*** Is the Buffett Rule good politics?

You bet it is!

Americans recognize this isn't 'class warfare'... it is BASIC math!

"Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America," Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz writes in a new piece for Vanity Fair this week. "But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way."

While it's unclear whether Stiglitz is correct about the intentions of the super-wealthy, what's certain is that the rich have emerged from the rubble of the last 30 years as indisputable winners. Since 1980, middle-class wages have largely stagnated and lower-class wages have declined, while the upper echelons of American society have seen a windfall. A study by University of California, Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez found that, as of 2007, the top decile of American earners pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/business/

When 1% control all the wealth in this country it is no longer a democracy but a plutocracy

Poll after poll shows that half of the American people disapprove of Barry’s handling of the economy. And polls also show 60% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. One would think Barry would spend at least half of every day working on solving these major national problems.

So what’s on Barry’s schedule for today??

Three Florida fundraisers and a red meat speech to the base on the Buffet rule 30% minimum tax on “millionaires and billionaires”. “Gaffe” Biden will be speaking in the same nonsense in NH. I call it “nonsense” because the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the rule would generate $46.7 billion in revenues over the next decade. LESS than $5 billion a year, assuming those evil “millionaires and billionaires” do nothing to limit their liability. This is a CPA and Tax Lawyers Full Employment Act. And with Barry running $1.2 Trillion deficits, that $5 Billion per year would barely cover about a day and a half of his deficit spending.

Barry should spend his time on more important pressing issues facing the country and stop the class warfare that only makes lefty liberals feel better and further divides the country.

From Politico:

Poll: Economy is Obama's weak spot
By: Darius Dixon
April 10, 2012 06:25 AM EDT

President Barack Obama is seen as more friendly and likable than Mitt Romney, but he’s still struggling to shake concerns about the economy and jobs, according to a survey released Tuesday.

Nearly half of those surveyed in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll say that Obama’s handling of the economy is a major reason to oppose his reelection and is also a leading reason to support a Romney administration.

While 64 percent found Obama to be more friendly and likable than Romney, only 46 percent — a 6-point margin — believed the president to be a stronger leader than his expected rival.

A majority of those surveyed, 54 percent, continue to disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy and his response to high gasoline prices — but Obama leads in other key areas, such as handling international affairs, protecting the middle class and addressing women’s issues. Still, two-thirds of those surveyed believe that the country is on the wrong track, the poll found.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll fins President Obama leading Mitt Romney in almost every category. The poll finds Obama with a double digit lead on protecting the middle class and handling of international affairs and health care. Obama is seen as better on women's health, and women favor him heavily. On the economy, people think the recovery is moving too slowly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-holds-key-leads-against-romney-as-economy-malaise-looms-over-bid/2012/04/09/gIQA8s1G7S_story.html?hpid=z1

Ron Indiana

The Wooden Man

Yes, he is truly man of wood and like the tin man he has no heart. this is a BFD. Why should anyone vote for to put a person in the WH who is not in touch with human beings?

Great reminder Ron. He is made my Alec, Koch bros, Alec, the NRA, and they will not allow him to move or think for the average American.

president Obama has more women supporters today than yestday

Obama/Biden 2012

Dennis: It's interesting that the WaPo uses the Term "malaise" in reference to Barry and the economy in a Presidential election year. Jimmy Carter's 1980 Presidential race comes immediately to mind.

LMAO!!!!

Beverly, please start over and type something that makes sense. Thank you.

Note to self...avoid Boca this afternoon. Although, I give the President some props on not going to FAU (Florida Atlantic University for you non-locals) at rush hour. Traffic in that area is bad enough and he'd have probably lost some votes. ;-)

Seriously though, I had a co-worker who based his 2004 vote on which candidate, Bush or Kerry, tied up traffic the least on fundraising trips.

Joe in Albany

I skipping your post, since your banter like you Joee makes no sense.

The report out about the ACA is a study by a Republican. We know know that GOP and Crossroads et al. will stop at nothing to take health care away from ordinary Americans.

TRY THIS INSTEAD:

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says otherwise.

"A new report by an independent government auditor concludes that implementing President Obama’s health care law as intended will make a significant dent in the long-term debt forecast."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/repealing-obamacare-would-explode-debt-government-auditor.php?ref=fpb

And - other developed countries have had universal health care for DECADES.

Rim,

Hey Rob wasn’t it the Republican controlled House that passed spending bills that was $1.3 trillion greater than the projected receipts?

So who is doing all the spending?

Traffic in that area is bad enough and he'd have probably lost some votes. ;-)

Grimey,

Funny you mention that, Clara & I got caught in the traffic jam when they shut down Lake Shore Drive for the President's visit the Friday before St. Patty's Day!

We did get to see Marine One though... ☺

The report out about the ACA is a study by a Republican. We know know that GOP and Crossroads et al. will stop at nothing to take health care away from ordinary Americans.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says otherwise.

Which is why I quote the CBO and the Medicare Actuaries. From todays Washington Post

CBO and Medicare actuaries acknowledge the double-counting issue. “In practice, the improved [trust fund] financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from” traditional budget rules, Medicare actuary Rick Foster wrote last year.

And in 2010, the CBO wrote that, absent the Medicare savings, the law would increase deficits by $226 billion through 2019 — instead of decreasing them by the commonly cited $132 billion.

So, Backhouse do you accept the word of the CBO that Obamacare, in practice, increases the deficit?

Dennis I'm glad you're joining me in the call to cut spending. Whichever party does the spending needs to hear from you me everybody!

LOWER DEBT IS FORECAST BY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT:

"A new report by an independent government auditor concludes that implementing President Obama's health care law as intended will make a significant dent in the long-term debt forecast."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/repealing-obamacare-would-explode-debt-government-auditor.php?ref=fpb

Ignore the GOP spinners & Super-pacs.

while the average secretary's tax rate is 29.9%.

_______________________________________________

Dr.Ron: I'm not sure where you got that stat, but, a quick look at the IRS 2011 tax rate schedules shows it is RIDICULOUS.

An "average secretary" filing single would need a taxable income (i.e. income after all deductiions, exemptions tax credits etc.) of $379,150 to have to pay an effective tax rate of 29.02%. (From page 274 of 2011 IRS Publication 17 Your Federal Income Tax for Individuals)

An "average secretary" filing jointly with that same taxable income (i.e. income after all deductiions, exemptions tax credits etc.) would pay an effective tax rate of 27.05% (same source)

Maybe St. Warren of the Left pays his secretary $400-450,000 a year, but, she's NOT your "average secretary".

The Congressional Budget Office STILL FINDS that the health care law (ACA) will REDUCE the Federal budget Deficit over the next decade.

This week a new report finds:

1. Cost of coverage wll be lower by $50 Billion from 2012 - 2021 (compared to last year's estimates)

2. Private health insurance premiums will be 8% lower in 2021 than was predicated by CBO last year.

Those who want to take away our health care are using this to say the costs of the law have increased, but that is wrong. Their math fails to use the SAME TIME PERIOD to compare old & new estimates and does not adjust for population grown, or account inflation and it is not complete - and ignores provisions in the ACA that save dollars over time.

The naysayers are trying to compare a 10-year estimate to an 8-year extimate

FACT: The non-partisan CBO says the ACA will be fully paid for.

Ignore the GOP spinners & Super-pacs.

..and rely on the Talking Points memo website?

I don't get it Backhouse, you used love the reports from the CBO. Why don't you like this one?

And in 2010, the CBO wrote that, absent the Medicare savings, the law would increase deficits by $226 billion through 2019 — instead of decreasing them by the commonly cited $132 billion.

The non-partisan CBO says the ACA will be fully paid for.

Actually they don't. They actually say that the 500B in savings that is being used to fund the ACA is also being counted as extending the Medicare Trust Fund until 2029. Or in other words, the Administration is double counting the money.

Accountants go to jail for this kind of bookkeeping.

Rim,

So why is it that Republicans call President Obama a tax and spend liberal when:

Individual Federal taxes are down ?

Obama proposed a $4 trillion debt reduction deal ?

From Obama 09/09/09

First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.

Didn't source the quote.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care

You can trust the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office over Romney, Crossroads,

or any Republican that is receiving money from,

or speaking on behalf of,

or voting to increase the profit margin of,

Big Corporations and

Insurance Companies.

You can trust the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office over Romney, Crossroads,

So why do you post comments that contradict their findings?

We are going to have affordable, accessible Health Care for All Americans,

Whether rich or poor.

Just like the other developed nations,

That have had Universal health care for DECADES.

I don't understand. I always thought the buffet rule involved forming two lines and making sure to use the utensils rather than your fingers to pick up the crudites.

Oh, wait. You said BUFFETT. Never mind.

And thanks for all the fish. I really loved the smoked salmon. It goes so well with the crepes.

And you say you don't understand what BEVERLY was posting about. Well.

I'll see that and raise it, and I'll STILL make more sense than Albany Joe.

I know supposedly, no one likes Obama's budget proposal but I would like to point out that he believes both spending cuts and tax increases are necessary to solve our debt problem. He wants to do BOTH like any other sane individual. He refuses to cave to the right's immobility on the issue of increased tax revenue.

I still can't believe that voters would cast their ballots for people that would be so completely unwilling to listen to their fellow senators/representatives and instead choose to stubbornly continue down the path that led us to this mess we're in now!

I just can't believe it...

Ni Hao Ron Indiana, Feisty and Beverly! The Chairman approves of your participation!

And As-salam alaykum to my Muslim Brothers, Joe in Albany, Rob in ma, and JoAnnaSmith1! If you are upset, it is only because you forgot to read your Korans today!

Let's talk about Warren Buffet, who happens to be not always right, but more right than almost anyone else when it comes to running his company. OH NO! Now that he is talking to Obama, that must mean he's a liberal!

Not unlike the Dem disapproval of Gates for position of Defense Secretary. What? How DARE he actually be effective and conservative! Therefore, wait for it, he must NOT be effective, because he is, and conservative!

OH MECCA, WHAT HAS THE DEVIL DONE TO US!? If we had a proper religious government, there could be a proper stoning of the extremists who vote for one party only. But here we are, forced to convert to Islam and vote Republican, or vote for a Chinese Communist Democrat. Who ever thought Americans would only want a one party country?

What is important to know, is whether you are wearing your thobe or your party greys, since neither the Republicans or Democrats actually want to fix the economy, you MUST choose between Allah and his lack of birth control, or the Party and having your children owned by the state.

Remember, you won't own your children under the Democratic Communist PARTY, but at least they'll have all their hands, unlike the Muslim Republican Pilgrimage.

I vote MUSLIM ORTHODOX REPUBLICANS because Allah knows I want the right to cut off the limbs of relatives if they get out of line!

Fairness is both good policy and politics.

I know supposedly, no one likes Obama's budget proposal but I would like to point out that he believes both spending cuts and tax increases are necessary to solve our debt problem.

Bingo MGates73!

Anyone else remember during one of the debates, the moderator asked the right wing candidates if they could approve a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts versus tax increases?

Not ONE of them raised there hand!

Not a ONE!

You cannot balance the budget on spending cuts alone, anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fool!

Grover Norquist must be proud!

Alan, NJ

It took me two minutes to read Bev's post and I still don't understand most of it (I get that Hannity doesn't like Obama), but I laughed out loud at those who oppose the Buffer rule.

Bev, how much time do you spend watching Fox? It's time to get a life.

Have you heard of that there thing called the internet? You don't need to watch FOX to catch it's POX. It's all over the web!!!!

FOX LOVERS need more than a life. You need a brain as evidenced by 7 polls stating how misguided and ignorant you are.

Are you a millionaire? Can you afford to subsidize the FAT CATS or are you just plain stupid?

backhouse -- having trouble finding where you got this fact:

FACT: The non-partisan CBO says the ACA will be fully paid for.

I have downloaded the report but need your help please on where in the report this statement is made.

Thanks

We are going to have Health Care for All Americans,

Whether rich or poor.

Just like the other developed nations,

That have had Universal Health care for DECADES.

You're not having a good day Backhouse because the CBO estimates that there will still be 26 to 27 million uninsured after Obamacare is implemented.

Compared with prior law, the ACA is now estimated by CBO and JCT to reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years, leaving 26 million to 27 million nonelderly residents uninsured in those years (see Table 3 at the end of the report). The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance is projected to rise from 82 percent in 2012 to 93 percent in 2016 and subsequent years. That share rose to 95 percent in CBO and JCT's previous estimate.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43080

On another point. Didn't the President promise that if you like your insurance you can keep it? Well what about the 20 Million who the CBO estimate could lose their employer based insurance.

As many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of President Obama's healthcare reform law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a new report Thursday.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/216223-cbo-millions-of-americans-could-lose-their-employer-coverage

20 million people at the end of a broken promise. I won't even mention the fact that he was against "forcing people to buy insurance".

Have you heard of that there thing called the internet? You don't need to watch Fox to catch it's POX.

Really. I've never went their site except to watch House.

FOX LOVERS need more than a life. you need a brain as evidenced by 7 polls how misguided and ignorant you are.

Not a Fox Lover. I actually watch MSNBC more than Fox

Are you a millionaire? Can you afford to subsidize the FAT CATS or you just plain stupid?

No, No and smarter than the average Bev, Bev.

BTW what is the Buffer rule?

All Americans are going to receive afffordable, accessible healthcare

And be treated like decent human beings,

Wealthy, employed, white, male, or not.

For Alan --

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43090

In the original analysis of the impact of the legislation, CBO and JCT estimated that, on balance, the number of people obtaining coverage through their employer would be about 3 million lower in 2019 under the legislation than under prior law. As reflected in CBO’s latest baseline projections, the two agencies now anticipate that, because of the ACA, about 3 million to 5 million fewer people, on net, will obtain coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022 than would have been the case under prior law.

I'm not saying this is good. It's not, and it's why I was against ACA from the start. But there's a big difference between 3 million and 20 million, and perhaps it is better that we let CBO speak for itself.

As for the effect of having fewer people with employer-sponsored coverage, read on --

In contrast, the scenario with the largest reduction in employment-based coverage actually lowers the cost of the ACA to the federal government relative to the baseline projections because the extra costs for Medicaid and exchange subsidies are more than offset by the increased revenues resulting from higher taxable compensation among workers who receive higher wages in lieu of health benefits.

In other words, those who lose health insurance coverage will pay more money in taxes, assuming, of course, that their employer actually pays them more to offset the loss of health care.

This means higher taxes, just where they ought to be -- on the middle class.

So I don't know what you're complaining about. Conservatives ought to like that, don't you think?

For James --

In the March 2012 baseline projections, the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA have an estimated net cost to the federal government of $1,252 billion over the eleven-year period from 2012 through 2022. Under the four alternative scenarios examined here, that projected net cost ranges from $1,170 billion to $1,297 billion, representing differences relative to the baseline projections that range from a decrease of $82 billion (or 7 percent) to an increase of $45 billion (or 4 percent). The scenarios with the larger estimated costs are the ones in which additional reductions in employment-based coverage relative to the baseline projections are concentrated among low-income workers.

If we have a trillion dollars to spend, I wonder where that money is better spent -- fruitless wars in the Middle East or for health care for all Americans.

I vote health care, and stop buying jet planes that we don't need. You'd probably be surprised how fast we could find a trillion dollars if we only looked for it.

From Obama 09/09/09

First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.

So what is Obama talking about today? Not cuts. He does want to raise taxes though.

____________

What are you complaining about, Obama hasn't raised taxes. Instead Obama has bowed to the GOP's theme of tax cuts. He continued the Bush tax cuts, watered down the stimulus with business tax cuts, recently signed the "Non Jobs act" laden with tax cuts.

Buffet tax - I agree is theatrics. It won't pass in the Senate or House. Wouldn't do much if it did.

We need real tax reform and someone who will make the tough decisions to raise taxes on the middle class as well as the 1%. It is basic math, the 1% should pay more, go back to the Clinton rates, their capital gains should be taxed as if it was income. At the same time, the middle class should be taxed at the Clinton rates as they help make up the 99%. 100% of us need to pay more in taxes. We all need to pay our fair share. Deductions need to be reigned in, including perhaps even the mortgage deduction. When you are allowed to deduct home equity debt interest rolled into your mortgage payments something is wrong.

We are trapped in a sinking ship drowning in debt and like an addicted lab rat in a cage we keep hitting the opiate of tax cuts as we plunge into the abyss.

In other words, those who lose health insurance coverage will pay more money in taxes, assuming, of course, that their employer actually pays them more to offset the loss of health care.

My basic complaint about the ACA is that it adds 20 - 30 million people to an already broken system. The fact that they did not start with provider costs means that everything else was tainted.

What I find annoying is that people fell for the promises of the President.

1) Adding 30m and it will cost less

2) If you like your insurance you can keep it

3) Insurance will be so reasonable there will be no need to force people to but it

All statements were basically unbelievable but people are naive. It was the same as the Bush Administration claiming that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.

We could easily cut the money from defense spending if we wanted to. All we have to do is to quit poking our nose into every body's business, let the UN and NATO handle problems that are not a direct attack on the US. Nobody will ever invade the continental US we are too well armed, they don't have to worry about our military, they have to worry about our civilians. They must know we will "stand our ground". I don't worry about these foreign rebels and such, I see them on TV and I think why hell I have seen more firepower at a picnic in Tennessee.

Damage123

Beverly, since an "Uncle Tom" to you is a Black person that can speak English, knows how to spell, makes their own money and is successful, I'm sure Hannity is proud to have as many "Uncle Toms" as he can pack onto his show on any given night.

Brain Damage,

You got it all wrong. Hannity is the one who has very little knowledge of the English language; even with Roger Ailes whispering in his ear what to say.

Hell, you should be glad he does. Hannity is doing a good job of showing White America that not ALL prominent Black folks are race-baiting, ignorant buffoons like Jesse and Al. Trust me Bev, I've been looking into it and the behavior of your heroes the last few weeks is actually causing previously NON-racist young White folks to rethink their position. I hope you're proud.

Wrong Again, Brain Damage

Hannity uses Aunt-ie and Uncle Toms to foster Racism and promote Negrohobia.

Check this fool, Jesse Patterson, one of Hannity's black poodles out. I bet you'll agree with me. But, you gotta click on the links to form an opinion.

Thanks for Slavery, says Jesse Lee Peterson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEeK9g9XnvY

Here the Negro-phobia is being promoted by racist and Uncle Toms who seek asylum @ FOX NOISE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E&feature=player_embedded

YD: What are you complaining about, Obama hasn't raised taxes.

He's working on it. After the election he'll have more "flexibility" as he says.

You do know the taxes for Obamacare kick in starting January 1, 2013. That along with the Bush/Obama tax cuts will end, as will the payroll tax give-away Obama was so hot for. That will probably be a 6-10% raise in taxes on everyone. Many states are in trouble too, they'll certainly consider raising their income/sales taxes to fund their governments. Just more money out of the consumers pocket and into the governments.

YD: Instead Obama has bowed to the GOP's theme of tax cuts.

Yeah, it's the GOPs fault. Everything is.

YD: We need real tax reform and someone who will make the tough decisions to raise taxes on the middle class as well as the 1%.

Maybe someone should focus on growing the economy, you know, expanding the tax base? Going to be tough to do though with all the entitlements we have to collect taxes for so they are funded.

YD: We are trapped in a sinking ship drowning in debt and like an addicted lab rat in a cage we keep hitting the opiate of tax cuts as we plunge into the abyss.

I'm just hoping for a spending cut somewhere. Government does too much badly.

from the article, a Paul ad:

Or a Texan with a real plan to balance the budget.”

and send the economy into a massive tailspin by throwing millions more people out on the street and out of their homes (because they won't have a job to pay for said homes)

more making the rich richer and the poor and middle class poorer

There's been a lot of talking going on about the ACA and the individual mandate. I think this was Obama's way of showing that he can compromise. At the time, Republicans were FOR the individual mandate. Democrats want universal healthcare but one way or another they know everyone needs to be covered (privately or publically but they need to pay) for their healthcare use.

Anyone can see that the current system is not working and is only getting worse and putting people in more and more dangerous (financially) situations. He wanted to change healthcare coverage in a way that would benefit everyone and in a way with which everyone could agree. I don't think he expected this backlash at all because he wanted it to be bypartisan. If he had done it purely the way he wanted it would probably be more like universal healthcare.

One of the many lies the republicans use against the President and their very biggest lies is that Obama is creating class warfare. The republican class has been trying to silence the democrat and independant classes for many, many years and long before the Clinton era even. Oh, you mean monetary classes... at least Buffet has class and isn't attempting to hide behind the lie of give them less taxes and they will create more jobs. The crooks already pay far less than the middle class and if they aren't shipping the jobs overseas, they are hiding their incomes there.

and I'll STILL make more sense than Albany Joe.

______________________________________________

AM: Only in the warped mind of a lawyer living on Planet Liberal. :~)

You got it Mike as long as they can continue to convince poor people in right to work for less and less and less states that Obama is the one getting in their knickers they can continue to be the ones that really slip them the weenie big time.

This president seems to do what HE thinks is right... Not what any poll says he should do... Health-care was one of them... I doubt President Obama, looks to any polling before he makes a decision... Killing OBL was thought to be too risky, He had him shot dead...

Talking about taxes not a good idea, well he's talking about taxes because something needs to be done...

With a do nothing congress this president has to make up his own mind and decide... He's not the flip flopper Romney is...

One of the many lies the republicans use against the President and their very biggest lies is that Obama is creating class warfare. The republican class has been trying to silence the democrat and independant classes for many, many years and long before the Clinton era even. Oh, you mean monetary classes... at least Buffet has class and isn't attempting to hide behind the lie of give them less taxes and they will create more jobs. The crooks already pay far less than the middle class and if they aren't shipping the jobs overseas, they are hiding their incomes there.

So what is the purpose of the Buffet rule? As proposed it will increase the deficit. It will not close any loopholes like the ones Buffet uses. He can still pay himself a $1 salary and avoid payroll taxes. He does not have to realize Capital gains and can pay himself less $999,999 in AGI using dividends.

If Buffet had principals he would have simply written a check to the treasury.

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

It's as simple as going to this web site.

JAS1 - Yes its all the GOP's fault, everything is.

I did not say that. No, as Obama is not a GOP, and all politicians are afraid to tell the truth and vote for what is required on tax policy everyone is at fault. The problem I have with the GOP is they want to shirk all responsibility when it comes to tax responsibilities. They demand no new taxes and increased tax cuts. Everyone else has started to expect and feel they deserve the same treatment.

We all cheered the Bush tax cuts, the $600 tax cut gimmick, cheered all the deductions, cheered the continuation of the Obama/Bush tax cuts, cheered the SS tax cut gimmick and countless others.

JoAnna Smith - As you have read and responded to me before. You know that I've always said that with the increased taxes there needs to be spending cuts as well. That includes entitlement reform.

A balance.

You don't believe that these deficits are sustainable forever, deficits fueled by the aversion to let tax cuts expire. Deficits that are fueled by a refusal to accept spending cuts.

Maybe I'm a rare bird, a leftist liberal, but I will not ignore that we have a huge deficit problem. A problem that can not be squared by spending cuts alone. As I have "relearned" in helping with my child's algebra homework recently, you can't only focus on one side of the equation.

Nobody will ever invade the continental US we are too well armed, they don't have to worry about our military, they have to worry about our civilians.

_________________________________________________

Grump: The rumor is that North Korea will be testing an ICBM this week that is capable of reaching HI and AK with a nuke. Are you recommending we write off HI and AK? And how soon do you think they will be able to reach the Left Coast?

Alan, I understand your concerns with the Buffet rule vs the AMT. Even if lets say the net tax effect is 0 (highly unlikely). The AMT is very confusing and requires a lot more work to understand both for the IRS and taxpayers. The Buffet rule at least would reduce complexity which will make things easier on both ends. I think the main opposition is based on the idea of those with high capital gains income having to pay greater than 15% tax. If the AMT was truly effective Rommney would not be able to pay such a low effective rate.

I do not fully remember how the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) tax works but clearly the example with Romney would show that it probably works in punishing those who have earned income. I think you agree with the idea that deficit reduction should be done with both tax increases and spending cuts with and emphasis on cuts. A point in which I disagree. Though many may believe the Buffet cut as simple posturing I see it as a step in the right direction.

My confusion to the Buffett tax is I think there is a simpler way to impose it. After quite a short conversation with my brother we came up with the idea of capping the amount of income that can be claimed as "capital gains". This is the system used for many other tax deductions in order to curb abuse by the rich and promote use by poor and middle class. I am uncertain as to why it cannot be imposed? I could be mistaken on important facts in the issue. Anyone have any thoughts?

Beverly - Hannity uses Aunt-ie and Uncle Toms to foster Racism..

______

One thing I have never understood is the belittlement of Uncle Tom, a strong, Christian character and protaganist. Although littered with stereotypes, written by a white woman from the north, it was a book that helped motivate the abolitionist movement.

From wikipedia....

Legree begins to hate Tom when Tom refuses Legree's order to whip his fellow slave. Legree beats Tom viciously and resolves to crush his new slave's faith in God. Despite Legree's cruelty, however, Tom refuses to stop reading his Bible and comforting the other slaves as best he can. While at the plantation, Tom meets Cassy, another of Legree's slaves. Cassy was previously separated from her son and daughter when they were sold; unable to endure the pain of seeing another child sold, she killed her third child.

At this point Tom Loker returns to the story. Loker has changed as the result of being healed by the Quakers. George, Eliza, and Harry have also obtained their freedom after crossing into Canada. In Louisiana, Uncle Tom almost succumbs to hopelessness as his faith in God is tested by the hardships of the plantation. However, he has two visions, one of Jesus and one of Eva, which renew his resolve to remain a faithful Christian, even unto death. He encourages Cassy to escape, which she does, taking Emmeline with her. When Tom refuses to tell Legree where Cassy and Emmeline have gone, Legree orders his overseers to kill Tom. As Tom is dying, he forgives the overseers who savagely beat him. Humbled by the character of the man they have killed, both men become Christians. Very shortly before Tom's death, George Shelby (Arthur Shelby's son) arrives to buy Tom’s freedom but finds he is too late

Uncle Tom, the title character, was initially seen as a noble, long-suffering Christian slave. In more recent years, however, his name has become an epithet directed towards African-Americans who are accused of selling out to whites. Stowe intended Tom to be a "noble hero"^[25] and praiseworthy person. Throughout the book, far from allowing himself to be exploited, Tom stands up for his beliefs and is grudgingly admired even by his enemies.

_______

Far from being a sell out, the character lived and died for his beliefs to protect his fellow man.

YD: JoAnna Smith - As you have read and responded to me before. You know that I've always said that with the increased taxes there needs to be spending cuts as well. That includes entitlement reform.

That's fine, and I agree.

The problem, who in DC is talking about doing such things? Paul Ryan touches on it. and gets knocked around and criticized for doing so. Romney isn't touching on it. Certainly Obama and the Democrats have punted on the issue of entitlement/tax reform and spending cuts (except for Defense).

It's becoming clearer by the day that the only time these problems get resolved is when our creditors tells us what to do, just like with Greece, and the creditors won't be too sympathetic about what gets cut or who gets taxed.

Ron -- You said:

The Wooden Man

Yep. Kinda like Pinocchio without much heart. Only we can't see his nose grow when he tells lies. Using WaPo's scale for whoppers told, I'd give Romney five Pinocchio's.

Also, those capital gains will have to be realized at some point Alan, at which they will be taxed appropriately.

Ron, Feisty, Beverly..............just curious.......what tax bracket are you guys in?

Buffet rule is Just Pandering to the uninformed voter. It has no chance of passing and the President knows it but it makes for good sound bites to attract the OWS type folk

Anna Molly: "I don't understand. I always thought the buffet rule involved forming two lines and making sure to use the utensils rather than your fingers to pick up the crudites."

LOL, Anna Molly - I always thought the Buffet Rule was "Don't be greedy and take bigger helpings just because you can - leave some for others" and "No doggie bags allowed". No wonder conservatives don't like it!

Then again, at least Mitt Romney remembers to "Always start with a clean plate each time you return"..... :)

Joe if they fired a nuke at the US, we would fire enough nukes back to split the earth off it's axis. Mutually Assured Destruction, the same thing, and only thing that keeps Russia, India and everyone else with nukes at bay.

Our ability to instantly wipe out anybody we have a notion to is exactly the thing that drives other countries to develop weapons of similar capabilities and always will. They must wonder, will we be the next Iraq? If they had a nuke and we didn't wouldn't you want one, If I was a North Korean I would want a nuke because there are a lot of crazy bastards out there that have them, and they would only use them on people who cannot shoot one back.

Akeem: Also, those capital gains will have to be realized at some point Alan, at which they will be taxed appropriately.

And if you raise the taxes on cap gains, how do you think that will affect how people invest their money? Do you think it will encourage economic activity, or dampen economic activity?

Good or bad politics, it's all he's got. He certainly can't run on his record. He'll run against Congress, capitalism, the Supreme Court and the Constitution. How can he lose?

LMAO - and the left says "trickle down economics" doesn't work. One of you morons needs to tell obama. Reagan had more success with it being voluntary than obama ever will ever have by doing it by force.

We have a greater need for real tax reform. As yellowdog suggests, let the obama (bush) tax cuts expire across the board, but couple them with spending cuts as well.

The question is to what extent JoAnna. I personally do not think the effect would be that great on real investments such as capital projects and business ventures. It will however, probably greatly effect the trading markets and those who chose to make careers out of it. By instituting a cap like I suggested, you would limit the level of its effect. For instance, if it were 1 million dollars I doubt it would have a huge effect on the decisions people make if your "economic activity" Is generating over 1 million dollars of profits.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

it seems that you are always one of the very first to post regarding anything obama....and you are always pro-obama. You have the right to be so and the right to speak your mind. Well so do I and I believe that you are a politically planted shill for obama I also believe him to be a lyer and hypocrite and someone I do not trust. Wrong to think I'm not a right winger - I am pro-America and for the best person (male/female) for the job - and he isn't, but that aside:

If he does get re-elected we'll see how good of a job (or should I say how better of a job) he does. My guess is that with his current plans to raise the tax on the rich he will suceed in driving them out of this country to find better tax shelters for their "trillions?" of greedilly obtained riches. I also believe that his policy will stifle those many driven people to not be so driven AND productive. Their "greed" has provided the jobs and the income that built this country into what it is now - so this is how we reward them? Higher taxes? Jobs will be harder to find, the rich will no longer be the entrepenures they are now and our children will be looking to the poor business man/woman or the government to give them a low paying subsistance job - there will be no more growth. I feel sorry for the up coming generations that will not even do as well as the previous ones have done.

If I was a North Korean I would want a nuke because there are a lot of crazy bastards out there that have them, and they would only use them on people who cannot shoot one back.

Really, after all these years, what crazy bastards out there have used them on people who cannot shoot back?

And seriously, who are the crazy bastards, the US, UK, France, Israel or the sicko who literally enslaves and starves his people in pursuit of nuclear weapons?

Iran is a sicko regime that does not care about mutual destruction and is a very serious threat. Even Obama can see that.

The big point however for America is not that we have them, but why Obama's is destroying our ability to defend ourselves from them?

Care to explain that insanity, why Obama is more concerned with appeasing Putin than protecting America?

1. Joe if they fired a nuke at the US, we would fire enough nukes back to split the earth off it's axis.

2.If I was a North Korean I would want a nuke because there are a lot of crazy bastards out there that have them, and they would only use them on people who cannot shoot one back.

__________________________________________

1. Not with China's nuclear arsenal backing NK up. Suppose NK sends a nuke into Pearl Harbor and China (our largest foreign deficit banker) tells us that we need to sit there and take it for the good of the entire world, or else they will unleash their nukes on us. What would Barry do??

2. So you are betting that NK will be bound to do the reasonable and rational thing with their nukes??

You lefty liberals are FUNNY!!!!!

DANGEROUSLY FUNNY.

Akeem: The question is to what extent JoAnna.

It very much is. Investors work on a risk-reward basis Akeem. Riskier investments are expected to bring back more of a reward. By increasing taxes on the reward, that makes an investment a bigger risk, and one that an investor may not make. By how much will investors flee that market? That depends on how much risk the investor wants to assume. Cap or no cap, it is guaranteed that some investors won't take that risk and will move their funds elsewhere. That of course will impact economic activity in a negative way.

JoAnna, I understand that in investment risk is rewarded by return. My argument is that maybe over the last decade investors were overcompensated for their risk. As to say, the risk premium they were taking was misaligned with reward. My idea would be backed by the huge income gap that has be widened between the rich(risk takers) and the poor.

If my idea were to be true I do not see what is wrong with the concept of raising tax to bring back the correct returns. I can guarentee you the rich will still invest. Most projects that were worth taking before will still be worth taking. Those that provided very little return, and had little true effect in our economny won't. I do not see the problem with this at all. Most likely it will cause a short term negative effect no the economy, to which extent neither of us can predict. In the long run it may work for the better, as these investments may be better ones. It is all theory you cannot say one thing will happen without also taking into consideration another can happen.

The Federal Government is suing Warren Buffett for 366 million in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest. Buffett is challenging the suit through the IRS. Seems even Buffett has a limit to the amount of taxes he is willing to fork over to the Obama administration, even if he is being used as the poster child for calling for tax increases. GE pays zero in corporate taxes, and Buffett is being sued for 366 million in taxes. Seems fair to me. Obviously Buffett isn't stuffing the right pockets in Washington.

@Akeem

The AMT kicks in if you have too many deductions. It hits a state like NJ as we can claim high state income tax off the amount we owe in Federal taxes. It would not affect Romney because he is paying tax on dividends at 15%.

Now an idea might be to band dividends and capital gains like income. Tax reform along the lines of the Ryan plan makes more sense than the Buffet rule. It really is political showboating.

The Federal Government is suing Warren Buffett for 366 million in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest.

____________________________________

And the FUNNIEST part of that is the IRS is suing St. Warren of the Left's Berkshire Hathaway owned Netjets which sells fractional shares in another Barry class warfare boogeyman: corporate jets.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Albany Joe --

Only in the warped mind of a lawyer living on Planet Liberal. :~)

Hands down the nicest thing you ever said to me, Albany. :-*

JoAnne --

"No doggie bags allowed". No wonder conservatives don't like it!

LoL JoAnne -- Especially Mitt, given that doggie bags are what he thinks he's supposed to use to feed his own dog, which he leaves in the carrier on top of the Escalade while he and Ann politely raid the buffet.

Alan, NJ --

All statements were basically unbelievable but people are naive. It was the same as the Bush Administration claiming that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.

Well, it's not exactly the same, but I don't like it any better. Never have. I have always known it was not going to work, at least not without a public option to keep the costs down where they belong. Single payer was the ONLY realistic option.

So you are betting that NK will be bound to do the reasonable and rational thing with their nukes?

I am not betting on anybody doing the reasonable and rational thing, that is the point and neither is any other country, did we do the reasonable and rational thing in Iraq? Any country is right to feel threatened by other countries that have nukes, they feel as we do, they want the ability to at least be able to retaliate, they feel they have as much right to defend themselves as everybody else does. You disagreeing with them does not change that fact.

What would Barry do, really Joey, Barry? I think our president's handling of Bin Laden and Pakistan indicates he would unleash our nukes in response to nukes.

"And seriously, who are the crazy bastards, the US, UK, France, Israel or the sicko who literally enslaves and starves his people in pursuit of nuclear weapons?"

Gee Bob I hope you are not talking about a country that spends 53 cents of every tax dollar on defense while claiming they are too broke for health-care, medicare, SS, food stamps, educational grants and all manner of social programs and now even infrastructure, are you. Do you know what country that is Bob.

BTW we are the only country that has ever used a Nuke on anybody so far, and as soon as we did it became apparent to everyone else that they must have a similar weapon to feel secure

One last thing Joe be glad I am not in charge because if China let NK nuke Pearl Harbor I would get even with China by nuking Wal-Mart. I would put the hurt to China Joe. Ha truth is Wal-Mart shoppers and Apple product buyers, just may be a bigger deterrent to Communist China than our nukes.

Albany Joe --

The rumor is that North Korea will be testing an ICBM this week that is capable of reaching HI and AK with a nuke.

I'll tell you when this gets scary. It gets scary when Rachel Maddow does a story about it, as she did last night. They're using the missile to launch a space satellite that weighs 250 pounds or so, but the missile is apparently capable of lifting 1,000 pounds into orbit -- more than enough for a warhead. If the missile can reach outer space, it can probably reach California.

I wonder if anyone else has reported on this with the clarity that Maddow did.

Well, it's not exactly the same, but I don't like it any better. Never have. I have always known it was not going to work, at least not without a public option to keep the costs down where they belong. Single payer was the ONLY realistic option.

Did anybody actually propose a specific public option / single payer system? Medicare for All would not work as it's simply affordable. How do you get providers to accept the prices of a public option. There are already studies showing that cost shifting will occur under Obamacare because of the low compensation paid by Medicaid.

The problem is we pay too much and use too many medical services. I debate was needed to convince people to use less. Instead, the Administration decided to keep the same crappy system and add 30m more subscribers. It fits the definition of insanity to try the same thing again and expect different results.

And then you have the mandate......

JoAnna Smith - The Ryan plan isn't the answer because it doesn't look at a balanced approach.

________

Directly from pages 5 -6 "Key Objectives" My comments in italics.

Economic Growth and job Creation – Fosters a better environment for private sector job creation by lifting debt fueled uncertainty and advancing pro growth tax reforms.

No balance detected; only implies and later talks about cutting deductions whose savings are offset by lessening tax rates. No deficit savings.

Spending cuts and controls – Stops Washington from spending money it doesn’t have on gov programs that do not work. Locks spending cuts with spending controls.

Like I said I can agree to spending cuts, but Ryan and I would differ on which government programs work and which do not.

Real security: Fulfills the mission of health and retirement security for all Americans by making the tough decisions necessary to save critical health and retirement programs.

At what cost, our safety net is utilized by too many to withstand the cuts he invisions.

Patient centered health care: Repeals and defunds the President’s health care law, advancing common sense solutions focused on lowering costs, expanding access and protecting the doctor patient relationship.

Replace it with what? If he is for a public option to create competion I'm all for it.

Restoring American’s exceptional promise: Tackles the existential threat posed by rapidly growing government and debt, applying the nation’s timeless principles to this generation’s greatest challenge. Ensure that the next generation inherits a stronger more prosperous America.

Good rhetoric. I only wish he would be so gung ho about leaving the next generation a cleaner environment.

Debt – Reduce deficit by 4.4 trillion over 10 years. ($440 billion a year)

Taxes – Keeps taxes so low the economy can grow. Eliminate 800 billion by stopping the president’s health care law.

If taxes are "so low" any benefit of increased revenue by broadening tax base will be negated.

Sets top rates for individuals and business at 25%.

All I see is less and less revenue and cuts in his plan.

_____

I see no talk about a balanced approach in Ryan's plan. Part of a balance approach would be what American 205 said...let the Bush tax cuts die.

What continues to puzzle me is why all of these so called right wing, conservative fruitcakes keep reading and commenting on MSNBC news articles when they continually state that MSNBC is left-wing and not in touch with reality and publishes unless articles? Why aren't these bigoted idiots staying with Fox News?.....Hmmm! Could it be that Fox News is not news, but useless garbage and MSNBC actually publishes factual and unbiased news?!?!? Could it be that these right wing fanatics can't find anything worth talking about on Fax news and come to MSNBC for real news????

Tell me, you pathetic losers, why are you on a so called left wing news site? I'm waiting........

But that's not the point of Obama pushing the Buffett rule. The real point is to again divide the country, this time with class warfare. It's doubtful this mess gets passed even in the Democrat led Senate.

Bull@!$%#. That is bull@!$%# and you know it. When a Republican says that the "holy job creators" need more money, and that we should pay for that by making the poor pay "their fair share" (noted in the Ryan and Romney budget plans), nobody raises a finger. But when a Democrat says enough with this trickle-down crap and says that we should return tax rates to the Clinton era, its class warfare??? Class warfare my ass. The only class warfare that has occurred in this country is from the right. They have cut taxes on the rich for decades, and the nation gets stuck with a huge debt, a fragile economy, and massive income inequality. @!$%# you, GOP. Class warfare only exists on your side of the spectrum. The rich should pay more; for God's sake the top 1% control 43% of the wealth in America!!! Can the class warfare @!$%# and be quiet.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Why is it, only liberals see the Buffett Rule as something that actually works. Liberals never bother to do the math on it. The amount of government income arising from the Buffett rule is pennies.

Class warfare... simple and true.

since buffet has openly admitted to paying less taxes than he should why not simply audit and re-evaluate buffet's tax returns making him pay more.

just a thought.......................

My guess is that with his current plans to raise the tax on the rich he will suceed in driving them out of this country to find better tax shelters for their "trillions?" of greedilly obtained riches. I also believe that his policy will stifle those many driven people to not be so driven AND productive. Their "greed" has provided the jobs and the income that built this country into what it is now - so this is how we reward them? Higher taxes? Jobs will be harder to find, the rich will no longer be the entrepenures they are now and our children will be looking to the poor business man/woman or the government to give them a low paying subsistance job - there will be no more growth.

Really? Higher taxes on the rich will "drive them out" of the country?

So how many rich people left when Reagan raised taxes 11 times? Go on, tell us... how many?

Oh that's right, you have no proof and are simply repeating a Fox News LIE. YOU ARE A LIAR.

Bill O'Reilly said this exact same thing. He said that if his taxes were raised he might leave the country and no longer provide jobs for all his employees. Those were his exact words... until someone called his bluff. He was put on the spot, on live television and asked if he would truly, honestly leave if he started making only $2.8 million instead of $3 million... if he would give up all those millions because it would be slightly less.

O'Reilly folded like a fifteen-cent hooker getting punched in the gut... He admitted that he would NOT leave. It was all talk... it was all a LIE. Him, and every other Republican stating this are full of s***.

The reality is that most people in the top 1% do not, and will not notice a small tax increase. This is because most of their money comes from investments that constantly shift up and down on a daily basis. Increasing taxes on this income will have ZERO affect on their lives and their investments, because it is just another shift.

They pay more in taxes, and that will shift their investment income down. Then the next day a few investments push it up and they have made up for the taxes. Then they go down again, then up, then down, then up... and on and on.

No one will leave because of a tax increase on the rich... anyone who says they will "leave" is full of s***. Look at the income disparity here. The 1% make more here than almost all other countries. The 1% can keep the middle class income stagnant while growing their own income... so why the f*** would they leave?

What, you think the rich are going to move to a country where the middle class make more... and the income disparity is less? You think they are going to move to a country where there is less money for them, because the middle class make more? You are a fool if you believe that.

ALan, due to the idea of "double taxation" grouping capital gains with earned income is a tough fight. One I simply don't think its worth it. Though I do not think its right, there is an argument and its an argument that makes sense. That is why as I have stated, and which you agree we should lower corporate taxes to put an end to that argument. Sadly that is another losing fight.

Thats why I offered to put a cap to it. It does a better job of avoiding losing to "politics" and does provide some flexibility in the threshold.

I also believe him to be a lyer and hypocrite

At least you spelled one of your defamations correctly. Care to venture a guess as to which one that is, wtfjess66?

freshieee - I'll call your Bull$hit and raise you a Bull$hit. First, it's not only the rich that received benefits from tax cuts. You received benefit from them and so did I. Second, the liberals have gotten stuck on stupid with the statement that tax cuts are only for the 1%. It's simply not true. In your feeble minds, you can't equate the difference in tax cuts for someone making $50,000 a year versus someone making $1,000,000 a year. Taxes are based on rates, not salary. If a 10% tax cut is across the board, I pay 10% less and so does the person making 20 times my salary. So what? It doesn't mean he's a job creator... See, that's what liberals can't stand... they can't stand for someone to get more than they get. Greedy ba$tards.

To the folks who think taxing dividends higher makes sense let me tell the story of my 71 year old father. He saved his money and invested wisely. I do his taxes for him now.

My parents earned $72k last year as a combination of Social Security, 401K mandated disbursements, interest on CD's and dividends. As an example, my father, parked $90k in AT&T stock which generates a dividend of about 5-6% annually, which basically writes my father a check for about $5,000 a year taxed at 15%. Now you want to punish him for saving by increasing his dividend tax rate to something much higher? Tell me how that makes sense Liberal Progressive Socialists?

The federal government is holding interest rates so low that my Dad can't earn anything in interest and now he is chasing dividends for income.

You fail to understand the people who will be hurt most by the dividends tax increase is not the millionaire but rather the aged savers out there trying to live out their lives in dignity.

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

A counter point to Obama's political pandering to the class envy Liberals. If the Buffett rule will only generate $5 Billion a year, then how much would be generated if every federal agency had its budget slashed by only 1%.

Anyone? Anyone? Try about $33 Billion a year. If these bloated beaurotards can't figure out how to cut 1% then fire them all.

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

Please tell me how the Buffett rule makes sense and cutting spending does not, please Liberal Progressive Socialists, I dare you.

Since when is fairness and equitable treatment of people of different income brackets "class warfare". Is it just since a republican political advisers told you that fairness is really class warfare, get serious, there is no way to justify a multi-millionaire paying a lower percentage income tax than I do, that's not class warfare that is common sense and fairness. I'm starting to believe that middle class folks that vote republican have some serious self esteem issues.

Gee Bob I hope you are not talking about a country that spends 53 cents of every tax dollar on defense while claiming they are too broke for health-care, medicare, SS, food stamps, educational grants and all manner of social programs and now even infrastructure, are you. Do you know what country that is Bob.

Only an embecile would compare the standard of living in the United States to the standard of living in N.Korea.

Do you know an embecile that would do that Forrest?

BTW we are the only country that has ever used a Nuke on anybody so far, and as soon as we did it became apparent to everyone else that they must have a similar weapon to feel secure

BTW - weren't the atomic weapons developed by FDR, the patron saint of liberalism ... and wasn't a dem the only person to ever order that they be used?

Don't get me wrong, I respect FDR and Truman for their handling of WW II ... they had common sense and weren't the gutless pansies of today's liberals.

Thank Heavens we have Bryan E. from PA here to correct everyone's spelling.

Now we can discuss stupid politicians without worrying about having to type everything correctly.

Dew shhh bag!

Alan, NJ --

Did anybody actually propose a specific public option / single payer system?

I believe that there were proponents of a public option in the House, but whether that was actually in any draft of the bill, I don't remember.

I DO know that on May 15, 2009, the President convened discussions about health care reform with the insurance companies represented at the table, and the single-payer advocates were escorted out of the room.

I heard this news as I was driving to an appointment, and I remember thinking that the President had probably just lost my vote.

But then I got a look at the Republican slate of candidates, and I quickly reconsidered.

How do you get providers to accept the prices of a public option. There are already studies showing that cost shifting will occur under Obamacare because of the low compensation paid by Medicaid.

REAL competition might be one way, but you accomplish it most easily through a single-payer format. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, professors, librarians, researchers, game wardens, government lawyers, and all sorts of public employees in Wisconsin have been forced to take less, mostly because health insurance has become unaffordable. Why do we never ask whether doctors should learn to take less when the system won't sustain what they are taking now?

And in fact, you CAN create a system, just like all the other First World powers have, where doctors actually DO take less -- it's still far from poverty -- it's just less than they make now, without any restraints.

The problem is we pay too much and use too many medical services.

Agreed. But we pay too much because there are no checks and balances on the system, and because in a profit-driven system too much is skimmed off the top.

We use too many medical services because we are encouraged to do so by the private insurance system. When you are paying so much for all those shiny new hospitals and clinics, why shouldn't you use them? We are also conditioned to use medical services and even to take medication, through the media, and through advertising, for example. What we should be encouraging is to use the right kind of preventive services and to maintain healthy lifestyles.

But I don't encourage my oncologist to charge my insurance company $200 for a 10-minute visit, of which he wastes 5. He does that all on his own because there is no one to stop him. Single-payer would stop him.

All of the Democrats have trouble with math. Some of the many examples are that the Bush tax cuts caused the annual budget deficit to exceed one trillion dollars. Wrong, annually the Bush tax cuts were one billion dollars.

A reduction in a planned future spending increase is a cut in spending. Wrong, it doesn't cut anything, spending still increases. Raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires will solve the annual budget deficit. Wrong, it will be a drop in the bucket.

We simply cannot tax our way out of this financial mess, and since Obama can't find so much as a dime of spending to cut, class warfare seems to be a better distraction.

Forrest Grump --

Since when is fairness and equitable treatment of people of different income brackets "class warfare".

Too easy. Since the conservatives declared themselves to be the ruling class and further declared a war on themselves.

Prior to that, I was used to thinking that this was a class-free society where everyone WAS treated equitably, regardless of income brackets.

There was no "class" in those days to declare war on.

The "class" in class warfare is purely a construction of the conservative mind.

IndieParty

I'm sorry for you because you have really shown what kind of anger you hold inside of you and also the fact that you are a babbling idiot. I don't have to show any statics because they have been presented, by others, time and again. People like you simple keep going on acknowledging nothing from any one who may have an opinion other than the one you think they should have, simply....you refuse to listen, all you can do is spew your own faulty and narrow opinions. So, to point, its worthless to argue with a knothead like you. The real problem is that you simply cannot grasp the truth and have not been paying attention.

Just a reminder, despite a massive majority in the House, Democrats passed Obamacare 219-212.

Political cover? or intelligent Democrats?

Hey Anna, ever offer your doctor a cash payment instead of insurance? Why is that?

Insurance is far more expensive and inefficient to use. Cash should exact a reduced payment. I tried it with my doctor recently. I said, "Doc, you get what for an office visit? "$85," he said. "How much would you need if you didn't have to futz around with insurance," I ask. Good question he said. I offered him $40 cash with no insurance, money on the table right now. He did not know which was a better deal but he wanted to take the cash but wasn't sure. Funny huh?

Let's double down on insurance!!! Federal insurance!!! (Sarcasm)

What would Barry do, really Joey, Barry? I think our president's handling of Bin Laden and Pakistan indicates he would unleash our nukes in response to nukes.

___________________________________________

Grump: Are you such a dense Obamabot that you think risking the lives of less than 100 Special Forces on a raid to kill one individual is the equivalent of Barry starting a global nuclear war with China that would kill hundreds of millions on both sides and leave both countries in smoldering ruins??

If so, you are the dumbest lefty liberal I have ever encountered, and I have met some really dumb lefty liberals over the years.

since buffet has openly admitted to paying less taxes than he should why not simply audit and re-evaluate buffet's tax returns making him pay more.

just a thought.......................

The point is not that any single individual didn't pay enough taxes. It's about the larger discussion surrounding tax law.

It's a slow news day. You should be able to keep up.

Brianb-999431 - it's because liberals actually understand it and you - as usual - don't.

YellowDog - MarkD - good post but, unfortunately, JoAnna, Brianb, Alan and Joe in Albany won't understand a word of it because you are being logical and thoughtful.

Do you know an embecile that would do that Forrest?

Did you know only an IMBECILE would misspell a derogatory comment, Bob?

Thank goodness we have Rational American as the resident identifier of "Dew shh bags" here today. Now we can throw insults at each other without worrying whether or not we are being "Dew shhh y".

Thanks Rational. I was worried there for a second.

Joe you may think I am dumb but I know when you change what you said, now you are talking about starting a Nuke war with China and originally you said how would our president respond to a nuke attack by NK on Pearl Harbor. I believe he would nuke NK the decision then would be China's if they want to destroy themselves for NK. I am not nearly as dumb as you think I am, I know when you are making it up as you go, but I am dumb in as much as once again I regrettably respond directly to you Joey, I should know better by now but I am the "dumbest lefty liberal" every-time I lower myself to engage with you. BTW you forgot to add your signature HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you freaking genius.

Still seeking sanity I see. Hard to believe after all this time. I guess reality just misses you by miles.

Tell me sanity, does understanding the Buffett rule actually make it work better? In your infinite wisdom, tell me how taxing the rich more, will increase the government revenue. Do you actually know how many billionaires there are in this country? How about millionaires? I'll bet you haven't the slightest clue. How will increasing the tax revenue a couple of billion dollars even touch the $15 TRILLION debt we've incurred? Maybe you should continue to seek sanity... your inane remarks are for the simple minded.

Repeating liberal sound bites only makes you feel better... they don't have any basis in reality, nor will they ever work.

Brianb-999431 - yep, still seeking sanity in the GOP but, alas, none to be found - especially with the likes of you around. You are the simple-minded one spouting your lies and hatred, day after day after day.

Repeating your far right wing bites still makes no sense - no matter how many times you spout your lies and stupidity. Actually, I work with several millionaires and I have a better idea of their lives than you EVER will. The difference is, they have values and know that it is the responsibility of those who have more to help those who have less - in times like we are facing now. See, they actually live their lives the way we are supposed to. But, someone who is as simple-minded as you would not understand or value that.

But, you just go on spouting the right wing propaganda you do every day. Makes no sense and is not based in fact but that has never stopped you before. Yep! No sanity to be found in the GOP and it is really pathetic.

Ha I am not the spelling police Bob, but is loses all effect when you try to call somebody an imbecile and spell it embecile.

wtfjes

What anger? Because I point out that your comment is completely illogical and based on absolutely no facts? And your only response is that I must have anger? LOL. Wow... you completely FAIL at debating your point.

fact that you are a babbling idiot.

Oh I'm a babbling idiot?

You believe that EVERY SINGLE business owner will leave this country if their taxes are raised. Even though there has NEVER been a mass exodus when taxes were raised, you believe that THIS TIME it will happen. Never happened before, but THIS TIME is different. THIS TIME you will be right.

Every person in the 1%... Every business owner... Every person with money will leave... ALL OF THEM. They will all just pack up and move somewhere else... all because of a small tax increase.

The entire country will be nothing but poor people, because you believe that EVERY... SINGLE... RICH... PERSON... WILL... LEAVE... all because of a small tax increase.

THAT is what YOU believe, and I am a babbling idiot? You think a small tax increase will spur a mass exodus of Armageddon proportions, completely destroying our country... and I am the babbling idiot?

Really? REALLY?

I don't have to show any statics because they have been presented, by others, time and again

Really? Facts have proven that EVERY SINGLE RICH PERSON will leave... all of them. There have been FACTS that prove this? Not opinion, not some bulls*** Republican lie... but actual facts.

Ok, let's see them. Come on, step up. I'm calling you out. Put up or shut up. Show me your FACTS that every single rich person will leave. Come on... let's see it.

Taxing income more on investments that we are all going to have to live on once or if we retire is not a good answer. Maybe if a higher rate kicked in at $1,000,000.00 I could support it.

How are we going to save money on a one payer Health care system, when we keep adding to what is going to be covered. Free birth control pills, free condoms are just a couple of examples. It sounds like they want everything to be included at no cost. If that is the case, how is that different then the individual paying for what they need? Health care should cover the unexpected costs, have a co-pay of some type for preventive care, and an even higher co-pay for emergency room visits.

Saying that we are going to save money by raising it by 7% instead of 8%? Yep that is a big savings. That is only if we do not give the doctors or health care providers raises. How is that not hurting the middle class? I have not heard anyone mention or bring up who is going to cover the illegal alien's health care needs. How can we cover a group that is not paying into the system?

IndieParty - there will be no facts coming from wtfjes since you are right on target. No rich person is going to leave - not one - as we've seen in the past. Your logic is something wtfjes can't dispute so he/she will probably just be silent.

The irony rule would be more appropriate. People like Bev and Feisty say people can't relate to Romney but they support a "rule" named after one of the richest men in the world..WTF?! So now Buffet is a regular Joe too? If Stalin had something that Obama liked they'd probably support a "Stalin Rule". How about calling it the hypocrisy rule?? Buffet is 86 years old and now he wants to pay higher taxes?! Again only a lib could agree with that BS.

More extrotion, more extortion, we need more extortion of our neighbors...more extortion, more extortion, we need more extortion of our neighbors.

Damn, statists are so unethical and sociopathic by proxy.

Nothing moral or charitable starts with extortion.

Corporations don't pay labor or taxes, the customer does at the point of sale (higher oil taxes mean higher gas prices, geniuses).

The less accumulated capital in the hands of the wealthy the slower the rate of total real compensation rises for the workers and the slower standards of living rise for the poor. (this isn't debatable, look up the causal relationships between productivity, capital accumulation, and total real compensation - wages+benefits accounted for inflation).

The only reason productivity rises so much while compensation rises slower (over the past few decades) is automation technology. But this is good, as prices have declined faster than ever over this same period while production output of goods has risen while workers used to produce those products has fallen. This means compensation doesn't need to rise as much because prices fall...which is the same boon for standard of living increases.

But here is your simple minded answer...most of you uneducated unethical goofs:

More extortion, more extortion, we need more extortion of our neighbors...more extortion, more extortion, we need more extortion of our neigbors.

Nevermind this actually hurts the poor and working people far more than it does the rich....don't bother to face that. Keep pretending Naomi Klein and Elizabeth Warren have economics degrees or know about anything worth listening to.

BrianB stop pretending that 1 BILLION dollars is a small sum of money, I remember seeing countless outrages on the news about an agency that spent 800k of government funds.

I am honestly tired of you attempting to sound intelligent by spewing nonsense. Please could you point this lefty liberal to the 15 TRILLION dollar answer? Guess what? It doesn't exist. The key to plugging the gap is to find whatever BILLION in savings(through cuts) and revenue increases we can and letting them run their course over years. You know the large deficit we currenty have happend over years right?

The rich should pay more in taxes, the argument could be that everyone should but that is not the one you make.

The Buffett rule, all it says is someone making a million dollars (in one year keep in mind) should pay a higher effective tax rate. Do you honestly believe someone making 200,000 should pay a larger % of their income than someone making 1million? Simple yes or no.

And again Bryan corrects another misspelling. You go Girl!

Did you correct only the posts with which you disagree?

Didn't see you correct Beverly in Chicago with this gem: I skipping your post, since your banter like you Joee makes no sense.

Typical Liberal hate machine on this vine again today.

"they had common sense and weren't the gutless pansies of today's liberals."

Say Bob we were attacked on Bush's watch and then invaded a country that had nothing to with that attack and then he left the capture of the guy actually responsible to a gutless liberal pansy democrat to accomplish. The facts betray your bellyaching Bob. Obama has kept us safe, Bush could not. Obama got Bin Laden Bush could not, so he "forgot about him because he had not heard much from him lately". Thats what went down Bob.

Free birth control pills, free condoms are just a couple of examples.

Subnormal,

How about some examples that are not contained in the talking points of the day.

Just saying...form your own opinion.

Rational AmeriCAN - and yet nothing you post is intelligent or rational. Pretty sure Bryan is a man but you confuse that with a Girl (not even a woman but why am I not surprised?) Rational you have been shown to be totally irrational over and over again. Sometimes people are just predictable!

Rational,

When someone has the balls to call someone an embecile or a lyer, yeah, i'll correct them to make sure they stay honest.

Call me girl again. Please.

Thanks for getting my back SS.

The Buffet rule sounds like a all you can eat Democratic buffet table.

Sorry for the spelling. I was trying to edit and hit the wrong button.

The Buffet rule sounds like a all you can eat Democratic buffet table.

Besides your obvious partisan slant, how is that so lisa s-#'s? And there is a difference between grammar and spelling.

of course it is good politics, our country is full of stupid people. Just check out what the red head, sarah, bev and others spout on a daily basis.

If Romney had this idea they would call him a racist because it actually will bring in less money than doing nothing. Remember the story on here a few weeks ago?

And I won't vote for Mit, so don't bother with same old "quit listening to fox news" crap most of you spout off about when you don't actually have anything back up what you say.

Akeem "Do you honestly believe someone making 200,000 should pay a larger % of their income than someone making 1million? Simple yes or no."

Well lets see, a person that has income of a million or more pays a higher percentage of their income than somebody that makes 200,000 already there in NO way around this. So the answer is NO.

Do you even know what you are talking about? You do know Capital gains is different than income don't you?

This is proof of my previous post.

I will even help you, put in 200, 000 and than a million and see how it comes out.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/page/0,,id=14806,00.html

Bryan E., PA, What is a partisan slan.

Joe you may think I am dumb but I know when you change what you said, now you are talking about starting a Nuke war with China and originally you said how would our president respond to a nuke attack by NK on Pearl Harbor.

____________________________________________

Grump: Pretty lame attempt to change the facts so they fit your narrative. A classic lefty liberal loser tactic.

In post 1.75 I copied your statement from post 1.68:

Joe if they fired a nuke at the US, we would fire enough nukes back to split the earth off it's axis.

To which I responded:

Not with China's nuclear arsenal backing NK up. Suppose NK sends a nuke into Pearl Harbor and China (our largest foreign deficit banker) tells us that we need to sit there and take it for the good of the entire world, or else they will unleash their nukes on us. What would Barry do??

Now, tell me again your lefty liberal fairy tale about how I “changed what I said”. It’s one of my favorites!!!

Moron.

Bryan E. - Anytime! Love your posts by the way!

Bryan E. - Anytime! Love your posts by the way!

Thanks. I can same the same of yours.

Akeem said: The Buffett rule, all it says is someone making a million dollars (in one year keep in mind) should pay a higher effective tax rate. Do you honestly believe someone making 200,000 should pay a larger % of their income than someone making 1million? Simple yes or no.

Tell me Akeem - do people making a million dollars a year pay more than someone that doesn't? That should answer your question, solve the mystery and put an end to the BS you liberals crap out of your mouths. I know what I make, and what I pay. It's appropriate for my salary. It's you liberals that see these high dollar amounts from people making more than you and will not be satisfied until they pay in taxes the difference in your salary and theirs. To you that's equality. You net $20 thousand and you want the rich to net $20 thousand as well. You don't have an end to your berating of the rich. You never will. Liberals are simply stuck on stupid when it comes to fairness. It's not fair that Joe rich guy makes more money than me. He needs to pay the difference out in taxes so his net is the same as my net... NOTHING else will satisfy you. I hear it way too often from you liberals that want equality and fairness....

Brianb-999431 - what an idiotic post (but I expect nothing more). No one has ever said they want anyone's taxes to be such that they net what another individual nets. ($20,000 - that all ya got?) As most 1%ers are Democrats and they are stating it is only fair they pay more to help those who make less, this is not really tough to understand. Just try really thinking hard for a minute and it might be clear to you. Most millionaires have so many tax cuts that their % of taxes is less than those who make less. By getting rid of those tax cuts and having the 1% ers pay more we would have more revenue as a country. Now see - not so touch after all!

You just honestly will understand more once you get into high school. Promise. Now, run along!

Oh Joe - you of ALL people should not throw the moron word around so freely!

Tom... It is quite clear you did not read my other posts. I understand capital gains and all of the reasons it is separated from ajusted gross income. I get it, I think all my post above and the considersation I included towards that idea shows that I get it.

I just believe once someone is making a certain sum of money I do not understand how they can be taxed at a lesser percentage. There is a certain level of income that it no longer makes sense. That idea works completely against the purpose of our progressive tax system. Our tax system is designed with marginal brackets to ensure that those that earn more pay more on each additional dollar earned. When a tax payer can claim millions recorded as capital gains taxed in one of the much lower brackets I believe our system has failed.

You did not correct me btw, I said income not AGI. Income which includes earned and unearned, through capital gains someone with 1 Million dollars of INCOME can pay a smaller percentage on that income than someone who earns 200k.

Lisa s-#'s,

No idea what a partisan slan is but a partisan slant is something i think you'll understand (please re-read).

However, i may have overstepped in my comment. It is sometimes difficult to discern which side some posters are on. That may be friendly fire.

Seeking sanity said: yep, still seeking sanity in the GOP but, alas, none to be found - especially with the likes of you around. You are the simple-minded one spouting your lies and hatred, day after day after day.

What a diversion. A complete bypass on my prior statement challenging you to find out how many billionaires and millionaires there are in this country and what effect increased taxes on them would net to the government coffers. Maybe to the insane that is spouting lies and hatred, but since I am sane, the only real comparison to mental illness is contained in your statement. I fully understand that what I have to say about any political matter flies completely over your head. You are more interested in doing anything you can to put down conservatives... classic Alynski tactics... you do realize Alynski was a Satanist. Maybe you are one too. One of these days, you will be greeted by the sign saying: "Welcome to Hell - hope you have a really hot time!!"

Just so you know insane... I haven't been on these boards for a couple of weeks... so it is impossible for me to be saying anything day after day. It's a shame that you are so out of it that reality has become your dream world.

Seeking - "As most 1%ers are Democrats and they are stating it is only fair they pay more to help those who make less, this is not really tough to understand."

If they feel it is fair to pay more, why don't they just pay more? But they don't really feel that, what they really feel is that want others to be forced to pay more by the Government.

Lets just be honest

No BrianB that is not how I feel at all. What I feel is fair is that after accounting for what cost of the basic standard of living is based on income that all people are taxed at a similar amount. That is currently not the case. I do not want a millionaire to take home the same amount I earn. I would also not like for them to come the end of the day pay an effective tax rate lower than mine. That is all.

I do not believe in taxing peope to death, my current view is simply the rich currently do not pay enough (in terms of a percentage of income). The current proposals to change that hit the middle class (in terms of percentage again) harder than it hits the rich. an additional 5% on an additional tax bracket will far from drive any rich man broke, its as simple as that.

Should investment income be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income?

Here is an example of what would be likely to happen;

Let's say an 'investor' made a $1 Million investment in plant and equipment in 1980 which resulted in the creation of dozens of new jobs, and then sold the investment for $1.5 Million in 1990, for a taxable gain of $500,000. If they would have to pay taxes on the income at the regular taxable rate of 35%, they would have to pay $175,000 in income taxes (ignoring the additional gain on the depreciated cost basis for simplicity).

Many people would say – Yes, that's 'fair', but what's is the investors REAL 'gain'?

In 1990, the value of a $Dollar had actually declined by about 37% because of inflation over 10 years, so
his sale for $1,500,000 is actually now worth only $945,000 in purchasing power equivalent to his original investment of $1,000,000.

Now if we make them pay an additional income tax of $175,000 on his 'phantom gain', they would net $770,000 of real value on their $1,000,000 original investment. We could take the above scenario and apply it to any decade over the last 40 years, and in every case the investor would end up losing money.

Who in their right mind would make that kind of a long term investment? And if investors are not willing to take chances making long term investments in plant and equipment, which in turn helps create jobs, then what would happen to the investments needed to foster long term economic growth and job creation?

Now let's consider the other type of 'Investment Income' – Dividends.

Dividends are merely the distribution of remaining income by a corporation that has already paid income taxes on that same income – typically at the 35% rate, so that 'double taxation' amounts to closer to 50% on the same original income if the Dividends are taxed at an additional 15%.

If you want to effectively eliminate the long term investments needed to grow the economy and create jobs, the 'Buffet Rule' would be a good place to start. Even the Democrats in Congress realize this, so this is just more campaign rhetoric from Obama in an election year. All talk and no substance.

Tom - they actually have signed pledges to support raising their taxes - which of course the ones who are Republicans haven't. Let's be honest!

BrainB - again a worthless post. Now you're discussing hell -oh wait, something you probably are familiar with as I'm sure your traveling plans include a long stay there. Your posts are again, predictable (okay, maybe not the hell part) and moronic!

Obama/Biden 2012 by a landslide!

Akeem, you obviously don't understand it or you wouldn't be typing what you type.

Capital gains is taxed currently at 15% simple as that, Income is taxed progressively and deductions are allowed.

There is no risk in income there is risk in investing your money. Should it be 15%? probably not it should be closer to 20% based on the rule of diminishing returns. Research what happened when Clinton lowered the rate, the government actually took in more money.

Seeking, thank you for proving my point.

Bryan E., PA. Sorry I read your comment before you edited it. I'm a NPA and I don't really care for the far-right or the far-left. I simply don't agree with the Buffett rule. I don't like the Citizens United decision and am a supporter of Simpson-Bowles. I actually think we should let all the Bush tax cuts expire and pay off the debt. Hope to talk to you again.

Tom- clearly your ability to comprehend is sadly missing as I disproved your point but, nice try. You couldn't be honest if you had to!

Seeking, "Tom - they actually have signed pledges to support raising their taxes"

So they signed a pledge to have the government raise taxes, I see you didn't say they signed a pledge to pay more taxes.

Hence, my point proven.

When Bill and Warren stop tax sheltering their money and when they stop providing help to the poor around the world and say "you know what we think the Government can do a better job than us"

I will start to listen.

Tom you are being ridiculous. I do not understand the diffference risk involved in earned income and that involved in unearned income once you have realized it you cannot lose it. I am asking to tax only the income generated off the investment not the investment itself. Also do not forget losses can offset previous gains as far as taxes are concerned. Diminshing returns? Please, I will not get into what is essentialy a "Laffer Curve" argument. If you read my earlier post I only asked for treating capital gains as AGI if we remove corporate taxes entirely.

Your investment scenario Roy is already too complicated. You cannot bring in a variable like inflation and consider the owner taking a loss without providing the alternative he could earn in other investments and the current interest rate. For instance though the investment may be only worth 945,000 it could have been worth 900,000(random number) if left in a checking account. This would mean by taking the investment the owner gained 45,000. You cannot ignore that benefit.

Lisa, you think things are bad now, raise everybody taxes 5% and see what happens.

Do you know allot of people who have 5% of their income saved at the end of the year?

Lisa and others out there; here is a little bit of information you may not have known the Bush tax cuts expired, and they are now the Obama tax cuts, since he signed them in.

Ron Indiana " it is fair to say that being a Mormon Bishop (minister) and a missionary in France to convert people to Mormonism are not experiences shared by most Americans."

It's also fair to say that getting into Harvard on Affirmative Action and being a 'Community Organizer' are also 'not experiences shared by most Americans'.

I suspect that when the voters have a choice between a candidate that has actually turned companies around and created tens of thousands of jobs and a current President that has had over 3 years to make things better but has only made them worse, they will vote for REAL "Change we can believe in"

This just in, Seeking Sanity is now dating his girlfriend Bryan.

How sweet.

Call me girl again. Please.

That would be better stated: "Call me a girl again."

You crack me up. Napoleonic, narcissists, who think they are God's gift to logic and reason.

1% budget cut is nearly 7X the Buffett Tax. Seems rational to me.

BTW - you know that Obama is anti the Keystone XL Pipeline for what ever reason. So now a whole bunch of that Canadian crude is making its way to the same Texas refineries by rail. And who owns the railroads in this country? HINT: Warren Buffett.

Conflict of interest?

Hakeem, you really think that you can raise taxes as high as you want and you never take in less money?

I think what Roy was pointing out is that the 'investor' won't invest his money in something like this when taking inflation and taxes into consideration. He would go someplace else or sit on his money.

By Perry Chiaramonte, March 20, 2012 | FoxNews.com

A train moving crude oil out of the Bakken formation in North Dakota. Transporting of crude oil has dramatically increased since 2009.

A Canadian railroad carrying millions of barrels of oil to Gulf refineries is hurtling full steam ahead through the Obama administration’s block of the Keystone pipeline.

The amount of oil Canadian Pacific Railways carries from the Bakken Formation down through the heartland has surged 2,500 percent since 2009, to 8.5 million barrels per year from just 325,000. The company expects to move 45 million barrels per year within the decade.

“We are responding to a growing demand,” Ed Greenberg, a spokesman for Canadian Pacific told FoxNews.com. “There has been unprecedented growth in the energy industry.”

The Calgary-based railroad is one of two that carries oil down from Canada’s tar sands, but Canadian Pacific also carries thousands of barrels per day to the Gulf from North Dakota’s booming Bakken Formation oil fields.

Experts estimate shipping by rail instead of pipeline adds anywhere from $5 to $10 to the price of a barrel, not to mention the high-capacity, 24-7 flow a pipeline affords. Rep. Fred Upton, (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, says the explosive growth of oil delivery by rail underscores the missed opportunity of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline that became bogged down by environmental concerns and was ultimately tabled by the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Senate.

“We need to be doing all we can to develop our resources, particularly now, with rising gasoline prices and the threat of supply disruptions overseas,” Upton told FoxNews.com. “Most observers acknowledge that rail transport is the best option we currently have to get this oil down to the refineries — but the Keystone XL pipeline presents us with a better alternative.”

Supporters of the pipeline, which the Obama administration plans to consider again after the 2012 election, say it would not only lower the price of a barrel of oil, but that it would also provide jobs. TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline, has estimated it would generate 130,000 jobs, a number endorsed by Republican supporters of the pipeline. But Democrats cite a study by Cornell University that places the number at just 5,000 jobs.

With the pipeline in limbo, trains are the next-best way to move the oil south to the thirsty refineries on the Texas and Louisiana coasts, Michael Ervin, a petroleum industry analyst based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, told FoxNews.com.

“The use of rail as a short-term solution to pipeline capacity limitations was a likely approach either with or without the additional production,” Ervin said. “It is more a matter of a lack of pipeline capacity, which in turn is depressing domestic crude oil prices of all types in the Midwest and Canada as well.”

Oil companies are investing their own money in the older mode of transport, said Tony Hatch, a New York-based transportation and railroad industry analyst, noting that Hess Oil is among the latest companies to buy its own rail tankers. He said even if the pipeline ultimately gets built, rail transport will be a piece of the puzzle.

“The markets are ready for the oil now,” said Tony Hatch, a New York-based transportation and railroad industry analyst. “It’s clear that they are investing in rail even when and if a pipeline is built.”

Connecting dots

IndieParty

Ok, calm down now, don't get your panties in a bundle...As typical of your sub-species you get more angry as you spout out your hypocracy. For staters I DIDN'T state what you said I did.....again, typical of your sub-species. You revert to name calling and belittlement in order to intimidate. If it weren't that you are so laughable with you hyperbole and your obfuscation I might be offended. I said before your narrow minded point of view will never change - no matter how much fact is presented.....I also said it was worthless to try and debate you because you are so blind that no matter how many facts are presented you will never see.......NOW GO AWAY, little man!

Its, Akeem. No obviously not, at some point it would reduce the amount taken in. The problem it is impossible to prove where on the curve we are at a given time. There is no study that I know of right now that can tell you whether the next increase in taxes will increase revenues or decrease.

I understand the idea Roy was pointing out, but he ended at the inevestor taking a loss. My point is you cannot use inflation to demonstrate that loss as evey American shared that loss whether or not they chose to invest. His investment may have partially sheilded him from the loss every other American took. I would mark that as a gain.

You cannot use numbers and arrive at an economic gain or loss simply by using an inflation rate with out identifying what the true opportunity cost was, which would be the return if his money went elsewhere, if he was going to lose that value on his money no matter where he placed it then how would inflation even factor in the investment?

Sorry about the name I in no way meant to offend.

The President said that taxes should not be raised during a recession but that is what the President is trying to do. Our President is obsessed with raising taxes on the rich. To make income taxes fair why not eliminate all deductions, exemptions, and preferences and introduce a flat tax where everyone pays the same rate. I am sure most tax payers would welcome a much more simplified tax code. Eliminating preference income like capital gains will decrease motivation to invest but some money will still be invested especially now with such low interest rates. There should be no motivation in the tax code to have a large family. We are over populated as it is. More people will just increase the nation's carbon foot print. Private charities will be hit very hard but the government can always take over their functions. Under such a plan, everyone who has an income will pay taxes, even the very poor. That is only fair. I think that the rich would gladly pay a little more in taxes if by doing so they knew that the economy would turn around because the rich would benefit the most from that.

I want to understand the bottom line here. Without conditions including any action of congress, the President promised that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars yet his own White House is predicting a deficit of more than 5 times that amount. Even if the President succeeds is getting congress to pass a massive tax increase on the "rich" it will have no effect at all on the 2012 federal deficit. I want the President to explain how his promise to the American people regarding the federal deficit is going to be kept. I want the President to explain to the American people what it is going to end up costing the tax payers to pay back all of this money that the federal government has been borrowing. The stimulus, which had no effect on unemployment, was to cost the nation about 800 billion dollars yet the federal government has been running annual deficits of over 1 trillion dollars for each year of the Obama administration. This is surprising because when the President was campaigning for his current office he told the people that he was against deficit spending yet his White House is predicting massive deficits for at least the next decade. Where does all of this end Mr. President?

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

We are no longer in an "economic" recession and have not been in quite some time.

Americans recognize this isn't 'class warfare'... it is BASIC math!

Only left wing shills like Fiesty, Beverly, et. al. and the idiot masses that never learned how to do arithmetic to which Obama panders can be convinced that this is more than class warefare. The extra taxes that this will bring is a pimple on the ass of the debt that Obama is piling up. $30 - $40 billion over ten years?!! Really?! When President Poverty Pimp is planning on adding another $10,000,000,000,000 in that same time period?!!! This has nothing to do with math, fairness, or reducing the debt. It is all about ginning up hatred from the stupid nipple suckers against the very people whose hard work and achievement is stolen to support their lazy loser lifestyles.

Instead of whining about how your not getting your fair share, why don't you ingrates try thanking them for the money you get from them.

I think that you are being overly optimistic. It will end up costing the tax payers more than 100 trillion dollars to pay back the 10 trillion dollars. The old debt has to be payed off before we can start paying back the new debt. While we are paying back the old debt we still have to pay interest on the new debt. We cannot even begin to pay off the old debt until we stop running deficits. Soon the interest on the debt will exceed what our government takes in and then we will really be bankrupt but there is no one to bale us out.

Brianb-999431

freshieee - I'll call your Bull$hit and raise you a Bull$hit. First, it's not only the rich that received benefits from tax cuts. You received benefit from them and so did I. Second, the liberals have gotten stuck on stupid with the statement that tax cuts are only for the 1%. It's simply not true. In your feeble minds, you can't equate the difference in tax cuts for someone making $50,000 a year versus someone making $1,000,000 a year. Taxes are based on rates, not salary. If a 10% tax cut is across the board, I pay 10% less and so does the person making 20 times my salary. So what? It doesn't mean he's a job creator... See, that's what liberals can't stand... they can't stand for someone to get more than they get. Greedy ba$tards.

Ha. You really think I am jealous of the 1%??? Hardly; I want to become one myself (note that I am much younger than you think I am). I'll admit that tax cuts don't go 100% to the rich, but the only ones who actually benefit from them are the wealthy. I mean, we have offered tax cuts for the past 30 years that were targeted at everyone, but reduced rates for the wealthy by a larger amount. In addition, those tax rates have done NOTHING to benefit the middle class. After-tax income for the rich have jumped substantially after we followed trickle-down economics. Not so much for the rest of us. And you do realize that that the top fifth of Americans control 93% pf the income earned in America???? The top 1% control nearly half of that. Only tax cuts for the rich have any impact on the economy, and that only benefits the rich. That is why I oppose any and ALL tax cuts, because I think the American people have been bought by promises of "less red tape" and "less bureaucracy" and lower taxes, and so they have become insulated. People have brainwashed people with the dreams of lower taxes and endless prosperity, even when that isn't the case. That is what I am tired of.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Ugh, Will, care to show us any mathematical proof or evidence??? No offense, but I highly doubt that you crunched the numbers correctly.

And what state said no to the Keystone XL Pipeline? Rhymes with Nebraska. Where does Warren Buffett live? Berkshire Hathaway is headquartered in what city? Omaha. And who owns the railroads that are now being used to ship oil to the Gulf refineries?

And who is Obama's benefactor?

WARREN BUFFETT. One and the same.

Akeem, New Jersey "We are no longer in an "economic" recession and have not been in quite some time"

Actually, that's true. The economic 'experts' say the recession ended in mid 2009 - almost 3 years ago.

The problem has been with the 'recovery', which has been painfully slow - probably because of Obama's anti-business policies.

For all those who are trying to make a claim that this is not fostering class warfare-please, take the time to read each and every single viscious, name calling, cursing, post that it takes to actually get to an open spot to interject a comment, statement, or question something that somebody else has asserted......If this isn't class warfare, why is it that you say in one breath "This isn't class warfare, it is simple mathematics." But at the beginning of the very next sentence, you are fussing about the "1%" To divide the nation into percentages, racial groups, religious groups, ethnic groups....well, sorry to say, but that is the epitome of pandering to class warfare. And please, stop holding up the poor innocent babies, the old ladies, the physically challenged, or the mentally challenged to create a sense of guilt. Nobody, absolutely nobody is against those who have demonstrable needs being assisted...to state it as such is a distortion of facts to fit a stereotypical image of all conservative thinkers. We don't want to include the welfare lifestyle, where the only real disability of disadvantage is that these folks have given up because somebody already gave them the big screen TV and the laptop, and they see no reason to go out and achieve for themselves or their family. We don't want these assistance programs to include those who are here in direct violation of our immigration laws. We don't want people creating ficticious identity to vote and stuff the ballot box merely on the basis of who is going to keep their free ride going.

And somebody in this mess wanted to know why we would have the nerve to read and respond to the MSN news feed, yet in the very next post, we are accused of being mindless for only listening to the FOX news feed. So, we are damned if we leave you alone to gloat and feel superior (just as your liberal overlords in Washington do), and we are also condemned for reading what you consider to be the gospel according to MSNBC. So, the upshot is that we can listen to you rant like jr. high kids, but we are not allowed to express an opinion. I really don't care what Mr. Buffet has to say about anything. I didn't elect him to any post of political authority, and I don't believe that anyone else did either. If he wants to run for office, then fine and dandy....until then, his opinion is just that of another tax paying citizen, and should not be accorded any greater weight or privelege.

a plan to divide America with a tax that will raise one tenth of a percent of his spending spree.

Ending welfare for the wealthy is hardly a divisive issue, but it certainly is a step in the right direction to begin solving the debt and deficit issues, both of which the GOP/TP have shown us over and over again they haven't the desire, understanding, and capability to solve. The GOP/TP are the 'fast and furious' money burners/spenders.

Bev---I'm not sure Reagan would be accepted in the Republican party today, for all they all purport to be his disciples.

When the Bush tax cuts were enacted early in his administration, I don't think people focused on the drastic cuts to the rate of tax on dividends and interest (to 15%), as well as the cut in capital gains (from 20% to 15%). The rates on "ordinary income"---you know, the salaries working people earn, were also cut so there was something for everyone. Now people are finally asking--does it make sense for different categories of income to be taxed so differently? What does it say about what we value as a society?

Morning all. Busy day, got to run, have fun gang.

Obama in 2012,

California Tom

Morning all. Busy day, got to run, have fun gang.

Obama in 2012,

Enjoy your day, California Tom

Obama/ Biden 2012

Fairness?

Like welfare receiving a 10% increase in NY? While wages and jobs remain stagnant? Well sure if they spend more than more jobs are needed.

I still can't get passed the fact that republicans and democrats are about the party.

You could also say if companies gave their employees a 10% wage increase it would accomplish the same results. However sure technology is replacing workers so not as many workers are necessary to achieve maximum, production as we see no shortage of products.

Yes I think it's a total conundrum but republicans and democrats are not trying to fix it they are trying to get ur vote.

No my argument was not well written :)

I still believe if companies did the right thing than government wouldn't have to.

everything that obama says is starting to sound the same.

i can't wait until this clown gets out of office.

i don't think that the American public could have voted for a bigger idiot.

Beverly said: Even St. Reagan Backs The Buffett Rule from the grave

Lets add necromancer to the long list of Beverly's attributes.

cuts as defined by the government are to first over inflate the budget then simply not spend all of the money in the over inflated budget.

a cut to me and you means going without something..ie food, water, shelter, clothes.

what does President Regan's opinion have to do with this matter.

the top 2% pay about 45-50% of all taxes in the US.

49% pay no taxes at all.

if we are going to change the system to ensure that the top 1% pay equal taxes then lets continue and change the rule to include ALL AMERICANS ABOVE 18 YEARS OF AGE PAY 30% IN TAXES.

NO LOOPHOLES

NO EXEMPTIONS FOR THE RICH

NO MORE EXEMPTIONS FOR THE POOR.

30% FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.

Honest Jo: I did a study on this a few years ago except it was Forbes 18% flat tax. Single taxpayer break even point was 75k.

Now you propose 30% flat rate. As soon as every person makes 150k+ we'll look at it. Until then, the flat tax is just a right wing-nut boondoggle to trick people that have no idea how the tax system works. Usually the same ones who say that if they work overtime, they take home less money and think there tax rate is the ratio between take home pay and gross pay. In other words the illiterate masses.

i can't wait until this clown gets out of office.

See you in 2016 then honest jo?

Steeler Fan - the GOP has gone so far to the right Regan would no longer be accepted as a Republican. He would be considered more of a moderate or progressive and my guess is he's turning over in his grave at the depths the GOP has fallen to. It's truly sad that what was once a great party as fallen so low.

Brianb,

Just curious, what is that tower in your avatar?

the current GOP would call Nixon a "pinko commie socialist out to destroy and divide America".

funny that Obama is as about as far left as Nixon was...

A liberal "cut" is not a "cut" ; a cut for libs is not wildly increasing spending as much as the greedy bureaucrats want.

What a crock. Liberals have no solution, they just attack the adults in the room like Ryan who want to save us from the fate of Greece.

Liberals spend money like drunken sailors; but at least drunken sailors spend their own money!

Independent Redneck Va.

You can’t cut spending without cutting spending

Come on Mr. Ryan Stand Your Ground.

You want to be Vice- President. You want to be thought of as some kind of Yahoo Budgetary Guru.

You can certainly talk the talk.

Now let’s see if you can walk the walk.

Personally I’m right interested in how you’re going to pay for 4.6 Trillion in tax cuts and still lower the Deficit.

Looks like Fuzzy Math to me.

Great post IR, I love the way you tell it like it is. Yes it sure is fuzzy math when you factor in this is the man who took government money to get his education.

Paul Ryan will never walk into the vice presidency. He has too much staked against him to put one foot forward toward the White House.

Obama/ Biden 2012

Bet on women and old folks

Great article, IR--thanks for sharing. If Rep Ryan is not willing to say exactly which programs will be cut and by how much, what else could the White House do but make assumptions? Across the board cuts seem reasonable to me---it removes value judgments from the cuts and treats all programs equally.

BREAKING: George Zimmerman Launches Website, Features Vandalized Black Cultural Center

On the website — therealgeorgezimmerman.com — Zimmerman solicits donations to support his “living expenses and legal defense.” He writes: “I have created a Paypal account solely linked on this website as I would like to provide an avenue to thank my supporters personally and ensure that any funds provided are used only for living expenses and legal defense, in lieu of my forced inability to maintain employment. I will also personally, maintain accountability of all funds received.

”
He also features a photo of a vandalized black cultural center at Ohio State University.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/09/461201/breaking-george-zimmerman-launches-website-features-vandalized-black-cultural-center/

==================================================

But, but, Zimmerman is asking for a hand out. I thought all right wing nut jobs worked for their money. Wait a minute he's a psyccccccho he can't find a job. Well that's too bad. He should have thought about his living expenses before he hunted down Trayvon like he would an animal. Responsible citizens think before they commit a crime.

May Zimmerman rot in jail where he can have 3 square meals a day

Hallelujah

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Withdraws Support From ALEC

Following Kraft, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Intuit, another influential sponsor of ALEC has withdrawn its support from the right-wing corporate front group. Roll Call reports:

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation today became the latest backer to withdraw financial support for the American Legislative Exchange Council.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/09/461217/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-withdraws-support-from-alec/

===============================================

Keep it going. It's time these anti-Americans get it just where they deserve it. Soon, they will learn:

a. When the @!$%#e comes back around it can be a bytche.

b. Millions of dollars don't vote; people do

I would love love, love, to see ALEC convicted for treason.

The GNOP answer is to always cut spending (and the heck with the details) and lower taxes (but don't close any loopholes)...but get involved in wars off the books!

GNOP - facts are not the answer...."THEY CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

Good Morning IR. -- Funny, just last year Republicans wouldn't touch Paul Ryan's plan. Suddenly it has become "the" budget plan. It's broadly written on purpose. They know if they give specifics it will not win favor among some of their peers or most of the people. "Sketchy" is the word that comes to mind. Just like Romney.

Good read. Thanks for posting it.

Excellent article. Paul Ryan was on Morning Joe today talking much the same nonsense as he as everywhere else; he sounds reasonable but avoids the tough questions and hedges his answers by asserting it isn't his job to work out the details. As Ezra Klein suggests, Ryan wants to glory of sounding fair and reasonable, of being the GOP's fair-haired budget guru yet he does not have the courage to provide specifics about what his plan actually does to most Americans for the simple reason that he knows people won't buy what he's selling. He cannot say how he plans to pay for his tax cuts, again benefiting the wealthiest among us, because Ryan hopes just the words "tax cuts" will sell to the average voter as they have since Ronald Reagan began his war on taxes to starve government and drown it in a bathtub--then people wonder why government doesn't work as it should.

It doesn't matter what political party one associates with, it is up to voters to demand answers from the Paul Ryans and it is up to voters to question when the Paul Ryans are vague and seem unwilling to provide those answers. Doesn't matter why party Ryan belongs to. It would be equally important to demand answers if a democrat had proposed a similar budget which really is not a budget at all but an outline of chapters of a story to be completed later. That in itself should raised another question--why would the GOP House vote on a budget that isn't a budget at all?

Hey cowards and deniers of truth-ism, you can collapse all you want. It only proves just how of touch you FOX LOVERS are.

You can't keep the ugly truth of FOX NOISE in hiding.

Hey FOX LOVERS why don't you engage into conversation what you think about that there video of Ted Nugget wanting to put a gun down the throat of President Obama's throat, Or all the bigots Hannity has on his program from Human events, one of the most vile websites on the net; instead of collapsing posts and running away from the truth?

Beverly in Chicago Comment collapsed by the community

Racist Fox News Mis-information THUG, Sean Hannity repackage demand for racist bile with his NEO-KLAN lynch mobs, to “help” bring down President Obama!

Hannity's Latest Attempt At Race-Baiting: "There's A Picture" Of Obama With The New Black Panthers

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204100002

But you don’t see black people revolting in the streets and trying to overthrow the government, yet you see those in the media, like idiot Sean Klannity, take the focus off the benefactors of human depravity and exploitation and somehow fault those who have a legitimate gripe.

The blame and spotlight should be on the greedy ones who condone, support and benefit from an evil oppressive way of life like Hannity ,the Water Bearer for Murdoch and all all who oppose the Buffer Rule.

In essence when you bring down President Obama you bring down the white race as well when they love the worst that white bigoted American civilization has to offer.

=====================================================

Hey Sean, there's a picture of you with Ted Nugget who wanted to shove a gun down the President of American's throat. How bout you association with all the other racists idiots and Uncle tom self-loathing people of color you have in your show.?

Also, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) was on “TODAY” this morning, and he said he hadn’t given the VP slot any thought. That’s code for: “I’ll listen

I could of sworn Ryan had previously stated he wasn't interested... anyway...

I do so hope he is Willard's V/P choice - talk about 2 peas in a pod! lol

A vulture capitalist running along side the King of Medicare 'Groupons'!

Excuse the typos, my brain was not editing properly this morning! More coffee, please.

Feisty -- I hope the President picks up on that analogy: Groupon. It's funny and true.

Jody -- I'll have to watch that interview. (While holding my nose!) ; )

IR:

You really come up with some good stuff, but I fear you aren't giving Ryan the credit he deserves. He has actually improved a bit on past Republican performance. You seem to have forgotten Boehner's brilliant 13-page budget that had NO numbers at all.

So, yes, Ryan has actually improved on what we've seen in the past. A few more years and we might see a real budget. Give 'em time. Ryan, Cantor, and Boehner, all the Republican heavyweights have only been there for 12 years or more. The learning curve for Republicans is very, very long and very, very flat.

1st of all, I'd like to wish a belated Happy Birthday to You Independent Redneck, i'll always remember you taking the time from your day to sit & drink a Pot of Coffee with Me.

Hey Bob in VA, is Greece trying to Police the World?

I'm sure a lotta folks like me are sick & tired of this argument, as well as the argument about the Buffet Rule Only bringing in X amount of $$$, & this bringing in Only X amount of $$$, & this bringing in X amount of $$$$$$$$$$$! When you start adding up All these little amounts of $$$$$$$, they Combined are Real $$$$$.

As we say in SoggyBottom: "That Dog won't Hunt"!

So try something else to Complain about.

You Betcha!

Occupy SoggyBottom!

Thanks Rick and it's is and always be my pleasure to spend time with you. Lost your contact info in a hacker raid so send it thru to me.............And as always Occupy Gobbler's Nob.

And as always Occupy Gobbler's Nob.

Sounds 'kinky' if you ask me... ☺

Damage123

KUDOS to James O'Keefe for humiliating Eric Holder. It needed to be done. Now watch the Justice Department start an investigation of him but NOT investigate the New Black Panther Party putting a HIT out on someone for $10,000. Holder is a scumbag and a disgrace and needs to step down fast and furiously. Maybe then he can finally marry his longtime girlfriend, Oprah

Brain Damage

Kudos to the fake pimp because he just may have broken the law by impersonation had his dumb azz voted.

Eric Holder's position that there's little evidence of in-person voter fraud to justify changing state laws to require government issued photo IDs at the polls. The video includes excerpts from a recent NBC News interview with Holder on the subject.

In response, a Justice Department official says "about the only time we get concrete evidence of voter fraud is when someone pulls a stunt like this."

By the way, a federal official says the man in the video did not commit voter fraud, because he never signed the voter sheet and -- therefore -- never received or cast a fraudulently obtained ballot.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11103527-on-james-okeefes-latest-video

=========================================

What's this with all you bigoted slime stepping out of the water to go after black people like Oprah. What has she done to you?

Steeler Fan-380417

Bev---I'm not sure Reagan would be accepted in the Republican party today, for all they all purport to be his disciples.

Steeler Fan

The LA times did article a while back which I found interesting.

The pragmatic side of the former president, who was willing to compromise when necessary, is overlooked as he becomes a conservative icon.

September 06, 2011

~snip~

As president, the conservative icon approved several tax increases to deal with a soaring budget deficit, repeatedly boosted the nation's debt limit, signed into law a bill granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and, despite his anti-Washington rhetoric, oversaw an increase in the size and spending of the federal government. Before that, as California governor, he enacted what at the time was the largest state tax increase in American history. He also signed into law one of the nation's most permissive abortion bills; any Republican who tried that today would be cast out of the party.

The fact that Reagan often took the actions grudgingly speaks to what, by modern Republican standards, may be one of the greatest heresies of all: At bottom, Reagan was a pragmatist, willing, when necessary, to cut a deal and compromise.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/nation/la-na-reagan-revisionism-20110907

Another great post IR. The title is very fitting. Republicans are running rampant with the whole idea of CUTS NEED TO BE MADE. A mantra most Americans agree with, however most disagree of where exactly those cuts should take place. Republicans know as soon as the details come out that crowd will start to thin out.

Brain Damage123

Jeez Bev. Does everything have to be explained to you? Voter fraud is illegal and ID should be required. And Holder has been dating Oprah for DECADES now and won't marry her fat ass. He needs to get on the ball, or get on whatever

Again, you prove FOX LOVERS are the most misinformed and ignorant. Oprah is with Business Entrepreneur, Stedman Graham; not the Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Attorney General Eric Holder is married to an obstetrician, the sister who took part in the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door which led to integration at the University of Alabama.^[82]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Personal_life

Winfrey and her boyfriend Stedman Graham have been together since 1986. They were engaged to be married in November 1992, but the ceremony never took place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey#Personal_life

Turn off FOX.

David Walker,

You, Obama and the rest of the liberals like to bash Ryan's Budget. Demonizing it even when everyone knows it doesn't do a damn thing since it will never pass. It was a start and if Reid and the democrats in the Senate would do their job they would come up with a Budget and then conference with the House to come up with a budget agreed to by both houses of congress. Let's see what the democrats have to offer then we can discuss budgets. If the Senate is afraid or to incompetent to propose their own budget, then take Obama's budget as their own and bring it to a vote in the full Senate. It can't be filibustered and only needs 51 votes to pass.

As far as demanding where or what Ryan's budget would cut, he is right, that is not his job. The house writes the 13 appropriations bills through their respective committees then the full house votes up or down. The bills then go to the Senate for their approval (which rarely happens anymore).

In absence of a budget and appropriations bills, the government again will pass continuing resolutions.

sfcret:

It is not the job of the Senate to originate revenue bills. That is the constitutionally-mandated duty of the House.

Are you serious with your justification for Ryan's budget? ".........everyone knows it doesn't do a damned thing since it will never pass."? You call that a start? Are you kidding? This is what this miserable punk Ryan does? He trots out budgets that will never pass, and then you try to shift the blame to the Senate.

What do you mean it's not Ryan's job to show where the budget is to be cut? Of course it is. That's what a budget is all about. I simply can't believe you can put stuff like this on this thread and expect to be taken seriously.

David Walker,

Learn something about how congress works before opening your mouth. No where did I say it was the job of the Senate to originate revenue bills. I stated in the my second paragraph exactly where the Appropriations bills originate. In fact I never mentioned revenue bills at all. Further a Budget is only a plan as to the money the government is going to spend and revenues raised. Budgets do not make cuts in individual programs that is done in the appropriations bills which are written by the respective committees in the House, then approved by the Senate and signed by the President. The budget is not a bill .

As I stated bashing Ryan's budget is just plain stupid, since it will never be passed just like Obama's budget will never pass. However if the Senate would get off their collective asses and pass a budget maybe, just maybe, there can be a conference between the Senate and the House to come up with a workable budget, you know it's called compromise. However, when the Senate refuses to do their job there will never be a budget because there can be no compromise.

Now tell me why the Senate doesn't have to comply with the law and write a budget. You and the left like to talk about the do nothing congress remember most of the log jam is in the Senate which is controlled by your loving democrats.

The Zimmerman Defense Budget:

While there certainly is much talk of discretionary cuts and entitlement slashes, the G.O.P. and to a lesser extent, the Democrats don't really talk about the D.O.D. budget and to what discretion it is entitled. In Fiscal Year 2011, the United States spent $698 billion dollars or $2,141 for every person in the United States on defense spending. Only one country, United Arab Emirates, spent more per capita ($2,653). This is an enormous outlay by any measure.

The "cold war" having been over for 22 years, one has to wonder how such a huge outlay is justified. There is no country capable of matching that level of spending for a sustained period of time (not that the U.S. will be able to much longer) and no country capable of catching our level of technology. Especially, as the premier arms dealer in the world, we basically decide what level of weapons technology countries will have.

So it begs the question; why such colossal expenditures? The only existential threat to the United States and other democratic countries come from small insurgent groups, sponsored by disaffected populaces contributing small sums of money to aggregate. These groups are, in essence, criminal enterprises that cannot be rooted out with major military action.These terrorist groups often display a fanatically zealous mindset and are not deterred by any amount of militaristic infrastructure, as they know their anonymity affords them the element of surprise and their ideology affords them the comfort of their fanaticism. A prime example of this is the penetration of Afghan military and security forces by such individuals. They need counter-insurgency tactics that are basically hybridized military/police forces, using small units, tactically deployed for surgical strikes to be eliminated.

So again, it comes back to $698 billion. Are we any safer? Or, like George Zimmerman, are we frustrated that our hyper-vigilance hasn't achieved the results we desire? So, like a baffled and disheartened paladin, we seek the dragon in every corner, only to find a chimera, laughing at our bluster and taunting us to spend ourselves deeper into debt. Until, we decide to declare ourselves "neighborhood watch" to the world and stand over the lifeless corpse of any nation that doesn't fit into our "community".

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the George Zimmerman defense budget.

(figures provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)

sfcret:

This is what you wrote:

"You, Obama and the rest of the liberals like to bash Ryan's Budget. Demonizing it even when everyone knows it doesn't do a damn thing since it will never pass. It was a start and if Reid and the democrats in the Senate would do their job they would come up with a Budget and then conference with the House to come up with a budget agreed to by both houses of congress."

You have said point blank that Ryan submitted a budget that would never pass. That is no budget. He could just as easily have thrown out a bag of potato chips and said, "This is a budget." Then you say the Senate should do their job. What the hell are you saying?

Ryan gives them a useless document that by your own words means nothing, and then you say it's up to the Senate to produce a budget. You can't have it both ways.

A budget that does not include figures is not a start. It is nothing. Ryan did not bring a budget to the floor, he brought a worthless piece of crap that is not even a starting point, much less a budget that can be taken to conference.

David Walker,

You can't even answer my questions or even make logic sense out of my post, which only tells me you really don't want a discussion or or incapable of having a discussion. You and the left act as if the Ryan Budget was some kind of binding document. You don't have to like it, but tell me what the Senate Democrats budget is. You say it can't be taken to conference and you are right, because the Senate has nothing to conference with. I did say it won't pass because the Senate won't even consider it or come up with their budget and then conference.

BTW, the Ryan Budget did pass the House. Now it's up to the Senate to act, but we all know that won't happen. What part of that don't you understand? The Senate the biggest obstruction in the federal government, but that will change in Jan 2013, after the democrats get voted out in Nov 2012, and both houses will be controlled by Republicans.

sfcret:

Last time buckaroo, and boy am I glad I didn't have to serve in your unit. It's not my job to make sense of your post. If you wish to make a point, it is your job to make it, not mine to try to interpret it.

How in the world could I possibly imagine the Ryan budget is a binding document, when I have been railing that it isn't a budget at all?

The Democrats in the Senate are plodding along, knowing full well that the atmosphere in Washington is so poisoned that nothing they submit is going to make it through. The same of course is true in the House. Both sides have taken their positions and neither is going to budge, hence the continuing resolution.

The biggest obstruction in the government is not the Senate. In fact, it is a small group of idiots who don't have a clue how government works - the damned teabaggers. Boehner can't even get through to them.

As far as your prognostication, I'll just chalk that up as wishful thinking. This is still April. A lot can happen in the next seven months.

Here's something else Washington seems to be unable to grasp. Tax Revenues as a % of GDP are the lowest they have ever been since 1950.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

but crazy, it is gop and gods law that cutting taxes increases revenue...

just remember, less is more, up is down, war is good....

Romney is an honest man. The only thing he's probably worried about is that

those who question his tax returns --- aren't capable of understanding them.

What is Romney hiding?

SF,

Factor in the computer hard drives from his time as Governor of MA, it's safe to say Willard's hiding a LOT! ☺

Well, Paul---I'm capable of understanding his tax returns and, having taught principles of tax to non-accountants, I'm capable of explaining them to those who aren't as tax savvy. And I know I'm not alone in expertise so that excuse isn't getting it done for me.

What does it say about Romney's financial life if his taxes are so complicated the "average person" can't understand them? And he wonders why the typical voter doesn't think he can understand their life. This from a man who wants to build garages for the cars at his beach house.

So if he has nothing to hide and he has done everything "legally" why is he hiding them?

Oh - that's right....GNOP......"THEY CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

paul-440967 - pretty sure most of us could understand Romney's returns. Not that tough but apparently he has something to hide? His honesty is not just a given and his ethics leave a great deal to be desired. But, most of all, I'd like to believe he has a brain. However, in a time when so many Americans are in need, for a Presidential candidate to put an elevator in his home for his wife's car - just kinda shows a total lack of common sense. Shows he has no concept of reality and is certainly out of touch with the country. But, I think we've seen from his appearances that he just doesn't get it!

I know what you mean, WCA. The liberal media was always suspect at best. After the last couple weeks, everything I read or see or hear that comes from MSNBC (NBC), ABC, CNN etccc, I reflexively doubt. Hopefully that will be a good thing that comes out of this whole TRayvon-mania. Maybe the liberal media and their credibility will be damaged so badly that they'll never again be able to force a BArack Obama down our throats like they did in 2008.

It a pretty good indication you know you're going to lose Damage when all you've got is to attack the media, in particular MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CNN, with no mention of the tea people Koch republican propaganda machine Fox. Will you be able to survive with the knowledge you're going to lose the White House, Senate and Congress in November?

I see you've returned from your suspension for you nasty posts.

Hey MO, none of us will be able to survive if Democrats control the White House, Senate and Congress next November.

We literally can't afford it.

Mohammed. It's probably not a good idea to gloat and make such huge predictions SEVEN months before the elections. A lot can happen in that time. If I felt like it, I would go back and dig up poll results for you from 7 months before OTHER elections and you'll see they show little resemblance to what happened when the people finally voted.

Me? Suspended? That's news to me. I skip this Room Full Of Dimwits for one day and you think I was "suspended?" Ha. If I ever was suspended for nasty posts, it would be yet more evidence of bias on the part of the moderators or whoever does the "discipline" around here.

Wow! Polls are biased and can't be trusted?! Who knew?! (sarcasm)

WTC - oh, so you KNOW THE TRUTH in the Trayvon Martin case? How did you discern that? Was it by using a crystal ball? Because, the only two people who actually know the truth are Zimmerman (whose record is less than spotless) and Trayvon, who Zimmerman made sure couldn't tell his side. Wow! You should just run to Florida and give them the wisdom of your infinite knowledge!!!

And, we will - as a country - do much better if the Democrats control the White House, Senate and House this November. We'll finally get something done!

So, I see the Fox-ho's have run out of talking points so they switch subjects. Did you learn that from your omnipotent fearless leader Sarah Palin?

Keep seeking there dude. I said NBC disregarded the truth by editing the tapes.

Please point to where I said that I know what happened.

Cuz see, unlike most here, I am willing to wait for the investigation to be complete.

You need to relax.

Wow, indeed.

BTW Crazy? What in the hell are you talking about?

WCA - you said NBC's "blatant disregard for the truth," implying that you know what the truth is. You do know that is what your sentence means, don't you?????

You need to write so that you say what you mean - and perhaps then you can relax.

Hey Sanity, yous seem to be wrapped a bit tight.

Did NBC Edit the tapes to present something other than what took place?

Were they truthful?

I didn't imply anything. I know NBC Lied about the 911 call. So do you.

It is beyond reason that the author of a sentence would not know what it meant, but a reader , even as crazy as you seem to be, would be able to tell the author what he actually meant.

Like I said, dude. Relax.

WCA - you're always wound a bit tight. You sentence implied that you know the truth. Maybe it is not what you meant but that was implied. Perhaps you should learn to write clearer. I have no problem understanding well written sentences.

And, not a dude but already relaxed! And now, off to meet with a client.

Bye all.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

White, I'm talking about anyone posting about Zimmerman. It appears to have been started by Bev in Chicago but it doesn't matter, none of it has to do with the Buffett rule.

Rachel Maddow ran a great piece last night on the dire condition of the republican party in many states. In one state, donations to the party are so low, they can't even afford to pay the lowly rent on their local office. We have seen primary after primary where the party officials are unable to tally votes, leading to questionable results of the primaries. Well, what would we expect from the supposed 'fiscally conservative' party? They will cut and cut until they can't even function. If they can't afford to pay rent or count votes, they are certainly not the party of fiscal responsibility.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#46999648

Lies. Rachel Maddow LIES.... and that's why no one watches her show.

Have you looked at HER numbers lately?

Jody -- Concerning campaign ads... What we need is a movement to shut off the TV, thus the lies. It would make a powerful statement against Citizen's United while educating the masses. Some people actually believe those ads and vote accordingly. Things need to change. Let it be an end to the deceitful ads and starvation of the PAC's. The latter could be done by pressuring business to stop funding them.

Let me clarify that a bit more. Shut the TV off for a day, movement. Let it be known we don't want to hear the lies anymore.

"Rachel Maddow LIES.... and that's why no one watches her show.

Have you looked at HER numbers lately?"

Then what are you so worried about? Why do conservatives keep telling us over and over that Fox News is the most watched and most trusted network and they get bigger ratings than all the liberal networks put together.....and then blame everything in America on the liberal lamestream media that nobody's suuposedly even watching? You can't have it both ways!

I like quality over quantity. ; )

Pretty soon, Keanu Maddow will be joining Keith "Welcome To WalMart" Olbermann on the unemployment line. You people should be thanking your lucky stars that NBC gets all it's money from sports. If it didn't, MSNBC (which makes them NO $$$) would be a full-time prison documentary/pervert catcher network, and you all would have nothing to watch!

Paul lotsanumbers:

You wrote:

"Lies. Rachel Maddow LIES...."

Show us one lie - one single, solitary lie.

I'm sick of the BS that comes from you right-wing trolls. You can't back up what you say, so you'll either deflect, or more likely, run, run, run.

Damage, you do realize that every time you show up here, you're helping MSNBC make money, don't you? United Health Care is counting on you to click on those annoying ads!

I've been pleased to see the MSNBC prime time shows focusing on state politics. Rachel has done great work explaining what is going on in Michigan. Ed Schultz did a lot to show us what was going on in Wisconsin. They have also focused on the voter registration laws and the attempts to limit women's reproductive rights. These are important issues that need to be covered.

So that means that now MSNBC is concentrating on LYING about state politics. Isn't that great. America knows what MSNBC did to George Zimmerman and America doesn't like it.

Damage123

So that means that now MSNBC is concentrating on LYING about state politics. Isn't that great. America knows what MSNBC did to George Zimmerman and America doesn't like it.

Okay Brain Damage,

Would you believe it when Scott Walker is recalled?

DCIA, agree, turning off the TV does wonders to avoid the ad blitz. During the lead up to the IA caucus and IL primary, I didn't go near ABC, CBS or NBC where all the ads were running.

Steeler Fan, I am also glad to see MSNBC's evening line up focus on what's happening at the state levels. This is where the wild and crazy legislation is being passed, this is where women's rights and citizens' rights are being systematically destroyed while those focused on DC politics, reporting beltway wisdom are unaware. I look forward to Rachel's continued focus on Michigan where democracy is being eliminated one town, one city at a time. If we thought Scott Walker and his GOP legislators were doing was bad, it doesn't come close to what they're doing in Michigan.

Damage comes here every day to lie by calling everyone who disagrees with him and FOX a liar. It's so obvious. The difference is that most people from all political ideologies recognize a lie for what it is but that is something that has disappeared from the far right base conservatives DNA who have embraced the concept that if a lie is told often enough, it becomes truth. That's what FOX has done for America.

FOX provides a different view, one that has been lacking for years. Its one station, ONE, but I guess everyone needs a boogie man.

Again, quality over quantity. Content matters. Is the content intelligent, fact based and reasoned or does it lack the facts to support it. If I can find facts to back up content then it's legit. If not, it's garbage.

That's my take on things. I'm picky.

I find it weird that the GOP claims the be the party of fiscal responsibility (which we already know is a lie), but they cannot even manage their own state party budgets. How the hell can we trust them to run the federal government when they can't even control their own organizations???

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Damage (and I actually cringed when I typed that) America is angry that Zimmerman has so far gotten away with murder. We all know (if you're willing to admit the truth) that, had Trayvon been white and Zimmerman black, Zimmerman would be rotting in jail right now. He stalked a young man for no reason and it is more than a little questionable if he was ever "assaulted" as he claims. There are witnesses saying he was the attacker and the screams on the tape were NOT Zimmerman's. So, my guess is you DON'T speak for America anymore than you speak for anyone who is sane!

Did you???

The only thing he did not give an exact number for was what the total deficit figure would be at the end of the 10 year period each budget proposed. Ryan ate them for breakfeast.........Joe was the only happy member during that segment...

Yes, Mo, I saw Ryan this morning and the weasel did his weasel-tricks. He answered nothing. If someone writes a budget, that someone should be able to explain the details of that budget.

MO1852032: were you watching the same show...that's not what I saw, at all!

paul,

Every question that he couldn’t answer (he did the same on the “Today” show) he laughed and said that isn’t true but gave no details about what his budget actually does and why exactly it isn’t the truth.

He wrote a 98 page document about his budget but everyone keeps coming up with the same assumptions about what his budget actually accomplished and by what means. This document is why he can’t answer the questions because what readers assume is correct.

His budget does not balance the budget until 2040 so for the next 27 years we will continue to borrow increasing our debt by an estimated $6+ trillion.

....and still no budget from the Democrats.

1Hiram, President Obama submitted his budget proposal in February--as he has since 2009--for the House and Senate to add, delete, amend, tweak or whatever. The House is responsible for passing budgets, raising revenues and spending bills; then the Senate amends the House plans and the two meet for reconciliation of the bills. The GOP House passed the Ryan faux budget so they think their work is done. Democrats in the House do not have a majority to present a budget and even if they did, it would not be brought to the House floor for a vote. Why would the Senate democrats pass a budget that will sit on the shelf in the House gathering dust?

Jody, Iowa

Yes, Mo, I saw Ryan this morning and the weasel did his weasel-tricks. He answered nothing. If someone writes a budget, that someone should be able to explain the details of that budget.

#8.2

Maybe what we need to do is wait and read it after it is passed. That worked pretty for Obama and his two henchmen.

Jody, Iowa

The House voted 0-414 against Obama's budget. What do you want?

Rick,

It was NOT the President’s budget.

It was only the numbers from his budget with no explanation of how the numbers were obtained or why they what they were.

What was voted on was submitted by the Republicans – just another political stunt.

Rick, the House already passed the Ryan so-called budget, every republican voted "yea" and I'll bet not one of them can explain what's in it.

BTW, repeat once again--it wasn't the Obama budget that the House voted 0-414, it was an amended GOP version of it containing only numbers but no specifics which is exactly why no democrats voted for it; it was a sham of a vote done for political purposes only. In other words, the GOP pulled a James O'Keefe/Andrew Breitbart and edited the Obama budget and then say "see, see, the Obama budget failed".

Good question ....why would the Senate Democrats pass a budget that is part of their job??? They are either clueless or playing game with our money. We have not had a federal budget passed since Obama took office.....nothing but continuing spending resolutions.

Hi Dennis,

What I find appalling and a political stunt is a sitting President running a campaign not on his so called accomplishments but demonizing a budget that will never see the light of day. I'm still waiting for the Senate to bring their budget to the floor for a vote, but we both know that won't happen because Reid can't even get 51 votes in a Democrat controlled Senate, now that is sad.

Hi Sarge,

It is also sad that Boehner, with a much larger majority in the House, cannot even get his key legislation, the Transportation/highway bill passed – a bill that passed in the Senate with huge bipartisan support.

So Washington has serious problems with our elected officials and the leadership in both Chambers and both Parties.

The House has not even tried to write a budget (in 2 years) that just might get support from the Senate … at least enough to cause the voters to question why the Dems are against it. That effort just might help gain support from Independents and some Dems come November. It seems that politics is more important than solving problems.

Ya'll see Boone Pickens on Morning Joe this AM.........he schooled them on Obama's lack of an energy policy

Also said nothing Obama has done is responsible for an increase of domestic oil drilling.......

Why don't ALL the liberal billionaires who believe the rich should be taxed so heavily just kick in and donate all their money to the deficit?

That's be too easy, wouldn't it? The mega, mega-rich Democrats won't kick-in

the money .... because its all smoke & mirrors... its POLITICS. Nothing but Politics.

If they really cared about our astronomical deficit and debt.... they would've chipped-in the money A Long Time Ago.

Its politics.

Norman Allen, well said. Mr. Buffett walks the walk as does Bill Gates.

So Paul numbers, it is your assertion that only those democrat multi-million/billionaires should write a check to help the Government while the others keep their multi-millions/billions? That's nonsense and it is the lamest argument I have been hearing conservatives make for the last two years. Why is it that raising taxes at the high end by a mere 4% which affects only the high-end earners is seen as some evil plot and they defend it as if they were the ones affected when they are not. Reagan recognized he had made some big mistakes with his tax cuts and then raised taxes many times because he was smarter than all of today's republicans combined. We cannot have a powerful country if it has no money to be powerful; we cannot have a strong economy if the economy only works for a small segment of the population--the wealthy segment. We cannot be a strong and powerful country if 98% of the citizens are maintaining or barely getting by while the 2% continue to amass all the wealth. It isn't about keeping the money they earn, it's about paying a fair share to help keep the country powerful and strong which benefits them even more.

Nicely put Jody and I agree... Yes, we HAVE to cut spending as well but the GOP is not going to force tax CUTS and spending CUTS! What will be left? I'm tired of people coparing this situation to Greece and Europe because Greece did exactly what the Republicans want to do. They cut spending in their government and then they tail spun out of control because their economy tanked due to lack of currency circulation. Now they're having to really cut into their social insurance funds. It's bad there but not in the U.S. and thanks to the stimulus package. Had it been bigger we might be better off. Too bad.

MGates, thank you. Agree with your points as well. I'm also tired of the comparisons to Greece and Europe. The stimulus should have been bigger but the very debt amassed under Bush made it even more difficult to deficit spend during a crisis like the Great Recession. That's why it is so important to have fair tax rates during the good times to keep the budget balanced and to prepare for the times when deficit spending is a necessity. Spending cuts are as important as increased revenues but cuts should be targeted not slash and burn aimed at programs one party doesn't like while protecting the programs it does like. It frustrates me when legislators like Rep. Paul Ryan, and the GOP presidential candidates refuse to consider spending cuts for the military while demanding cuts to other essential programs such as infrastructure, education, food aid, etc. Spending cuts must be shared by all segments not just discretionary spending. I'd suggest cutting Paul Ryan's and other legislators wages and benefits and definitely their pension plans as part of the "shared" spending cuts. If the GOP were serious about the debt and the deficit, they would be suggesting both tax increases for the 1%, eliminating the corporate welfare loopholes, re-vamping the tax codes as well as spending cuts.

Norman Allen

Mr. Buffet does indeed seem to be a well meaning and compassionate fellow but please tell me why when push came to shove he backed off paying additional taxes like he talked so much about and then made it conditional on how much republican politicians paid.

Jody, I completely agree with your point about not slashing portions of the budget. I think any really rational person would realize blindly chain-sawing into discretionary spending is no way to work out a budget. I think that's what is so ridiculous about the Ryan "budget proposal". He can't be serious and I dare say that none of the Republicans who supported it openly read it first and perhaps now/when they do they'll be embarassed and glad that there's no way it could pass a vote.

One of the joksters on here (JAS1) claimed that Democrats (like Republicans) don't want to cut defense spending, but that's where they're wrong. Cut it baby! That's one place we could perhaps afford a deep slash.

Isnt the IRS pursuing one of Mr Buffet's organizations for over $300 million in unpaid taxes? Hmm...

MGates -

So, deeply cut the defense, which the Constitution says the Federal Gov't must provide, but not your precious entitlements and welfare?

If thats not the liberal talking point, I don't know what is.

Where in the Constitution does it say we have to spend more than the next 15 largest armies in the world? Conservatives must be the biggest chicken sh**ts and hawks the world has ever witnessed.

Obama may win the election so conservatives, like they did in 2008, buy up all the guns and ammo they can get their hands on. What pathetic little school girls.

Our community-organizer / agitator President is math-challenged., worse than any president we ever had.

Even people who've had only general math understand that ObamaCare doesn't add up.

ObamaCare is a really accurate gage of the Incompetency of not only Obama,

but his administration.

Perhaps the resident math-challenged conservatives who yelp about President Obama's budget deficits, coming out of a Great Recession, would care to complain about or explain why the Bush 43 budget deficits were as high for seven of his eight years or doesn't that count? He inherited a budget surplus when he took office and in less than one year put us into huge deficits with massive tax cuts and he didn't even put his two wars on the books. So please, at least be honest with your critiques otherwise, they are simply anti-Obama whinings without basis of fact.

Jody - First off you need to go check what your senator had to say about your president. A lot of liberals seem to think Grassley is representative of Iowans in General.

Second you need to come up with some numbers to show us that Bush's deficits for 7 years were just as high. I haven't seen that anywhere.

Third, Clinton's budget surpluses disappeared with the collapse of the dot com boom. Let's see if you can come up with a reasonable response to the attached. BTW, it includes an article from Anderson Cooper 360 about Clinton's surpluses from the dot com boom.

Do you want a shot at explaining how the attached links don't prove you to be a liar?

Do you think it is even slightly possible that an unregulated derivatives market had anything to do with the credit crisis that caused the economic collapse. A market that reached 680 trillion dollars in notational value in 2008 which is more than 10 times the gdp of every country on the planet. And why do you think that went unregulated. See the following link to an interview with Brooksley Born, chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under Bill Clinton:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html

And many of you liberals keep on about the Bill Clinton budget surplus and what good shape we would be in if Bush had not squandered it. Check this out and tell me again how Bush squandered it:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/24/the-dot-com-bubble-how-to-lose-5-trillion/

What about what Barney Frank was doing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You got an opinion on this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2011/07/joseph-stiglitz-barney-frank-r.html

What do our European friends think
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-individuals-economy

Do you think there could have been a conflict of interest with Herb Moses at Fannie Mae?
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Massachusetts/Barney_Frank/Scandals/Relationship_with_Herb_Moses/

Do you think you can refute what this economist at San Jose State University has to say:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm

Whose best interest did Barney have in mind when he shot down Bush's efforts to regulate Fannie Mae:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQWk1Wp3L4

There ya go. You have plenty to check out there. None and I do mean none of your liberal compatriots have had the balls to address those issues. How about you.

I have been posting a similar version of the above for about 90 days now. So far the only argument I have gotten is "I don't agree", "It is biased to the right" and "The video is from Fox news".

You liberals keep telling us how smart you are but you are making no attempt to show it. Just the opposite. Many liberals claim if it were not for Bush policies that the existing deficit when Bush took office would have turned into a surplus without noting that it would have taken a surplus of over 600 billion per year to wipe out the debt that existed when Bush took office. I even have had some liberals claim there was no debt when Bush took office.

And you liberals keep telling us how smart you are. I wonder why independents like myself don't believe you.

Rick, I know exactly what Senator Grassley said and Grassley now knows exactly my opinion of his disrespectul remarks. He's a fool and those who choose to quote him are his equal. Once again you post a lot of links which are unreleated to the Bush deficit spending by deflecting to the time-honored GOP scapegoat of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

stts

Jody,

So how about just this one?

And many of you liberals keep on about the Bill Clinton budget surplus and what good shape we would be in if Bush had not squandered it. Check this out and tell me again how Bush squandered it:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/24/the-dot-com-bubble-how-to-lose-5-trillion/

Like I said before, none of you can come up with a half way intelligent response. I bet you can't even explain how the attached affected Clinton's surplus which you and your partners in crime keep harping on.

Jody, Iowa

Rick, I know exactly what Senator Grassley said and Grassley now knows exactly my opinion of his disrespectul remarks. He's a fool and those who choose to quote him are his equal. Once again you post a lot of links which are unreleated to the Bush deficit spending by deflecting to the time-honored GOP scapegoat of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And I was not talking about what Grassley said. I was talking about what liberals are saying about Iowans and from your response I have no reason to doubt them.

Rick, it may explain Clinton's surplus but it sure as hell doesn't explain why Bush didn't raise taxes during the buildup of the housing bubble. Why didn't he pay down the debt during the good economy instead of expanding medicare benefits and spending trillions on war?

I'm glad you do understand that the economy plays the biggest part in this mess we are in now.

BTW Reagan and GW were the only two Presidents to increase the debt (inflation adjusted) since WWII. They did this by cutting taxes and spending more. I'll take Dems tax and spend policies any day over Pubs policies of spend and borrow. Which do you think is more conservative?

Rick - two unfunded wars with 2 tax cuts plus an unfunded medicare prescription program that heavily benefited the drug companys.

Even if the dot com bubble had not burst, these were irresponsible and foolish actions. He had a chance to pay off the debt and squandered it. How stupid are you?

crazy - why didn't Clinton pay down the debt. What part of "the surplus ended" do you not understand?

blearyeyed - I cannot disagree about not raising taxes I guess it is sort of like Obama admitting that ACR is a bad idea right now. Who in the hell are you calling stupid anyway. What part of taking 5 trillion dollars out of the economy do you not get? Why in the hell did Clinton not pay off the debt.

But explain how you blame the housing bubble on Bush. Further, how do you blame the collapse. Surely you are not dumb enough to think that could go on forever. If you look at the following debt as a percentage of gdp chart you will see that the deficit situation was starting to improve. Just think, if it was for the unregulated derivatives market and the collapse of the housing bubble Obama would be looking really good right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Rick, Clinton did pay down the debt in real dollars. Bubble burst in 2000-2001.

crazy after all these years

And those were Clinton's budgets. Budh took office on January 22, 2001 and there was a national debt of approx 5.8 trillion dollars on January 19, 2001. If you don't believe me look it up for yourself.

And I said Pay Off not Pay Down.

Santorum's own state booted him out, big-time, yet, Santorum still won't quit.

Romney's ad is absolutely correct, and, appropriate.

I don't see what the problem is.

Romney can't tell us why we should vote for him---he only seems to be able to tell us why we shouldn't vote for anyone else. As if we couldn't figure that out for ourselves!

I did see a primary ad for a Republican who cast himself in the tradition of Rick Santorum----I wondered whether that meant he'd lose by 17 points or would he wear a sweater vest?

paul-440967 - It's not my problem, it's Romney's. As I said, we Pennsylvanians are well aware of the fact that we booted Santorum out big time in 2006, and for Romney to spend millions of dollars reminding us of that, when all the signs indicate that there's no mathematical way Santorum can still take the nomination away from him, just seems like a colossal waste of money.

What is Romney so afraid of? My guess is that he knows he still has a huge perception problem when it comes to the "electability" thing. Even when he wins, he barely gets 40% of the vote - from his own party. If Santorum has a decent showing here, that narrative is just going to continue to hound him and keep distracting him from attacking President Obama.

So, hey.....as a Democrat, I don't really see what the problem is either!

Steeler Fan - Over here, we're getting Tom Smith ads several times a night - it cracks me up every time they show the photo-shopped picture of President Obama and Bob Casey together and talk about the evil "Obama/Casey agenda". Seriously? Casey has voted AGAINST the President more than any other Democratic senator I can remember. Who the heck writes this stuff?

JoAnne---I've seen those ads out here, too. Had to smile at the Obama/Casey thing too. I have not seen one yard sign for any Presidential or Senatorial candidate. I have seen signs for my Republican congressman, who I can't wait to vote against--all he does is send emails spouting Republican tea party talking points. Did not hold one town hall last summer.

Getting back to the Romney ads, this from yesterday's New York Times:

"Mitt Romney’s attempt to pull off a victory in Rick Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania was all set to go into overdrive Monday with attack ads highlighting how voters there soundly rejected him in his 2006 Senate race.

But the aggressive tactics that have served Mr. Romney so well in other states faced an unexpected complication: the emergency hospitalization of Mr. Santorum’s disabled daughter Bella, which prompted an outpouring of public sympathy.

The Romney camp abruptly pulled the ads on Monday morning."

And abruptly started running them again - at least here in the Philadelphia market - by about 7:30 Monday night.

So much for sympathy.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47000515/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

JoAnne, funny and a great read this morning of PA politics ala Mitt Romney.

SF, you mentioned the lack of yard signs in PA. I noticed the same thing leading up to the IA caucus. Usually there are more signs than houses but this year, just a few mostly for Ron Paul and a few big ones for some guy who's hoping to be the GOP nominee to unseat democrat federal House Rep Dave Loebsack.

I personally cannot wait till Obama debates Romney on the deficit. Then Obama can openly reveal Romney's fiscal policies for what they are: class warfare-instigating bull@!$%#.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

If you watch so much Fox News why are you posting on a ~gasp~ main-stream media website. I thought this was like a sin or something. Go back home (FNC) or stop writing and listen instead. You might, just might, learn something.

So in other words .....you have no intelligent response to make???

No intelligent response for an unintelligent post, why waste intelligence on a brick wall?

Can't use what you don't have....

Yeah, you're right. Too bad you've none to use it could help you in life. But then, you conservatives don't need help right?

He has already established his class warfare theme of the GOP protecting the rich.....

But that's the truth. The GOP refuse to raise taxes on the rich. In fact, they protested heavily on protecting tax cuts for the rich but balked at cutting taxes for the poor.

Plus the class warfare thing isn't new. It's been going on for the past 30 years, thanks to trickle-down economics.

And where is the class warfare from the right??? Ryan's plan cuts trillions from social safety nets and services while giving millionaires and billionaires a huge check. Romney cuts taxes for the rich while raising taxes for the poor. Where the @!$%# is the class warfare now???

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Obama doesn't think too highly of liberals, his own voters., if he thinks he can fool them with the Buffett rule.

follow him like the Pied Piper.......

Well paul, they are following him and taking it, hook, line and sinker.