of McSame.
Nope,,, Many of Bush's polices had been changed before he left office. Obama has improved others
LMAO....... My goat tops your Wabbit!
Peter, I don't understand your point. Help me out.
PutAmericaFirst... More revisionist history from the right. Those wars were (are) being financed with borrowed money. Bush never put those costs in the budget. They were paid for "off the books" so to speak.
So really, don't try and sling that BS about the costs being paid for by tax cuts. it's simply a lie.
It isn't revisionist history. You are misunderstanding my intent. The wars were financed in large part with debt, but that wasn't because of the tax cuts. My point was that the tax cuts didn't cause the deficit because of the wars. It gave us more money to spend on things. Besides, was it the wars, or the increase in spending, or a combination of both that made things a deficit
Put, the wars were financed entirely by debt, as were the tax cuts.
The tax cuts gave citizens more to spend on things, true, but it deprived the government of funds for programs that were previously legislated. And there is zero evidence that the tax cuts generated incremental tax receipts in excess of the cost of the tax cuts.
The reason the deficit has increased under Obama is that Obama insisted that the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan be made a part of the budget. Bush never included those costs in any budget and relied on continuing resolutions - debt - that were paid by borrowing from the Chinese primarily.
Bruce, that in addition to tax receipts falling off the table and relief payments going through the roof as a result of the recession.
Mark......you can say that the wars were financed by debt. I won't disagree with you on that, but I will disagree with you that the tax cuts are financed by debt. You are under the false assumption that the tax cuts caused a lower amount of revenues. That is false. The revenues significantly increased. Think of it like the day after Thanksgiving sales. Do they finance those sales with debt, or do they make a lot of money. THe same priciple applies.
Bruce....while that did have a little impact, the biggest single cause of the increase was the huge increase in government spending and the decrease of revenues from the recession. Some of it was because of the increase in safety net programs, but most wasn't spent.
Put, there is absolutely no factual evidence that lower taxes resulted higher receipts. None. It's a convennient theory but it's entirely unproven.
Clinton increased tax rates and tax receipts went way up. That would seem to indicate just the opposite.
Mark -here is the proof that the Bush taxcuts produced record tax revenues
2000 2025.19
2001 1991.08
2002 1853.14
2003 1782.31
2004 1880.11
2005 2153.61
2006 2406.87
2007 2567.98
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/historicaltables[1].pdf
Spending from FY2005-2010 went up by 40%
The republicans don't want the let's say the upper 5 % of Americans to pay more taxes. They say that if that happens, business and jobs will be at risk. I am not stupid. They had these tax breaks during the biggest recessions we have ever had. So obviously, they are just putting this cash in their pockets and becoming richer. Okay, I get it. This is America, you are allowed to be rich, while others are not. Some one has to make the french fries. But don't try to feed me horse manure and tell me that taking away this tax break, and a lot of the loop holes is going to hurt jobs. Sorry, I know that's not true. I do know that if you tax the middle class more, they will spend less as they don't have the overall wealth to cover it. THAT would hurt because people will buy less. The fat cat CEOs should think about it. WHO do they think made them rich? The middle class.
We don't want anyone to pay more in taxes. We know that money that goes to the government prevents the economy from growing because the government doesn't produce anything. Your logic about the tax cuts and the recent recession is wrong. The economy grew after the tax cut and we had 5 years of job growth. By that time, the effects of the tax cuts had alread taken effect. So when the downturn happened, there was no effect from the tax cuts (except that the rich lost tons of money during that time). Think of it like this. Let's say you received a $50K a year raise in 2003 and you change your lifestyle accordingly over the next 5 years. Then someone complains about you in 2009 that you have stopped continuing to increase your spending.
No one wants to pay more taxes! Now that we are being told we have to pay up for all of the questionable spending of the past ten years, we will have to pay more taxes just as we have done in prior circumstances. Remember, during World War II the top rate was 94%!
Putamericafirst- I know your side loves to run on ideology but your statement that the govt doesnt produce anything as you write it on the internet which is a govt creation and ONLY the govt could have created it is so typical of the BLINDNESS on your side- almost equals the teapug yelling for govt to keep its hands off of his medicare during the "public meetings"
Randy,
"The fat cat ceo's should think about who make them rich? They made themselves rich, Randy, by selling a product that you want. If you don't like them, don't buy their products. That's what brought individuals here from other Countries and made us great. If you aren't getting enough of the American dream, work harder.
There are 22 million of our neighbors that are out of work, as we speak. Do you really want to drop the tax cuts and increase that number significantly?
You are right that it was 94%, but there were also tons and tons of tax loopholes for the rich to take advantage. Do you know that we are spending about the same amount as we were during WWII, yet we don't have a war. Besides, if I remember right, the primary force in the creation of the internet was the sharing of information between universities, many of which are private.
Paxil...I knew that one or two of you would take my statement as an "ALL OR NOTHING" type of statement. Yes there are few things here and there that the government produces that is beneficial, but overall that is a small, small portion of the budget. Very little money goes towards programs like that.
Can anyone really believe that the government created the internet? I guess these are the same ones who believed ALGORE when he said he invented it.
Private sector is responsible for the internet! The federal government does nothing but spend and regulate. Some of each is necessary but they have taken it to the folly of total extreme! Meanwhile, federal workers live high on the hog while the rest of us struggle with whateveer crumbs they leave for us.
putamericafirst- it is not one or two items- like that cell phone how about the microwave oven, digital camera's? All of this stuff is a by product of Govt R&D.
And what percentage of the budget went to those type of things? I know that it is not one or two items. My point is that it is a very, very small amount of the budget. Besides, most of them were create by defense spending, the very spending that most democrats want to cut.
watermellon- why dont you read before coming on here and posting drivel. Al Gore did not Invent the internet but in 1992 put the govt stamp of approval on it and guaranteed the govt would utilize the internet guaranting enough foot traffic to make it commercially viable. DUH DUH DUH
what difference does it make what % of the budget went to these things- your statement that the govt invents nothing is just WRONG. The govt gives the ability for others to utilize the knowlege and make a profit and hire people. Why dont you count all that economic activity created as an offset to the deficit?
Just look at the giving away of cell phone frequencies- how many cellular companies and how many people hired in that industry alone.
Obama hopes taxes takes center stage.........away from the economy and jobs situation.
2013 Obama budget,,,,$3,803,000,000,000.00 Obama also included about 25 billion in program cuts.
Thereby reducing his squandering by nearly 6/10th of 1%.
6/10th of a percent means a person making $1000.00 per week(25 bucks an hour) would have to reduce his spending by nearly $6 dollars a week.. That is nearly $26 dollars a month!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How could you manage to live on a mere $4,307 a month?????? OMG!!!!!
It is a wonder the government can survive on nearly 4 trillion bucks.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH by the way. They are a TRILLION bucks short yet again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thus we add another TRILLION to the national debt.
The sad thing is that there is no need for this discussion at all if Obama would just put the welfare of America over his desire to pay off the environmentalist lobby. Norway has proved that even the socialism programs could work and be paid for if we drill for oil as they do in the North Sea. North Dakota has shown what can be done on a micro scale (state) and what is open to us as a nation if Obama would allow us to explore our resources on a national scale and on public lands.
From a North Dalota study:
New drilling technology has freed up vast reserves of oil in the Williston Basin of western North Dakota, fueling an economic bonanza that has become a flat-out gold rush. As the rest of the country desperately tries to skirt a double-dip recession, North Dakota boasts a $1 billion budget surplus and the nation's lowest unemployment rate. Recruits from Minnesota, Texas and both coasts keep arriving, reversing a long population decline. Schools are rushing to hire more teachers. Towns are adding more cops.
We could add millions of jobs and trillions in revenue but for Obama and his environmentalist handlers - and this is a proven fact! Hopefully America will wake up and elect leaders who care about America first and foremost this coming November.
Actually capitalism doesn't work without social polices & our nation's economy doesn't grow
Your entire argument is based on the lack of knowledge about economic issues & idiotic "Red Baiting" of the 1950's & 1960's
Just the expansion of Medicare & Health Care is a "FREE MARKET" supported idea that grows our economy, creates jobs & helps many other businesses in the process
Absolutely correct Jim! Capitalism unchecked showed its abuses before 1929 and federalism (socialism and overregulation) is showing its fallacy now. There is a middle way and we better find a leader who understands that soon - nefore it is too late.
"Federalism" again? Forget about it, John Adams lost that argument to Thomas Jefferson ----- When our Constitution was ratified, federalism went out the door
We still have "Limited Government"
Government remains "Limited" as our founders created it even today, Congress our courts & interest groups from the ACLU & civil rights groups to the Heritage Foundation & Christian groups KEEPS GOVERNMENT LIMITED
Maybe you had better read the start of our US Constitution "WE THE PEOPLE" ---- It's really a "socialist document"
We have a leader that understands the middle way right now. It is the GOP that has surrendered to the extremists in their Party who believe "their way or the highway".
Middle way would be to drill and explore alternative energy sources. Obama is doing everything he cna to stop use of oil and coal. That is the other extreme - not a middle way.
Jim- we haven't had limited government for 100 years. We've had a post constitutional marxist govt for the last 77 years since the traitor FDR spit on the Constitution.
Pastor Larry,,,, Get out of the cesspool of Tea Party rationality & learn something
Government remains "Limited" as our founders created it even today, Congress our courts & interest groups from the ACLU & civil rights groups to the Heritage Foundation & Christian groups KEEPS GOVERNMENT LIMITED
More groups than you can imagine help keep our government limited
Larry- if your economic plans fail to materalize perhaps you have the wrong economic policy. You cant test your other beliefs but the one you can FAILS BIG TIME Larry.
Again, Jim there is NOTHING LIMITED ABOUT OUR GOVT.
In meddles in and tries to control every aspect of our lives. You cannot buy anything without the govt's hand in it.
You cannot conduct a finanical transaction without the govt's hand in it.
The govt tells us what we should and should not do and now with the Stalinist Obama and his Democrat Politburo in the Senate, they want to FORCE US under penalty from the govt to engage in commercial activity
We live in a near totalitarian state and Obama, the Democrats, and many
Republicans should be impeached or tried and convicted of treason and sent where no one will ever hear from these Stalinist traitors again.
My economic view is the only one consistent with liberty for all people rather than enslavement to the state that modern liberalism has given us. My economic view is the same as that which built this country and made it the greatest economic engine in the history of the world.
EVERY TIME GOVT interferes in natural law and liberty, our freedoms and our ability for the pursuit of happiness that the Founders established for us is reduced further.
ANYONE who supports modern liberalism cannot possibly respect and desire personal liberty. They are polar opposites. Modern liberalism only operates by requiring you to surrender more and more liberties for the "collective good". And every time this utopian hoax has been attempted in history it has failed.
Anyone listening to conservatives on economic issues needs their head examined
They still can't see the damage they left our nation in & refuse to look.. It matters not that they surrendered their fiscal policies & all conservative principles to "Bail Out" Romney
So you believe the solution to high debt is more spending??? Interesting concept. We'll spend our way to prosperity, just like Greece.
Anyone listening to liberals needs to have his head examined. They are totally ignoring the damage being done to our nation these past three years and continuing daily! We need a leader who understands a middle way between these two extremes - beginning with one who knows that we can drill fro oil AND develop green alternatives!
Take this nationally onto public lands and we could turn the economy around tomorrow!
Exerpt from a North Dakota study:
New drilling technology has freed up vast reserves of oil in the Williston Basin of western North Dakota, fueling an economic bonanza that has become a flat-out gold rush. As the rest of the country desperately tries to skirt a double-dip recession, North Dakota boasts a $1 billion budget surplus and the nation's lowest unemployment rate. Recruits from Minnesota, Texas and both coasts keep arriving, reversing a long population decline. Schools are rushing to hire more teachers. Towns are adding more cops
Peter17: and you think at a time of 20% unemployment reducing the budget and stalling the economy is the way for Greece to go? How about Spain.
Your side one year ago was YELLING about QE2 causing massive inflation, the debt would cripple our economy. Yet its the countries that are trying your methodology that are shrinking and experiencing a double dip recession and the USA despite RepubliCON disruption is growing?
If what you preach will happen doesnt at what point will your side wake up and realize maybe your WRONG?
To your suggestion, that would be Obama.
Drilling and oil production has increased significantly as has green energy technology.
Where did Jim say that in the post you responded to? I don't know about you, but I am reading;
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11098567-first-thoughts-the-tax-debate-cometh?pc=25&sp=100&threadId=3390217#discussion_nav
Not some other website, as you are apparently reading.
Both parties will keep "Spending", but republicans don't want to tell you what their spending is on... But, you can gauge what part of it will be on by the instance of funding a giant military empire & more financial industry baliouts ------ It's spending on things Americans want stopped
The idea is to reduce "Long Term Spending" & that Obama's policies including the expansion of health care does
Mark, it is drilling on private land that has increased. Obama could not block it. Drilling on federal land is down 10% under his watch.
Mark - another liberal "lie" I am afraid. Drilling has increased but on private lands not public. Under the Obama thumb drilling has decreased on public lands and water even while he spreads the "lie". He has curtailed drilling as far as he can and then taking credit for the private sector drilling that he can't stop!
Peter, but overall drilling is up, right.
So we got the best of both worlds, just as you suggested.
There are thousands of oil leases on public land that have been signed, sealed and approved. The oil companies are not bothering to drill on it. The president is not "blocking" drilling. There was a temporary ban in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico for safety and environmental concerns after B.P. spilled billions of gallons of crude oil in the Gulf. That ban is long since over.
Peter is parroting stale old, debunked talking points again.
Watermoon,,, drilling has even increased in North Dakota under this administration..... You really don't know WTF you are talking about
Water, to your point, what would more drilling on US (our) land have accomplished?
ANother issue is that it appears the US is basically giving away oil rights and collecting very littel in return, only $7b in 2010, which is pretty small amount compared to the value of oil extracted.
Jim, The drilling in North Dakota is on private lands - not Obama controlled public lands where drilling has decreased due to his policy. You are the one who needs to learn more.
Mark:
New drilling technology has freed up vast reserves of oil in the Williston Basin of western North Dakota, fueling an economic bonanza that has become a flat-out gold rush. As the rest of the country desperately tries to skirt a double-dip recession, North Dakota boasts a $1 billion budget surplus and the nation's lowest unemployment rate. Recruits from Minnesota, Texas and both coasts keep arriving, reversing a long population decline. Schools are rushing to hire more teachers. Towns are adding more cops.
We could expand this nationally and add trillins in revenue as well as a million jobs.
Even on private lands in North Dakota you are not allowed to drill without federal & state government's involvement
Those policies have been enforced by both democrat & republican administrations
Water, we spoke about this before. Drilling does not create a significant amount of long-term jobs. It does create some temporary construction jobs and a few permanent jobs, but that's it.
Put another way, what in your thinking is the mechanism for drilling creating more jobs?
And I answered this before. It is not the benefit of reduce cost that I am extolling. It is the increase of revenue to the state and the jobs created. See what happened in North Dakota for example. And all jobs are temporary after all. If this oil policy were extended over the whole country here would be plenty of jobs.
New drilling technology has freed up vast reserves of oil in the Williston Basin of western North Dakota, fueling an economic bonanza that has become a flat-out gold rush. As the rest of the country desperately tries to skirt a double-dip recession, North Dakota boasts a $1 billion budget surplus and the nation's lowest unemployment rate. Recruits from Minnesota, Texas and both coasts keep arriving, reversing a long population decline. Schools are rushing to hire more teachers. Towns are adding more cops
Water, it does not create jobs (in any significant number). I agree it does improve revenue to the state but that doesn't affect employment.
It does not create jobs.
What is "Fair"?
Is it fair that someone who makes all of their income from investments only pays 15% on that income while someone who only has Payroll income is paying 20-25% on that income?
Is it fair that someone making more than $50,000.00, $75,000.00,$100,000.00 a year is paying 15-20-25% etc. in taxes while someone that is making below a certain level isn't paying any taxes at all?
Is someone who is paying nothing in taxes not getting the benefits of roads, schools, hospitals, police and fire protection, US Postal Service, National Defense, maybe collecting welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing,etc.?
Is the Person who is paying alot more in Taxes and supporting themselves getting to drive on special roads that are plated in Gold, get gold plated fire engines showing up at there house in an emergency, collecting food stamps, welfare,etc.?
Maybe the only way to be "Fair" is to knock off the Class warfare BS, the "Rich vs Poor", "99% vs 1%", "Redistribute the Wealth" crap and update the tax code so that everyone pays the exact same tax rate regardless of income type or means.
A flat tax were everyone pays the exact same rate in taxes regardless of how that income is earned and no special loopholes,deductions, exemptions, etc.
How can we possibly claim to believe in Equality in the "United States" when our own government creates class's of people and treats them differently based on how much they make.
If your fighting to keep the Status Quo, trying to keep the divide between how people are treated based solely on their means and how they are taxed, then how can you possibly claim you believe in "Equality" and "Fairness" in the United States when our own government promulgates the policy of treating people differential solely based on how much they make.
Does "Equality" mean everyone in the United States is treated "Equally"or not?
A flat tax is horribly regressive. It results in the poor and middle class paying a much more significant portion of their "disposable income" in taxes. It is about as far from "fair" as you can get.
The IRS published the following tax rate data for 2009. It breaks down the average tax rate paid on all adjusted gross income (AGI) by various income groups. AGI includes ALL investment and dividend income. Since those with an AGI over $200,000 pay over 50% of all individual federal income tax, just how would you raise the money necessary to fund government with a "flat tax"??
1%: $10-20,000
2%: $20-25,000
3%: $25-30,000
4%: $30-40,000
5%: $40-50,000
7%: $50-75,000
8%: $75-100,000
12%: $100-200,000
19%: $200-500,000
24%: $500-1,000,000
25%: $1 Million and over
If you think our own government is taking away equality, you should pay attention to what some states with these Tea Party governors are doing
The Koch brothers ALEC is writing their laws,, voters have lost their right to vote & in Michigan the entire state government & democracy has been taken over by "Emergency Management" law
Never Forget it's republicans who are attacking "equality" around this country as a National Presidential Campaign against the rights of women, voters, gay citizens & American workers
Never Forget it's republicans who are taking health care away from 60 million American Families
And this is true because you said it? Give a cite to prove this please!
Medicare and Medicaid are financially doomed in their current structure. Doing nothing to fix them will ensure their demise. Your choice.
It's a matter of public record you can't dismiss Watermoon,,, Quit trying
www.cahi.org is a health insurance web site and even there they adsmit the govt has a lower administrative cost then private insurance companies. Medicare is not "doomed to failure" - some minor fixes will keep it solvent but we do need to address some issues.
1. do away with medicare part d paying retail price only to the Pharma industryr(thank youG.W.Bush)
2. do away with medicare advantage which is medicare administered at a higher cost then the govt- adding about 5% to the cost of every US citizen on the advantage plan- corporate profit is all you are buying.
we do need entitlement- if I make 100k shouldnt I pay a higher deductible or monthly cost?
Jim - What it really is we call INDIVIDUALISM. You are responsible for your own choices. If you want something then work for it and don't expect the rest of us to buy it for you. If you want to succeed at something then you do the work and don't expect the rest of us to drag ourselves down because you aren't willing to try. THAT is what the conservative agenda is.
Of course, as an obvious liberal, anytime someone says YOU need to actually DO something, you consider that to be a war against whatever group you can make up as victims.
"Individualism"?
That's a weak attempt to claim you don't have enough freedoms... Nobody can take "individualism" away from anyone sport.
And people never had all the freedoms tea bagges are crying for in the first frigging place.....
i.e.,,, You have the right to speech & that does not give you the right for "disrespectful hate speech" which isn't even tolerated in church & was never tolerated in the Old Wild West unless nobody was around to hear it
Jim - The right to bear arms has been severely restricted over the years. Your right to defend yourself has been severely restricted in many places to the point where in some states you are REQUIRED to run away if someone breaks into your home or assaults you on the street.
Your right to speech does not exclude speech with others MAY find hateful or disturbing or offensive. The reason it doesn't is because no matter what you say I can find someone who will consider it to be hateful or offensive, guaranteed.
You say I never had the right to disrespectful hate speech but that's only because you haven't bothered to look back just, oh, say 80 years ago. read the political postings from those days and earlier. There was plenty of hate speech being thrown around. Heck, in the 1940s during that little dust up called WWII you can find plenty of hate speech directed at Japanese, Germans, and Italians that was all perfectly legal and unfortunately was accepted by society.
And THAT is where we differ. Society has its own "right" to not accept certain language and they enforce that by the PEOPLE of that society expressing their dislike of it, not by passing laws that "forbid" it. Again, personal responsibility. You don't like what someone says then tell them so, don't expect the word police to do it for you.
"desire to pay off the environmentalist lobby."
What kind of bullsh!t is that?
The payoff is the Billions we give to oil companies that sure as Hell don't need it. That policy dates back 100 years and is completely obsolete. It is one of many things that the government spends money on that is completely unneeded. There is a huge lobby that protects those tax breaks (or subsides). People like Willard have sold out to that lobby and continue to support it, despite the fact that it is a detriment to the economy and the taxpayer.
We do not give billions to the oil companies even while we do so to the environmentalist controlled green corporations. We give tax credits for money they spend on risky exploration just as we do to every other company for risky research and development. A tax credit means not taking something - it give nothing, just doesn't take so much. If I rob you of $50 and give $10 back that really is not "giving."
Therman - There you go again with your billions we "give" to oil companies when no such thing actually happens. The government gives tax breaks to various industries, i.e. manufacturing. That means they don't TAKE as much money as they did before. They aren't cutting any checks to oil companies. On the other hand, they ARE cutting checks to solar, wind, and ethanol companies whose products cannot support themselves in the marketplace.
But you keep telling the same old lie. Obviously you have gotten yourself to believe it.
Special tax breaks for oil companies have been in existence for a century. You can continue to deny their existence all you want, that does not make them go away.
Taxpayers for Common Sense concluded in a 2011 report that the oil and gas industry are poised to get $80 billion in subsidies during the next five years, and that the industry has doled out $140 million over the past decade to influence federal policy.
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=4765&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS
Thermen - I already said the tax breaks were there. YOU are the one who always claims it is government "spending money" on them or your "subsidies" claim but both are wrong. A subsidy is when I write you a check for $100. A tax break is when I don't reach into your pocket and take $100.
I realize that you will never accept the difference, but there it is.
wow....
some of you folks, blame the wrong people. I've been reading a lot these posts, and began to think, did you not see what has been going on for more than 10-15 years?
http://democrats.senate.gov/2008/06/24/democrats-are-committed-to-safeguarding-the-american-dream-by-making-energy-more-affordable/
read on.
A better read.
http://www.reasonmeetsfaith.com/politics/politics/gas-prices-skyrocketing-exposes-media-bias-and-liberal-agenda/
I especially enjoy where Obama's energy secretary says that it is imperative that we get the gas prices to the same level as in Europe!
Funny. The article blames Bush for the high price of gas and oil but you folks today insist the President has no power to control the cost of gas and oil. So, which is it? Is Bush responsible for those high prices and thus Obama is equally responsible for the high prices today or are neither one of them responsible for them?
Chose wisely.
That's a goal of both republicans & democrats to keep energy costs down. It's just not the end result of their policies.
Both Blue Dog Democrats, energy lobbying & Republicans can be faulted for that, but mainly the fault lays on the voters who put them in office.
Can't keep blaming Government when it's you who don't understand the issues elect people who do these things to us
Jim - Glad to see we can agree on something.
"...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."
Let's try to explain this one more time. They are NOT paying a lower tax rate on their long term investments. They are paying the SAME tax rate as everyone else on their long term investments like 401Ks. The difference is that they work out that the majority of their annual income comes from those long term investments instead of from a weekly pay check.
Now what do you think those long term investments are doing? do you think they invested in air or did they invest in companies that make products, create jobs, put money into people's pockets? Buffet does the same thing with his money and the only reason he doesn't get ripped like others is because he mouths the right words while doing NOTHING with his ACTIONS. Is this really the liberal version of a HERO? Say whatever you agree with but not be required to take action on what you say? A hero requires you to DO something. It's easy to say something it's hard to do something. In the case of Buffet all he is doing is talking. I have yet to see him change how he gets his income so that he pays the higher tax rate. I have yet to see him actually give the amount of money he says he should be paying to the government.
Here is the CBO data of effective tax rates. Care to restate you opinion??
The effective tax rate is calculated on your total income, no deductions or exemptions. Data from the Congressional Budget Office on Effective Individual Income Tax Rates, including all investment and tax-exempt income:
INC.GP:.1st 20%...2nd 20%...Mid 20%..Next 20%...Top 20%...Top
5%..Top 1%
1979 Eff Tax Rate....0.0%......4.1%.......7.5%......10.1%.....15.7%......19.0%.....21.8%
2007 Eff Tax Rate...-6.8%.....- 0.4%.......3.3%........6.2%......14.4%.....17.6%.....19.0%
AGI GRP:....1st 20%...2nd 20%...Mid 20%...Next 20%...Top 20%...Top 5%...Top 1%
1980 Eff Tax
Rate............7.7%.......14.1%......18.7%......21.5%..........27.3%......30.8%.....34.6%
2007
Eff Tax Rate....4.0%.......10.6%......14.3%......17.4%..........25.1%......27.9%.....29.5%
Money invested in the Cayman islands and Switzerland does not create jobs in America.
Sorry, left out a comment on the second set of data that includes all taxes, including payroll taxes.
He is talking about the rate for capital gains (investments) and your chart is for personal income. Your chart has nothing to do with his post Peter.
Peter - And what does that have to do with what I said? We ALL get the same tax rate on capital gaines. The fact that some people are able to get the majority of their income from long term investments instead of annual salary does not change that. Your "effective tax rates" mean little to nothing in this case because if they raise the capital gains tax then the effective tax rate for those living on their 401K income will also got up and all the rest of us with 401Ks will be looking at a higher tax rate when we retire while the rich can simply shift their "income" to a different source and keep their effective tax rate low.
So no, I don't want to change my statement but you might want to reconsider your willingness to raise taxes on most retirees now and into the future.
This whole "but it's on private land" argument is smoke and mirrors. Any thinking person would come to the realization that there are no shortages of petroleum or their byproducts including gasoline. However, for some inexplicable reason, the folks on the right believe that more drilling (producing more product) is going to effect prices. Wake folks, it will not... Demand is down, inventory is up, get it?
That leaves only one reason for this line of thought and that's to make sure we coddle the fossil fuel industry, period.
I support the goal that Paul Ryan is trying to achieve with his budget proposal. I do take issue with having only two tax brackets (10% and 25%). I'd hate to be on that dividing line and suddenly you are in the next bracket. His plan is a good one but I believe we need more brackets starting low and increment upward over 5 or 6 brackets based on income level.
What we need now is for Harry Reid and the senate to take up this budget proposal, or come up with one of their own, and then talk about it with each other. You know, work toward a compromise, instead of doing nothing.
While the following represent only a small part of the Regime’s overall efforts to stifle new energy production, here’s a look at some of the key data points from the chart:
Source: http://www.reasonmeetsfaith.com (http://s.tt/15Qua)
An amendment to a recent energy bill would have made it mandatory that ALL of the oil from the Keystone pipeline would stay in the U.S.
The Republicans voted it down.
That is all you need to know about that pipeline.
And below you will see a link to the republican energy policy;
http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+kisses+saudi+king&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&prmd=imvnsfd&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=GUKDT4iZDYWE8ASklNXBBw&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=910
Watermoon- like so much of the right wing talking points they are gargabe. There are three studies on the Keystone project. The us State Detp estimated 5-6,000 employees, Cornell University estimated 4-5,000 employees and the lobbyist group behing the Keystone project that projects 20,000 high paying jobs. Now which do ou cite and which do you honestly think is BS?
This does not include all the jobs that would be created in support of the pipeline. It is only those who directly work on the project. And so it is meaningless. See what happened in North dakota.
http://pattyinglishms.hubpages.com/hub/Top-10-Hot-Jobs-in-New-Town-Oil-Boom-2010
such as? mfg jobs to built? short term? Believe the independent cornell U study a lot more then an industry think tank operating under personal gain
New word of the day: LIBBERISH and I hear a lot of it on Newsvine.
lib·ber·ish
(lbr-sh)
n.
1. Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing often heard from liberals.
Dittohead
Function: noun
Etymology: U.S. talk radio circa 1980s
1) One who blindly agrees with whatever Rush Limbaugh says, even without hearing it.
2) A species of parrot that can only repeat what Rush Limbaugh says.
3) A naive person who cannot think for themselves and must rely on others to think for them (mainly Rush Limbaugh).
A word to the wise--don't believe anything Obama says. He is so deceptive in everything he says. He will do or say anything to be reelected.
You know i see some people on here complaining about the name calling then i see signature pics showing FOX LIES. Make up up your mind if it is wrong it is wrong for both parties quit being hypicriticle.
Now to comment on the actual article.
Why does the government not want a flat tax? Its fair the more you make the more you spend the more you pay in tax's! The Rich spend a lot of more so they pay more in taxes right!
Think about that, how would a candidate be able to run for president, congress or any type of public office?
They could not use class warfair because any change to the flat tax affects all americans, just as it should. You see the Government does not want a flat tax even though it would benifite the country, the biggest reason is they would not be able to lie to us and confuse us as easily, they could not hide from the spending they do.
The problems in our country is the fault of the Voters, for not demanding a flat tax rate from the representatives. The voters are to blame because we fall into the lie trap, they tell a lie and we repeat it over and over with out checking to see if its true or not.
Lets say i own a clothing manufacturing company and i make $300,000 a year and the government raises my tax rate. So i raise the cost of my product to cover the amount of my raised tax rate, Who did the Government really raise the taxes on? The poor and middle class that bought my product.
You see any type of TAX rate increase no matter who they say it is targeted to is an increase on the POOR and MIDDLE CLASS!
So why is it that 90% of the poor are Democrats?
Do a little, tiny bit of research on "flat tax rates" and you will see why YOU will be totally against the idea.
Especially if you are among the 47% who now pay no federal income tax even while screaming for fairness.
I tell you what moon. You go on a flat tax, the rest of stay on the present system.
That will work out just fine. When you figure out that you are paying a MUCH HIGHER portion of your income in taxes than ANYBODY else. You will come back screaming for our present screwed up tax system.
So now explain why the majority of the rich are democrats. Buffett, Stryker, Kaiser, Gates, Soros, and so many other billionaire examples.
http://nikitas3.com/1083/why-are-so-many-rich-people-liberals
The majority of the rich are Democrats because they are far more intelligent than Republicans.
Lmao....... You must be a bore at a party! Did I tell you that when I interview the 4 or 5 job applicants (Design Engineers) a month..... I ask them where they expect to be in 5 years. If they espouse in the first 3 minutes how smart they are or what university they attended, they get NO second interview. They for our needs, dont make good team members. I wonder who Jeffery Immelt will vote for?
50% of workers currently pay taxes, after filing, and they need to pay much, much more. Nothing is to be cut at all. In fact increases are in order to better provide for those already collecting, regardless of ability. Re elect President Obama and all your unaffordable social programs are safe. 2012 campaign theme "What, me worry?"
When is it necessry for the other 50% to pitch in a penny or two? Why does the one group need to put in more when the leeches pay nothing?
You do realize that when the country runs out of money there will be no more social programs don't you?
If they correct it now they at least can save it for millions of Americans that rely on it, if they do nothing it will be gone for everyone.
Do you realize that there are not enough high income folks to pay for what you want, but don't want to pay for yourself?? The math does not work, it is as simple as that. Social programs will have to be cut back. There is not and will not be enough money to pay for them all.
Thanks guys! There is hope for our country after all. ABO 2012!