Romney will not inspire registered Republicans to get off their duffs and vote in November. He is a political non-entity who will not appeal to the few remaining groups that actually support the GOP after it has offended and alienated most large voting blocs during the hilarious Republican primary race. Romney is toast and the GOP knows it.

When the president says everyone should pay their fair share of taxes (30%) does he really mean everyone?

Feisty,

Please accept facts when they are presented. The President claimed that the insurance company did not want to pay for her treatment which was a lie. That is not nitpicking and if you went through it with your mother than you should be angry at the President who made up a story to advance a political agenda.

There was no lie about it - she fought insurance companies... PERIOD!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL - You may in trouble with this fight. Even the Washington post gave him 3 Pinocchios.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-road-weve-traveled-a-misleading-account-of-obamas-mother-and-her-insurance-dispute/2012/03/18/gIQAdDd4KS_blog.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/ann-dunham-book-health-insurance_n_898192.html

Fair tax for all and that isn't 15% for the super wealthy and twice that for the working class. The poor you mentioned pay a higher tax percentage of their income than anybody making over 30K a year. How much more do you want them to pay? Do you really have the heart to have half of Americans living in the street with no food and babies running around naked with a short life span like India?

Same old, same old from Obama. I don't think he understands the meaning of leadership. It's really sad, his ego knows no bounds and the American people suffer to his beat of me, me, me.... He certainly does not deserve re-election. November 2012 will be the end of an error!!!

The idealess president. I have found some text from his next speech. Blah Blah blame the other guy, Blah Blah not my fault, Blah Blah fairness, Blah Blah act like I've done something.

Concerned Ctzn - Next time just post a link. If someone wants to read Haberman's opinion they can go read it there...

In theory I agree with the so-called Buffett rule, the rich should not pay less than those making less. However, in practice, raising the taxes on the rich does not help those making less. How about LOWERING the taxes of those earning $100,000 or less and leaving the remaining tax structure in place? That is how you help the so-called victimization of the less fortunate.

I bet both sides would win favor with my plan.

I believe the president was telling it as he saw it, and it was his mother, after all. However, it's nothing like the egregious like lies told by the likes of...

Romney:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/08/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-once-again-says-us-inches-away-no-long/

Santorum:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/13/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-many-parts-country-experience-r/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/10/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-said-obama-said-any-child-born-prema/

Ryan:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/10/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-barack-obama-has-doubled-size-government/

Boehner:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/31/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-labels-money-health-car/

jerry l: Please accept facts as presented. The insurance company that denied payments to President Obama's mother was Cigna, it in fact, WAS because they made it a preexisting condition which made her ineligible, and she did need that money for her treatments and living expenses.

Quit listening to Michelle Malkin, check it out on Media Matters or Politifact.org and apologize to Feisty, as well as your President.

I believe the president was telling it as he saw it

Sailcat-2064101 - What a creative way to describe lying!

If only Obamas boy Buffett would pay the Billion Dollars or so he and his companies have been fighting the IRS over for years, maybe I could believe that capitalist tool and OBAMA lover. Don't believe it look it up.

Obama Lies During Third Year....

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
American.com

USA producing more oil than ever before...
Petroleum Insights

Fence between US and Mexico is "Practically Complete"
Department of Homeland Security says 5%

Lies During Second Year

No signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law
Obama Lies to Keep Czars

No "boots" on the ground Libya
Anyone that has worked with the AC-130 gunship can tell you, you need spotters to let aircraft know where the targets are. Usually it is Special Forces, Rangers etc trained for this mission. It's CIA Agents in Libya on the ground

Reform will also rein in the abuse and excess that nearly brought down our financial system. It will finally bring transparency to the kinds of complex, risky transactions that helped trigger the financial crisis.
Obama Lies About Financial Reform Bill

All Americans WILL BE were, "surprised, disappointed and angry" about lockerbie bomber
Obama Memo

I will not rest until the BP Oil Spill stops
Obama's Schedule proves otherwise

The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.
Campaign and Presidency

If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it
TownHall

"Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009.

ObamaCare Fee is not a new tax
Obama denies healthcare is a new tax on all Americans

We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil.
Obama's oval office speech in June 2010

Now suddenly if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that's something that could potentially happen.
Arizona Immigration Law

The Health Care Package will pay for itself
Time

Republicans don't have a single idea that's different from George Bush's ideas — not one.

Hmm Immigration?

We shouldn't Mandate the purchase of health care
Democratic Debate Lies

I am immediately instituting PayGo "Pay as you go"
Said during a speech immediately after the Trillion Dollar "Shovel Ready" bill.

I got the Message from Massachusetts
Daily Bail

Lies During First Year...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Obama Inaugaration. 20 Jan 2009

Cut Deficit in Half by end of first term
Associated Press Video

Health Care deals will be covered on C-span
Obama Lies

As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide
ABC

Recovery Act will save or create jobs
ABC News

Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus.
Obama Lies

No Earmarks in the $787 Billion Stimulus

CNN

I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan
Specator.Org

We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages.
Obama Lies

I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.
NPR

Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year
Council on Foreign Relations.

Won't Raise taxes on those making less than 250,000 per year.
Businessweek: Obama Agnostic on taxes
List of Tax Promise Violations
2008 Campaign Lies

Obama campaign would accept public funding
http://obamalies.net/wp-admin/post.php?post=901&action=edit-to-break.html">ABC

Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995 fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.
Mounting Heath Care Lies

Didn't know Jeremiah Wright was Radical
Dreams of My Father – A radical Socialist.

Would have the most transparent administration in History
Cato Institute

We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don't need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.
Boston Globe

I have visited all 57 states.
Snopes

I'll get rid of earmarks
Source: Any bill passed during presidency

When a bill lands on my Desk, The American people will have 5 days to review it before I sign it.
Campaign Speech

My father served in World War II.
The Videos and the Facts

Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009
News Video

Seniors Making less than 50,000 will not have to pay taxes
YouTube

Would not vote for any bill supporting troop funding without a firm withdrawal commitment from the Bush Administration.
He has done nothing but continue the Bush admins strategy and to explain how the "surges total failure" has now become his greatest achievement.

Present Votes Are Common In Illinois
NPR

I Won Michigan
Huffington Post

I won Nevada
The Nation

I don't Have Lobbyists
US News

My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad
Crooks and Liars

I Have Always Been Against Iraq
Washington Post

My Wife Didn't Mean What She Said About Pride In Country
CNN

Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.
Obama Campaign Video

I Barely Know Rezko
Sun Times

My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church
ABC News

NewDay,

I posted the link from Poltifact that said he stretched the truth and her health care payments we made. It was the disability payments that were questioned and those have nothing to do with the health care reforms.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/21/barack-obama/obamas-mother-fought-disability-coverage-not-treat/

I just posted it again so you can see it

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 - let's see Harry Reid even TRY to get his majority Democrats to support it in the Senate, so this is just more campaign rhetoric from Obama in an election year. All talk and no substance.

AtlasWillShrug --

However, in practice, raising the taxes on the rich does not help those making less.

Actually, as demonstrated by the empirical evidence I have seen, it does.

Over the past 40 years or so, the most prosperous years overall have been those when the tax rate on the rich has been the highest.

Sir, that is the biggest bunch of "Obama Resentmant" of anyone that I have ever read. It was not a waste of time for me because I could tell very quickly that you are not a supporter of the President and that you will say anything to try and convince others that you know what you are talking about. Please forgive me, and I am not being sarcastic, but I don't believe a word of what I just read. It is OK if you don't like the President but don't play the rest of us as fools. It would seem to me that you are the one that needs to seek help for that issue that you suffer from, good day sir.

Skup "When the president says everyone should pay their fair share of taxes (30%) does he really mean everyone?"

Of course not - He means that the top 10% should pay 90% of the income taxes, the upper middle class pay 10%, and the bottom 50% pay nothing (although the bottom 50% DOES get most of the benefits of Federal spending.

That's his version of 'fair share'.

By the way - The top 10% currently pays 70% of all Federal income taxes, the upper middle class currently pays 30%, and the bottom 50% still pays nothing.

Anna Molly-

Actually, as demonstrated by the empirical evidence I have seen, it does.

Over the past 40 years or so, the most prosperous years overall have been those when the tax rate on the rich has been the highest.

So by raising taxes on the wealthy, how will you, personally benefit? Unless you're a parasite, you will not directly benefit. Then, tell me how a 10% reduction of your taxes would benefit you. I believe the latter would prove more beneficial to you.

During the Obama regime, the gap between poor and rich has increased more that any other period, however he said is fighting for the poor. Obama can't be more wrong selecting Warren Buffet as an example for other rich people share their wealth demanding more taxes , I guess he select this man and gave the honor to name " The Buffet rule" because he is a mega-donor to his war-chest, other than that he is even worst than the other billionaires he demand to pay more taxes. His hypocrisy is backing up with facts when IRS demand to pay taxes his company did not pay since 2002.

According to Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report the company has been in a years-long dispute over its federal tax bills.

According to the report, “We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years.” Buffet Rule = hypocrisy

This idiotic notion that "taxing the rich" is going to solve anything is simply an indication that the efforts of this failure of a socialist moron and his willing minions in the media are leading the pathetic leftist "progressive" sheep, and the country, down the damn drain.

HEY IDIOTS! The Buffet rule will generate 47 billion over the next 10 years. 47 BILLION DOLLARS! Your pathetic leader is spending TRILLIONS of dollars a year. What the hell will this moronic attempt at class warfare achieve? That same 42 billion represents .6 percent of the debt this idiot is amassing! Can you all pull your heads out of wherever you have them ensconced and THINK FOR ONE DAMN TIME without the media or your idiotic leftist leaders telling you what to think? THIS IS A SMOKE SCREEN DESIGNED TO GET HIM RE-ELECTED!

Anyone. ANYONE, that believes for a millisecond that "taxing the rich more" is the answer should not be allowed to vote on anything above dog-catcher ever again. If you believe this stupidity, please, hide in your basements, occupy some park somewhere, just leave the grown-ups to actually try and achieve a workable solution, not the socialistic class warfare methods of your leadership.

This country is doomed to another civil war.

Atlas --

So by raising taxes on the wealthy, how will you, personally benefit? Unless you're a parasite, you will not directly benefit. Then, tell me how a 10% reduction of your taxes would benefit you. I believe the latter would prove more beneficial to you.

Who knows why it works? Certainly not a dumb liberal like me. If you'd really like to know, don't ask the man behind the curtain. He doesn't know how it works, either.

Here's the deal. Facts are facts. When you give the money to people who are already rich, they don't use it to create jobs or even use it in ways that create jobs. And, if I get to choose, I'd rather have a 10 percent increase in my income, which was more likely in those prosperous years, because that's a MUCH higher number than a 10 percent reduction of my taxes, which seems unlikely in any event.

Anna Molly "Over the past 40 years or so, the most prosperous years overall have been those when the tax rate on the rich has been the highest."

Time for a reality check over the last 40 years or so.

In the decade between 1970 and 1980 (high taxes), Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by $1.686 Trillion.

In the decade from 1980 - 1990 (after the Reagan tax cuts), GDP grew by $3.011 Trillion.

In the decade from 1990 - 2000 (Reagan tax cuts continued), GDP grew by $4.086 Trillion.

In the decade from 2000 - 2010 (additional Bush tax cuts), GDP grew by $4.687 Trillion.

Low tax rates stimulate economic growth, and high tax rates result in less money for business investments/jobs.

The Buffet rule will generate 47 billion over the next 10 years. 47 BILLION DOLLARS!

Rajun:

Thanks, somebody needed to point out what a farce this is. I generally try to avoid these threads because the liberals here are so convinced that the "Buffet Rule" is somehow going to solve all of our economic problems. While it may make them feel better sticking it to the rich, it does absolutely nothing else.

SI

Save what's left of America ....

Obama out in 2012 ....

They were talking about another credit downgrading today ....

Great ....

America is sinking under Obama ....

Obama can't even slow our debt down at all ....

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL.....Flyeisty....."Can someone tell me what service they provided to earn those kind of salaries?"

THEY work for a living !!!! There, you have been told.

Wait a minute....Mr. Obama on the campaign tour in a WEALTHY Boca Ratan neighborhood spouting "tax the rich"....too funny.

Wait another minute....Mr. Obama's White House Press Secretary (Mr. duh,duh Carney) stated that the GSA fiasco was Bush's fault.

Gosh, another minute.....Mr. TurboTax Geithner is supporting using remaining TARP funds to support the FHFA in REDUCING homeowners under water by CUTTING their principal.

Holy Batman, another minute.....Mr. Obama just had his DHS initiate New Procedures to allow 1,000,000 Illegal Aliens (Immigrants) a part to PERMANENT RESIDENCY (Amnesty) without Congressional approval.

Gee whiskers, another one.....better check on the real status of the Obama daughters being designated as Senior White House staff on that African trip. Nah, we don't want Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in the White House to hit the media, huh ?

Meanwhile, still waiting on Mr. Obama, or one of his cohorts in crime, to initiate a request to INCREASE the National Debt limit to support his remaining 8 or so months of Social engineered programs.

Yep, anybody but Mr. Obama for 2012, and the next President can even be another Democrat.

"isn't it ironic that race relations seem to be worse than they have been in the last 50 years under our 'post-racial' President?"

It is the blatant and despicable racism exhibited by many members of the right wing that help to explain...but not to justify...the deep, irrational hatred they express for our president.

Since 1980 republicans AND democrats have presided over the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich in history. If you truly value a strong middle class, necessary for thriving democracy, the last thing you will do is vote for either of the big boys. Or we can just have the "same ole same ole".

How hard is it google and read?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/vaknin.asp

You repubs are so full of BS that Faux News and the uneducated wrap their last 3 brains around it.

You can not control a population that...
- is educated
- healthy
- funded
- well fed

Remove any one of the above an you control that population [what ever it may be]

Really, Rajun? Is that the best you can do? No wonder you have been such a tragic disappointment to your family.

If you knew the facts jerry l, why did you lie about it? Disability payment is insurance, it was denied because they claimed your President's mother had a preexisting condition, so you agree that the story is true as presented.

Now, NO ONE should have to fight an insurance company when they are dying. Only the truly evil believe otherwise.

ahh here are all the bashers i was missing from the other post

you guys are arguing over the stupidest things it is quite ridicules, really you guys have gotten soo off track that i cant remember what this whole discussion is about

And talk about no respect for others, no hospitality for others, courtesy is dying

this is a pitiful sight to behold for America

Will white trash help Obama stay in the White house , well if your tired of his physcobabble , high gas prices and food and everything else lets make this screw up a one term president.

Romney will not inspire registered Republicans to get off their duffs and vote in November. He is a political non-entity who will not appeal to the few remaining groups that actually support the GOP after it has offended and alienated most large voting blocs during the hilarious Republican primary race. Romney is toast and the GOP knows.

Sailcat

Obama have to divide our country in order to get reelected, this is not 2008 when the establishment of the Democrat party nominee Barack Obama for the first African American President, sending to the political arena with the slogan Hope an Change. After almost 4 years Obama have not to many accomplish to offer in his resume. Republicans will vote for Romney like him or not because Obama if far more a danger to this country.

Roy --

Time for a reality check over the last 40 years or so.

Just for starters, Roy, maybe we could reduce those numbers to REAL dollars and account for the doubling in the population since the 1970s. I suspect that in terms of real dollars, those big numbers under Bush come down some. And of course, twice as many people produce twice as much GDP.

But suppose you're right, and even if your numbers hold true, then why are we in such trouble, Roy?

Why?

Why is unemployment so persistently high? Why are middle class incomes flat? Why is our credit rating in peril? Why can't we afford to do the things we did in the past, like highways, bridges, space? Why do we have no money to fund education or pay for Medicare, which we had no trouble paying for in the past.

After all, the tax rates are even lower now than under Bush, if you count the reduction in payroll taxes.

So, why, Roy?

Because it doesn't work, that's why.

You must really be the man behind the curtain.

Concerned Ctzn ... your 'Doctor' Sam Vaknin is a felon who has spent 18 months in jail for fraud and is suspected to be a psychopath with numerous personality disorders ... you need to stop reading the self acclaimed, it is Vaknin who is the narcissist.

Red, I was simply stating facts. The turnout among registered Republicans during the hotly contested...and extremely humorous...primary race was at near-record lows. The party faithful is dissatisfied with the choices they have been given and ol' Etch-A-Sketch is the last person to inspire anyone from getting off the couch to vote. On the other hand, President Obama still inspires the American people and his support has swelled mightily as the GOP has been offending and alienating voter blocs including women, seniors, minorities, union workers, and moderates. This November, the president will be reelected by another landslide and you can thank the RNC for the crash-and-burn tactics it has employed to bring itself to such a sorry state.

Read 'em and weep.

Concerned Ctzn-as much as I dislike Obama, please don't post urban legend as fact. It makes you look just as stupid as he is.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/vaknin.asp

[Interesting post -...]

Uhm, Roy...you might want to do a little research on "Dr. Sam Vaknin"...seems he is a fraud, literally, having been found guilty of stock fraud:

In Israel in 1995 he was found guilty on three counts of stock fraud, along with two other men. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and fined 50,000 shekels (about $14,000), while the company was fined 100,000 shekels.

In 1996, as a condition of parole, he agreed to a mental health evaluation, which noted various personality disorders. According to Vaknin, "I was borderline schizoid, but the most dominant was NPD," and on this occasion he accepted the diagnosis, because, he wrote, "it was a relief to know what I had.

The rest can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vaknin

Then there is the basic SNOPES "monkey wrench":

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/vaknin.asp

Be sure to check out the last two paragraphs of the SNOPES article. Seems "Dr." Vaknin has a disclaimer stating he is "NOT a mental health professional".

Next time, before you jump off that cliff, make sure you're wearing the parachute and some "Concerned Ctzn" isn't holding it.

Bravo Ideo and Barbara...

Can someone tell me what service they provided to earn those kind of salaries?

The reason that (until now) nobody wanted to answer your question is because it is a stupid one. Somebody thinks they are worth those salaries or they wouldn't be getting them, would they? That is how the free market works. Frankly, it's none of your business how much they make because it's not your money paying them.

@Dick-2100935

Fair tax for all and that isn't 15% for the super wealthy and twice that for the working class

Where do you guys come up with this garbage? Why do you ignore facts and reality when they are so easily found? The truth is that the effective rate of Fed taxes paid is about 15% for the middle class and nearly DOUBLE that amount for the wealthy. Despite what your puppet-masters keep claiming the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes as well as a larger percentage of their income.

Concerned Ctzn

Dr. Varkin IS NOT a psychologist he has a Doctorate in Philosophy FROM THE UNACCREDITED PACIFIC WESTERN UNIVERSITY. The article you copied from your email is "cherry picked" from an article written by Ali Sina.

No Sailcat....its just that trying to consume time trying to come up with an apt description for your intellect without insulting every single cell organism in the universe is well, problematic. Go and mind meld with all of your little pathetic socialist brainiacs, you can continue to convince yourselves that you are just so much more intelligent that everyone else. In fact, try that now:

Show all of us how 47 Billion over ten years is going to fix the accumulation of debt from your Messiah, which is estimated to be nearly 17.5 Trillion dollars.

Go ahead, dazzle us with your amazing mind.

Greed? How about the jealousy driven braindead minions in your personal cesspool?

The health and welfare of the country was much better when the tax rate on the wealthy was at an optimum 90%. The middle class was much larger, access to higher learning much easier, and much more opportunity for the poor to rise into the middle class. I entered the workforce during that time. Much better country than now. There was equality of access and opportunity, thanks mostly to the efforts of FDR and the resulting "Great Compression" after 1955. There weren't as many "super rich" or billionaires as today, but there sure were many more, proportionately who were getting along very well, than today, corporations included. The greatest problems today are found in "republicanism". Since It's inception, republicanism is, and has been nothing short of "Plutocracy in drag". Only 3 historical exceptions. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower. Republicanism knows government programs work. It knows the societal and national value of fairly proportioned taxation progressive to progressive wealth. It understands the need of government accommodation of and for those of ill health and destitute fortunes. Yes, Republicanism knows all this, yet, It will never allow the institution of Its governing body to even think its purpose might possibly be the general betterment of the social stratas governed. To do so would undermine the "plutocratic" mission of that party. We need to get rid of the gwaddamn republicans!

Shouldn't be drinking koolaide at your age Mac. Just saying.

@RajunCajun007: Good for the brain. Course you gotta have one to realize the effects. Leaves you out. Just saying.............................. You, um, maybe been lobotomized? Just saying......................

ROFL.....wow Mac, how have you lived for so long with so much jealousy and hatred for people that actually work for a living? You and Sailcat must be real close. Keep driving that poor me drivel. Keep driving.

Capital gains, interest, and dividends should all be taxed at a very low rate, or not at all, because the money earning all of those sources of "income" was already taxed when it was originally earned. If the Dems want to increase revenue, how about making the 50% who pay no income tax cough up their "fair share". Oh, they can't afford it, you say.....well whose fault is that???

spider-737231: Nuttier than a freight train loaded with pecans

Feisty,

I admire your posts on NV, but I have to say that your comments are so one sided and biased that I have begun to believe that your stuck on yourself and are not open to other opinions other than your own.

Regarding personal opinions, you're an expert, but only on your own opinions.

@Mac Forrester

... knows government programs work

ROTFLMAO!! I don't know, do you want a cracker Polly?

MAC

The reason our economy flourished then at 90% is because we were the only nation with the means of production in the western world to rebuild everything that was bombed during WWII. Our economy could have gotten by at a 95% marginal rate. To be honest, nobody paid 90%, People were paying closer to 60% due to deductions. The reason the top marginal rate went to 90% is because even back the there was too much tax code to work through and rewrite, so they just raised the marginal rates.

Go learn something that didn't come from your lib talking heads.

You president bashers have NO credibility. NONE! Have yet to show proof of any"f"ingthing. Probably the most unhonorable people to walk on american soil since our countries founding. We stand neck deep in freedom and all you republicans do is act like dysfunctional insecure children. Truly unamerican. Truly shameful. The shame you veil upon us all is deplorable. Phony. You republicans are in dire shape for real leadership. Wake up. Its a new century. Let's go damnit. Stop "f"ing everything up! Let's go! Just how insecure are you people?

Well, if you earned 1 million a year by busting your behind 80 hours a week and the tax rate suddenly went to an effective 60% or more, would you work so hard? Say the tax rate went up to 90% for anyone earning a million dollars. That would be $100k in your pocket after taxes. Would you continue to work so hard so the government could give your hard earned money to someone who sits on their butts all day with a hand out? Or maybe that next great vacation by the president and his family? I doubt it. I can guarantee you there will be a lot of people out there working a lot less and taking a cut in pay to stay at that 100k cutoff. Then what? Also, all that investment money comes with a lot of risk. Say you pay a 35% on your money you earn, then invest the money. Just because you invest it doesn't mean you always make money. There's a huge risk of losing it all. If you are again, paying more when you do make money, I doubt there will be a lot of investing in the near future. Why? Why would you make money to have it taken away to "be fair"?

And Rocky, have you noticed that the President took out the American flags and put in some ugly yellow tapestry when he makes speaches? Talk about un-American!! First president in history to dis the flag! This is the home of the free and the brave and we are losing our freedoms very quickly in the last few years. Since the dems took control of both houses in 2007. You all forget that little gem don't you? Blame Bush instead of Nancy and Harry. Amazing what a super majority does in a couple years time....

Oh dear... another EPIC fail from a desperate, delusional little mouth breather...

Why don't you pull up your big boy panties, put down the crack pipe & stop dragging your knuckles...

Since you lefties are so concerned about fairness, shouldn't the person that posted this above be suspended for violating the Code of Honor?!

Anna Molly "So, why, Roy?"

Honest people may disagree on causes, and I presume you are expressing your honest opinions, but to address some of your points, Inflation for the decade from 2001 - 2010 (Bush) was actually lower than for the decade from 1991 - 2000 (Clinton), so 'adjusting for inflation' makes Bush's decade even better - also, inflation under Reagan was less than half that under Carter, so again, adjusting for inflation favors the tax cutters, not the tax raisers.

With regard to population growth = economic growth, there is little actual change in the size of the workforce from the time of Clinton to now, so that is a non-factor.

Unemployment is high because of the lack of economic growth. I would argue that Obama's anti-business policies have contributed to this, but I'm sure you disagree.

"You know what, what we did really didn't work and we almost had a second Great Depression, and maybe we should try something different,"

Yeah Barry, on YOUR watch! Wonder why he didn’t mention the state of the economy, the price of gas or the dismal job opportunities these college students will have when they graduate. You just lie right to their faces and don’t even bat an eye!

The speech was billed as an official event, though the political implications of Obama's remarks were clear. The president is also attending several fundraisers during his trip to Florida.

Yeah, so the American tax payer can foot the bill for his fundraising!!!

Do we want to keep giving those tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans like me, or Warren Buffett -- he definitely doesn't need them, or Bill Gates?” Obama asked.

Funny, do we begrudge Oprah for her billions? Do we want to keep paying taxes for you to waste them on junkets to Florida, Michelle’s extravagant vacations, or coked up monkey’s or bailing out Solyndra? What about the GSA wasting more than $822,000 in taxpayer money on a lavish conference in 2010 at a luxury resort in Las Vegas for 300 federal workers that included penthouse suites, a mind reader, a clown, a bicycle training exercise, and expensive catering -- spending that was mocked by the GSA’s own workers in videos.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2012/04/11/exclusive-gsa-scandal-worsens/#ixzz1rkAzCYbG

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stimulus-slammed-republican-senators-release-report-alleging-waste/story?id=11309090#.T4WZu1FPsTY

Stop wasting OUR money!!!

double down on broken down theories - Is that why he signed into law a bill that extended some of those theories of the previous administration?

Many people are missing the real point to obama's rant. He is trying to point out his perceived ineffectiveness of the previous administration and his prediction of the next republican administration and their impacts on the economy. What he is ignoring is that he has continues the broken down policies of the previous administration and has said nothing about his lack of progress since being elected.

Nowhere does he state "look at what I've done" just "look at what they've done and they plan to continue".

The only major thing he has tried to do has further polarized the nation - and been taken to the highest court. One can't blame him for trying to ignore something so devisive.

Romney will not inspire registered Republicans to get off their duffs and vote in November.

You could not be more right....Obama is the one that will make Republicans go to the polls and vote for Romney!!!

Romney/Rice 2012

ROY WILSON-336103

Skup "When the president says everyone should pay their fair share of taxes (30%) does he really mean everyone?"

Of course not - He means that the top 10% should pay 90% of the income taxes, the upper middle class pay 10%, and the bottom 50% pay nothing (although the bottom 50% DOES get most of the benefits of Federal spending.

That's his version of 'fair share'.

By the way - The top 10% currently pays 70% of all Federal income taxes, the upper middle class currently pays 30%, and the bottom 50% still pays nothing.

Poor old Roy, still deluding yourself with trickle-down fantasies????

You do know that many of the 47% who don't pay the income tax cannot because they don't make enough money, or that they are unemployed, or that they are retired, right???

In addition, the top 20% control 93% of the income earned in America. How the hell is that fair???? Raising taxes on them will help generate revenue and lower the wealth gap.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

ROY WILSON-336103 Comment collapsed by the community

Concerned Ctzn

Interesting post - isn't it ironic that race relations seem to be worse than they have been in the last 50 years under our 'post-racial' President?

It seems that Obama's policies and rhetoric of 'class warfare' are having some disturbing side effects. And even if he got his 'tax the rich' scheme through Congress, a $4.7 Billion per year increase in revenues wouldn't even pay for a half day's worth of Federal spending.

Some may call it 'smart politics', but the rhetoric of class envy and racial disharmony will cause far more problems in the long run.

His 'Hope and Change' has turned into shame.

Isn't it also ironic that the first black president was accused of being a Muslim and that his citizenship was put into question.

And enough with this class warfare bull@!$%#. The real class warfare has come from the right, with their stupid tax cuts for the rich and deregulating the economy. They promised the American people that we would be prosperous because wealth would "trickle down" to the rest of us. Well, right-wingers, tell me: how the hell are we better off??? With a huge wealth gap, a large debt, and a fragile economy, I think it's time to abandon supply-side economics.

Roy, people have had enough of this class warfare bull@!$%#. So shut up and go back to your little cave until you can bring up a credible argument.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

CLASS WARFARE MY ASS

bigbenalaska

Save what's left of America ....

Obama out in 2012 ....

They were talking about another credit downgrading today ....

Great ....

America is sinking under Obama ....

Obama can't even slow our debt down at all ....

Ben, enough with your short and meaningless posts. Try using complex arguments.

Do you know why our debt is so large??? Two reasons: the recession, and the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts cost nearly $4 trillion over a decade (no wonder people want them repealed). The Great Recession drastically lowered revenues and increased spending on safety nets, propelling deficits past the $1 trillion mark. No president could reduce the deficit during a recession, so Obama passed the stimulus to stop the economy from tanking. It worked, saved millions of jobs, and helped lead to 24 months of private sector job growth.

Do you know why we got downgraded??? Because of the lack of negotiation from BOTH sides. Obama offered a $4 trillion plan to reduce the deficit that probably would have been accepted by the credit agencies. Boehner and dozens of moderate Republicans were for it, along with the Democrats. Obama went so far as to make revenues $1.2 trillion and cuts $2.8 trillion. Unfortunately, Cantor and his damned Tea Party caucus refused to raise taxes (as they signed an unconstitutional pledge to Traitor Norquist), and so Boehner refused the deal. We managed to scrape together a $2.2 trillion spending cut package, but that wasn't enough. So shut up and stop blaming Obama for the debt and the downgrade. Had we not pushed the Bush tax cuts, our debt would be much lower. So shut up and try coming back with a more grown-up argument.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Roy Wilson -

Hey Roy just one little fact, even a stark fact, is that: the last two years of Clinton and all of Bushe's term inj no such period have so little jobs been offered the American people, and we seen the median wage drop. The disaster, apart from corporate earnings, is the aftermath of your "trickle down" social economic theory.

I, for one, am tired of the same old tale of lower taxes produce jobs and a higher standard of living. Speaking of the standard of living: in most western and even non-western nations the markers of a high standard of living are greater and strongly correlate to income distribution. I can show you the research.

Even so, I am really tired of paying my "fair share" and the likes of Romney, the whole 1% of tax dodgers and off-shore banking depositors i.e., Mitt Romney and hundreds of millions paying at close to 17% on their passive income. These people must now help out as we must and to start with pay the same as I do in a tax rate. Just institute "The Buffet Rule" and stop crying for god sakes stop whining, the worlds big economies are growing at a slower rate then the United States so stop with all this whining that we already tax too high...boo hoo hoo...but you forget earnings are soaring, bonus money is in the millions.

Game over! The time for shared sacrifice has come not more of the same but I hope finally this fixed tax system is abolished and we truly have all lend a hand and those that prosper on fine just pay the same rate I do. That rate is a marginal 35% Federal and 10% CA. State Tax.

Stop whining there are problems we must fix now not later and now pay up or get out.

Have a nice day..........

Freshiee-

Poor old Roy, still deluding yourself with trickle-down fantasies????

Still fooling yourself with Trickle Up Poverty????

Sorry, Mark, but I do not necessarily know what Trickle-Up Poverty is.

I hate to agree with the Republicans but the "Buffet rule" is mainly an election year gimmick.

1st it only raises the rich's tax rate by a relatively tiny amount and second as Obama and his handlers know full well it won't be passed by congress.

If you want to see real taxes on the rich look at Eisenhower during the 1950's, a Republican no less: 90% baby!

And we were in the beginning of an economic boom that saw most americans (not just the rich) wealth and standard of living upsurge that lasted for two solid decades!

To a large degree, this is when the large prosperous middle class the U.S. used to be famous for, was created.

Freshieee

Your post 1.85 indicates a lack of the 'big picture'. Lets try to communicate and stop the ridicule of fellow NV'ers. Just a suggestion.

Alright, Leiya, I could stop the ridicule. But how does the post indicate a lack of the "big picture?" Just curious.

Freshieee

Sorry for the late reply. I like your posts. But lets get serious for a moment: Bush had his awful moments and our current president is having his.

I think you can agree. Lets call-out the partisanship of either party and wish and hope and convince our representatives listen. I'm sick, just sick of party bias. What say you?

isnt their tax dollar also devalued by inflation so the 175k is the equivalent of about 110k? Your mixing apples and oranges- inflation with tax rate. Also, receiving dividents is new money not tax on old money so how is this double taxation?

@Fancy That

The President is doing a good job of framing the debate and filling in what Mitt Romney is really about.

The President is doing a good job of changing the subject and filling in peoples heads with BS. The Buffet tax will raise as much money in one year as the debt increases in ONE DAY. And we're suppose to believe that's going to save us? Ask yourself why the President is spending so much time and effort on something that literally amounts to a drop in the bucket. As long as he can point his finger at someone else, in this case "rich" people, he can distract you from looking at what a failure his policies have been.

wow. spoken like a greedy CEO.

That is the most ridiculous convoluted reasoning I have ever seen. You must imagine that the people who read here are very poorly informed and educated.

By your reasoning I should not pay taxes because I keep the corporations of the world running. I'm keeping them going so they can supply jobs so why should I pay taxes.

Roy everything you said is exactly why we want investment income taxed at a lower rate.

I need a paxil just because you make a gain doesn't mean you made money, if the gain is less than inflation reduced the value of the money you still lose. Sure you might have MORE money, but everythings MORE expensive so the actual buying value of your money is lower. He's talking, for dividens, about the fact that there's already taxes that must be paid on the money, then the profit is paid out in dividens and is taxed AGAIN as income to the investment holder.

All the "Buffet Rule" does is discourage investment. There's a problem with that, investment is inherently good for the economy. Besides all this money invested has already been taxed once, so just because a person succeeded to a large degree and invests 10 million bucks at a 10% return (which is very good by the way) doesn't mean you should turn around and screw them because they made a million bucks and you think you deserve to take a large stake of it from them. Besides lets be really honest, do you think the government will spend that money more effeciently than a person whose already made tons of money? They've already proven they can run a PROFIT, which is a hell of a lot better than any US government program.

@I need a paxil...dividend income has always been considered double taxation. The reason is that the corporation pays taxes on the initial profit that results in the dividend. After it is divested to the investors, the federal government taxes it on the individual investor.

Let me guess. You looked for a 10 year span with the highest average inflation rate you could find. Want to re-calc those numbers from 1990-2000 or 2000-2010?

First of all, to call this the "Buffet Rule" is borderline stupid. Buffet's secretary has to make in excess of $200k a year in order to pay 30% in federal taxes. I'm sorry, but in Nebraska, $200k a year is considered a lot more than middle class.

Second of all, if the "Buffet Rule" became law, even at it's maximized projections according to the Obama administration's estimates, it would equate to a drop in the bucket for the federal revenue. Of which, the president wants to continue to spend instead of paying down the debt.

Finally, if you increase the amount of taxes paid by investors making more than $1million, it will impact everyone's 401k. So, before we talk about what is fair and what isn't fair...peel back the onion!

NewDay,

I did not lie, the President claimed that the insurance company did not pay for her health care and that she dies penniless. Here is his quote as printed in Politifact where you told me to look

I will never forget my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her insurance would refuse to pay for her treatment. And by the way, this was because the insurance company was arguing that somehow she should have known that she had cancer, when she took her new job, even though it hadn't been diagnosed yet," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., on Aug. 11, 2009.

The above is an out and out lie as they did pay. She did not get the disability because she missed a treatment. I do not believe that is the way the system should work but that is the law.

All the "Buffet Rule" does is discourage investment. There's a problem with that, investment is inherently good for the economy.

You really expect the liberal Democrat left to understand things like that? After all, those are the same people who think that more government spending = more jobs, just like more government spending = better health care, better education, etc.

This ridiculous effort by Obama to wage a class warfare for meaningless tax changes has only his ardent supporters duped. This might affect someone like Paris Hilton who pays people to wipe her butt, or any other trust fund baby, but it will do nothing to fix Obama's thrust for spending. We have a phoney in the White House that has failed miserably, but he wants to keep his job because the lifestyle is too good to give up. So Obama will say or do anything to get re-elected, heck it worked the first time, can he go two for two duping stupid voters?

The truth is, Obama knows that this will not generate a tremendous amount of money into the federal treasury. He is even smart enough to understand that, in fact, it may have a negative impact on tax collections.

Even when he was candidate Obama, he said that he would increase capital gains taxes because it is what he believes is "fair". Newsflash...no matter where you live in the world, fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. What seems "fair" on the surface could sneak up behind you and bite you on the ass.

The part that really gets me and not one liberal has disputed is...Obama is not doing this to reduce the debt, he is doing this to continue spending on other programs. You can call him anything you want, but fiscally irresponsible cannot be denied.

obumbo simply wants to appease his main base of voters, the welfare/foodstamp crowd, by raising taxes on those "greedy" 1%ers. More meaningless drivel from the snakeoil salesman who has no answers.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Buffet Rule passed and the government was generating some more revenue, albeit a rather pitiful amount compared to what is needed to actually make a meaningful difference on the deficit. Does anyone actually think that this new revenue would be used to pay off the debt? Or would it go directly to increased spending? These past few presidents have shown that no matter how much revenue the government brings in - larger or smaller - it always spends beyond it's means. That's what needs to change, not the revenue. Simple accountability would do wonders.

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

if these rich Americans choose to pay more taxes they can
without the benefit of any new law. the government will accept a check for any
amount as long as it is a good check.

This so called "Buffett Rule" is nothing more than a political gimmick. The truth is that the amount of additional revenue it would raise is a drop in the bucket when compared to the level of deficit spending in Obama's budgets. The "Buffett Rule" is a great talking point for Obama to stir up class hatred and try and instigate class warfare to help him get reelected, but it will in reality do very little to solve this country's financial problems. The CBO has said as much a number of times, but Obama conveniently ignores that. The only way to really get our finances in order is to start cutting back on some of the bloated entitlement programs and being realistic about social security. The change in the social security retirement age has not gone up anywhere near as much as life expectancy. This means people living far longer while collecting from social security and having their health insurance covered under medicare. Something needs to give. I think that the best solution is to remove the income cap on the social security tax. Have the tax applied to all wages, not just those up to $110,100 current limit. This change would only impact those making over the current cut-off, who are well able to afford the increase. This change would do far more to solve the budget problems than the "Buffett Rule."

I am glad that the President is getting a chance to leave Washington but what is all this traveling doing to his carbon footprint?

“They're doubling down on these old, broken down theories. Instead of moderating their views even slightly, instead of saying, "You know what, what we did really didn't work and we almost had a second Great Depression, and maybe we should try something different," they have doubled down,” the president said.

Wow! but the exact opposite is true. The Bush administration tried to bolster the economy by not reducing spending and injecting more money into the economy by lowering taxes. Because nothing was done to keep the money from flowing out of the country the economy was temporarily bolstered but not turned around. The dis-regulation of the banks by the Democratic congress sent the economy into a tail spin. It was the Obama administration that tried to "double down" on the idea that injecting more money would serve to turn the economy around. The Obama administration's approach was to increase spending. The stimulus bill was only one part of the effort to increase spending that is why not just 800 billion but more than 5 trillion dollars was added to the deficit. According to a report produced by Obama's own administration the stimulus bill did not serve to reduce unemployment. According to that report, unemployment has been a little worse than if the stimulus bill were never passed. The President said that the stimulus "did its job" but then he had to propose a second stimulus that looks a lot like the first. Before he took office the President vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term but he is not talking about that any more. His own White House is predicting that he will not keep his promise and that the federal government will continue to run huge deficits for at least the next decade. Soon we will be paying more to service the debt then we will be spending on defense. So the President wants to now triple down on failed economic policies. I think that the current administration is guessing and guessing wrong. I do not see any evidence of unbiased economic analysis. I think that the current administration is motivated more by ideology than by reality or what will really solve problems. Remember that the President called the stimulus bill a "spending bill" because that what he was trying to do. He still thinks that we can spend our way out of our economic troubles. With so much of our goods and services being produced in other countries, I do not see how all this increase in spending is going to create a lasting demand for jobs, here in the US. All it creates is more debt that we are eventually going to have to pay back one way or another. I would like the President to explain how we are going to pay back all of this money that we have been borrowing, how long it is going to take, and how much it is going to end up costing the tax payers.

ROY WILSON-336103

Assuming your calculations are correct, then maybe that person did lose money in real terms. But that's because they made a sucker bet - the investment values you cite are completely made up.

The values of the S&P 500, Nasdaq, and DJIA tripled during that 10-year span. And those are just indices. So even completely ignoring reinvested dividends and other such benefits, investors made a killing.

It's election year. Obama is leaning all over a guy named DeMarco who head up Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae to lower 29 million mortgages. Yes that's right, lower them. And who do you think is going to pay for that? The American Taxpayer.

Obama is doing it again. Trying to buy votes with American taxpayer money.

It can be expected that Obama supporters are going to listen to NO logic and constantly change the subject away from Obama's failed policies. Those same policies have enabled his supporters to suck $$ out of our economy, livlihood and National Security via public handouts and vote-buying.

Those supporting Obama NEED to support him (right or wrong) if they are going to continue to collect free housing, money, food, transportation and utilities whilst talking on their $1200 a year contract i-phones....because they can't afford "the basics". That is the 'deal'..pathetic

"Mittens" 2012

Feisty red head,

I admire your posts on NV, but I have to say that your comments are so one sided and biased that I have begun to believe that your stuck on yourself and are not open to other opinions other than your own.

Regarding personal opinions, you're an expert, but only on your own opinions

Based on 2009 statistics published on the IRS web page the 30% tax on those making more than $1,000,000.00 would raise additional taxes of $9.5 billion per year. That is a lot of money, but as many have stated, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the defict.

Lets make a deal, we'll agree to accept the 30% tax in return for an equal amount of spending cuts (and I mean real spending cuts, not cuts in the increases (which is the way politicians typically think).

And you are just stupid or in denial if you can't understand or admit that dividends are taxed twice. Dividends, as defined the the internal revenue code, are a distribution of corporate after tax profits. So if I corporation makes $100 million in taxable profits, it pays $35 million in taxes and is left with $65 million of after tax profits that it can reinvest in the business or distribute as dividends. So let's say the corporation decides to distribut the full $65 million to shareholders as a dividend. Shareholders pay 15% on the $65 million distribution or $9.75 million in tax. So if you take the $35 million and the $9.5 million the total tax on the original $100 million of income is $44.75 million; a total tax rate of 44.75%. Add state tax onto that and you are up to a total tax rate that is well over 50%.

But there is another reason to tax dividends at a lower rate, and that is to encourage corporations to distribute dividends. When dividends are distributed additional taxes are generated. How many times have you read that some large corporations are sitting on millions or even billions of dollars of profits that they are not distributing??? One reason they don't want to distribute those earnings is because then the sharholders pay tax on the distribution. It is more tax efficient to reinvest the earnings and raise the investors' stock value. That way the tax is deferred until the shareholders sell their stock. So a higher tax rate on dividends would discourage the distribution of corporate profits. If you don't believe me then learn to use Google.

I need a paxil "isnt their tax dollar also devalued by inflation so the 175k is the equivalent of about 110k? Your mixing apples and oranges- inflation with tax rate. Also, receiving dividents is new money not tax on old money so how is this double taxation?"

No, but nice try at confusing people. I took the net 'after tax' money from the investment after it's sold, and compared that with the purchasing power value of the original investment. The investor has actually lost 23% of their investment in terms of inflation adjusted value, but got taxed anyway.

With regards to dividends, every tax expert agrees that dividends are 'double taxation' - here's how it works;

Let's say an investor owns 10% of a corporation that has pre-tax income of $10 million, so his share of that corporation's income is $1 million. The corporation pays their 35% income tax or $3,500,000 and the investor's share of that corporate tax is $350,000 (this is simplified to make the point - the actual tax code is very complex). Then the corporation distributes the remaining income to the shareholders, and this investor gets $650,000 in dividends, but the Federal government (under Obama's plan) says "I want another 35% of your income from dividends" because you're in the top income bracket, so now they have to pay another $227,500 in Federal income taxes. That's a total of $577,500 on that investor's $1 million share of the company's profit = 57.8% in taxes. I can think of nothing that would discourage investments needed for economic growth and job creation more than the 'Buffett Rule'.

If the Democrats think that the Buffett Rule' is such a great idea, let's see Harry Reid bring it to a vote in the Democratic controlled Senate - He won't even try - He knows it's a horrible idea, and so does Obama - it's just more of Obama's 'class-warfare' strategy to foster class envy and divert attention from his dismal failures on the economy/jobs.

Concerned Ctzn

Interesting post - isn't it ironic that race relations seem to be worse than they have been in the last 50 years under our 'post-racial' President?

It seems that Obama's policies and rhetoric of 'class warfare' are having some disturbing side effects. And even if he got his 'tax the rich' scheme through Congress, a $4.7 Billion per year increase in revenues wouldn't even pay for a half day's worth of Federal spending.

Some may call it 'smart politics', but the rhetoric of class envy and racial disharmony will cause far more problems in the long run.

His 'Hope and Change' has turned into shame.

Well, it's apparent that many are not falling for the chief campaigner's rhetoric this time. I was surprised to read so many well informed posts and find it very refreshing.

Wow reading these comments against the Buffet Rule is incredible.

If I worked hard and made millions most of the income would not be buy a W-2 it would be via stock options. So they gave you the stock at $10 now it's $50 a $40 gain. In 1997 the capital gain rate used to be 28% now its 15%. If you cash out on some of those stocks and that was the only income you have your rate would be 15%. Most Millionaires and Billionaires don't make there money via W-2 but by investment. A person who works all his life in a $100,000 a year job pays a tax rate of 35%. But yet the arguments and comments in here say they should pay a lower rate of 15%.

This way they continue to invest and make America Great. Who's fault is it and why America is not great then? It's President Obama's because of his policies - Those polices have made the stock market go up by 5,000 points who does that benefit? The poor you say, of course not the poor is a drag on the economy and should not receive another dime. As a matter of fact let's take away that dime.

For you debt hawks - The Bush tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 will have a crushing blow to the debt if kept in place until 2019. It will become the main driver of our debt. The rich is stealing money and making the argument that they are paying to much and should not pay any taxes at all. Only the working class should pay taxes because they are not like us. That's the right thing to do the rich would tell you.

I say Bull Sh!t the capital gains rate should be 28% to 1997 rates, same as a single person working making 100,000 dollars via W-2 that is fair regardless of how that millionaire invests or made their money. That is FAIR!

They are robbing from the poor by saying we should cut the debt by stop providing the poor with living assistance & health care because we don't want to and don't have to help with the debt that's their problem. Well how did you get your millions if you did not have those same workers working for you making products of services to pay your millionaire salary? No one in this country got rich on their own someone had to work for them as the end result.

Then they turn it around and say those same workers should live with less while I pay not taxes.

Telling that to 98% of Americans who are not rich, it wont work this go round. Pay your fair F-n Share.

Tax the rich back to the 1918 levels of 90%. Now they have cut that down to 15%. You tell me who the hell won the war? Yes the Rich have won and they had the Atom bomb. "BOOOOM" take that working class F-You Working class I will pay less taxes by claiming inflation over 35 years this way I will look like I lost but actually will collect a check of millions of dollars when I cash in my stocks in 2012.

Yes the rich have won the war.

Interesting. The vacant and clueless that Obama targets with his rhetoric will be the ones most hurt by his socialist policies. However, they are what they are and will most likely vote for Obama regardless. There's no accounting for stupid.

Fairness... That's all the President is talking about... Fairness for ALL Americans... If I make X-amount of money and pay taxes on it, then everyone else should pay the same tax rate...

Why does someone who plays with money in the market pay less on their income? And the every day worker who works hard with muscle and sweat pay almost double. Fairness not envy...

Lets face the facts here, Obama is basing tax policy on the tax return of Warren Buffett's secretary. They claim she makes 60K a year and pays 30% in taxes. That is a lie. Either she makes far more, or pays far less. So until they make her return public, this is nothing more then another Obama lie.

Fairness, Obama and others say when demanding more taxes on what is characterized as "the rich". Well, considering the top 1% already pay around 37% of all taxes and the top 5% pay more in taxes than the remaining 95% combined, what is the definition of fairness?

Obama's calls for the Buffett tax increase will only, by the most optimistic measurements, take in around 4.5 billion a year which is insignificant when compared to his maniacal trillion plus deficit spending, year after year. Leave it to Obama to relegate such a large amount of money to insignificance because of his insane spending.

Obama knows his calls for this tax increase is just empty rhetoric, but is consistent with his class warfare doctrine to accompany his enlarging of the racial divide plan that is wide enough now that violence could erupt at any time.

The freeloaders shouldn't be too hard on the wealthy since they're the ones paying for their welfare and everything else.

Just what percentage of income goes to our governments? Lets see now... Federal Income tax + SSI + Medicare + State Income + State Sales + Local Real Estate + Property Excise Tax... Divided by Gross income minus personal plus a bunch of convoluted deductions including mortgage interest. I think its a hell of a lot more than the percentage Mitt paid on his vast income. On top of that SSI and Medicare is part of the ho-poloy tax structure, it stops coming out of income above a hundred grand or so and can therefore be called a regressive tax much like a flat tax scheme republicans would like.

The republicans are flying this blimp of state upside down and they will be damned before they allow our president to right it.

Roy I would agree with you on the scenario you painted above in your post, but believe you omitted a few critical details to spin your point. For example the individual tax rate considers a host of criteria and IS NOT 35%. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.pdf A savvy investor would have already calculated the NFV (Net Future Value) after taxes and included that in the decision process. So based on those observations IMHO I feel your post is just SPIN.

The vast majority of the folks impacted by this proposal DON'T create jobs and DON'T make investments in PP&E in ANY corporation. As you know the average investor (non-institutional) will not have access to the type of investment you described, and is highly unlikely to have the minimum capital requirements.

The scope of this argument and the "Buffet Rule" impact hedge fund managers and institutional investors who routinely hide millions in offshore accounts. Ronald Reagan gave a similar speech warning the nation of the consequences of the widening gap between the wealthy and the middle class. Common sense will find a balanced approach to address the critical need for investing in our future and paying off the debt.

Obama is the only adult in the room who genuinely has the concerns of the middle class in mind when it comes to moving this nation forward.

OBAMA in 2012

70+ Seats for Dems in the Senate (kill the filibuster)

Control of the House

The reason obemmer brings up the "Buffet rule" is because he thinks that is what his voter base wants to hear. He knows there is not a snowball's chance in hell of that passing before the election. And he doesn't want it to even start to be debated before the election because it could end up resulting in a "shellacking" as he did in 2010. He knows he doesn't want his ass handed to him on a platter like before.

He found Bin Laden

If your going to give credit to Obama for finding Osama should we also give him blame for the source of the tip that ultimately led to him?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/al-qaeda-couriers-provided-the-trail-that-led-to-bin-laden/2011/05/02/AFNSH5ZF_story.html

He found Bin Laden? I thought the military did that. I didn't know he was an intelligence agent too?

Thanking Obama for killing Bin Laden is like going into McDonalds and thanking Ronald McDonald for the hamburger. It's the guy cooking the burger that should get the credit, not the clown.

As CIC President Obama was responsible for overseeing the search for bin Laden. He also gave the final okay to send our troops on a dangerous mission deep into potentially hostile territory; a mission the success of which was by no means assured when he made the decision to go ahead. It was a good call but a tough one.

The right wing lunatic fringe would still whine even if the president had rowed a boat across the ocean, walked into bin Laden's compound, and choked him to death with his bare hands. Their blind, irrational hatred of our president is a prime reason why they have no credibility.

JD Obama is the one who gave the order to kill Bin Laden and cross the Pakistan border to get the job done...that takes great leadership and courage and faith in the men doing the job...obama deserves credit for getting bin laden just as much as the people who killed him..if it weren't for making the call then that man would still be alive today...

OBAMA 2012

The few good things that happen...Obama did it! All by himself too! So magical of a man he is!

ALLL the ridiculously bad and poorly managed problems...meh...Not Obama's fault! Clearly Bush's fault you ignorant conservatives! We'll compare Obama with Bush (because no one notices that it is like comparing elephant sh!t with cow sh!t...both stink to high heavens...one is just piling up the crap faster).

...Obamacrats logic.

The tip that led to Obama giving the order to send in the troops originated in Guantanamo Bay. You are ready to bask the president in the glory of "getting Osama" but are you also willing to accept responsibility of what was done in order to obtain the tip? We all know the Presidents stance on Guantanamo Bay, maybe...

OBama Stated on Tues. in Florida, that He ENDED Several Programs that Were NOT WORKING.... Does Anyone Know the Names of These Programs & when He Ended Them.?? Can't Find Anything on This.

IS IT POSSIBLE, This Is Just More "Say the Right Thing," to Get Re-Eledted, Like Claiming HE IS RESPONSIBLE for the Country Having Produced More Oil During His Administration Than in History.... The Only Truth On Oil, Is More Oil was Produced, but BECAUSE of PAST Administrations Efforts... It Takes Years to "Bring Oil on Line." His words....

DOES HE LIE.?? ...... or..... At Least Streath the Truth a Little.?? ........ YES.!!! YES.!!! Often......

Wasn't it Obama that said, in his infinite wisdom .... "let's put a higher tax on small business!" Whoa ... dude .. are you really that stupid?? Yes he is!!

Wasn't it Prez Downgrade who has printed money like toilet paper so that the dollar has devalued, which will lead to rampant inflation? Yup .. he's the guy!!

Wasn't it Obama that has pushed the unemployment up to 9% or blown 2 million jobs in the US out of the water. Oh yeah ... he's the one!!

Wasn't it Obama at during his last campaign that flat out swore ... "I won't raise the deficit another dollar and then has grown it by 5 trillion?? Oh Barry ... it was you again!! (liar)

You want the next generation to thrive .... get rid of this completely inept person who has absolutely no leadership skills and whose 1st term has been a joke!

Youve already seen what he can do..look at his shovel ready,green investments,libya and egypt failures stimulus obama care.spending us into 17 trillion dollars in debt..you cant see ? ru blind?

No, President Obama did not do all the things you are accusing him of. You are simply conjuring up stories that fit your nasty little fantasies.

Sailcat, remove your rose colored glasses & step away from the kool-aid.

President Obama: Worst Economic Record since the Great Depression.

This month will be 37 straight months of over 8% unemployment. Reagan only had 26 months of over 8%, and he had a worse unemployment peak (10.8%) to overcome.

IfITellUWhoIAm,

To vote for Obama to see what else he can do is as foolish as Pelosi saying we have to vote on the health care bill to see what's in it. You have to be kidding or are extremely naive

"President Obama: Worst Economic Record since the Great Depression."

How does your dishonest comment jibe with this Washington Post analysis of the deficit accrued during the Bush years vs. the administration of President Obama?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

Still blaming Bush are You? NEWSFLASH: Obama is the president and has been for over three years now. Blaming Bush for Obama's current ineptitude and disregard for protecting the citizens he was elected to serve, well, good luck but the excuses are beyond lame and border on the pathetic.

Obama had control of both houses of Congress for two years and accomplished nothing but putting this country deeper in debt. If anyone made it a living hell for Obama it was his democratic Congress people. They saw he wasn't a leader and didn't support him for two years.

Sailcat

No fantasies when it comes to Prez B.O. If he is re-elected this country is toast. Do Americans think anymore? The facts are: he was a community organizer who was a race baiter and instigator. He hung around with radicals that wanted to bring down America. His 'Christian' minister was a radical and hates America. He worked then and now with corrupt unions, and we are now finding out that unions are fronts for the communist party who want to bring down America. He said he wanted 'to spread the wealth' which is exactly what Castro said before he took over Cuba and look what a lovely place Cuba turned out to be for all it's people. He said he was going to 'fundamentally change America' and if you could just think a little, I think you can see that his plan for change is going to be modeled after his past experience. It is already showing in what he has done this far. He is gutting America and dismantling the Constitution.

Here's another newsflash for you, Justified: we are still fighting wars that were started and fumbled during the Bush administration, and that is damned expensive. Also, the economic depression from which we are currently emerging was created during the Bush administration through his dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence. You can tell all the lies you can conjure up, Justified, but you cannot change those facts.

Well, Thievery, since President Obama is favored to win reelection by a wide margin, you can start crying any time now. The GOP is assiduously working to offend and alienate women, minorities, union workers, seniors, and moderates. To put a finer point on it, the Republican Party is a party of exclusion, not inclusion, and that is not a strategy for winning elections. President Obama will win and our economic recovery will continue. Furthermore, the right wing lunatic fringe once again will be relegated to nothing more than a shrill, whiny voice coming from deep within the jackass latitudes. Read 'em and weep.

President Obama in November! He is our only rational choice!

The excuse of blaming Bush for Obama's failures is getting old though because Bush left office over 3 years ago when Obama began running..... I mean ruining America

The excuse is getting so old that they may have to start blaming Nixon for Obama's failures.

Sailcat,

Yes the wars were started under Bush but were voted on by Congress with huge bipartisan support. President Obama did add a large amount of troops in Afghanistan but according to the chart he is not charged anything for that.

The economic recession was created by both parties and there is ample evidence of that, but according to economists the recession ended in June of 2009 and we have had the slowest recovery ever and that is the current President's fault.

"...were voted on by Congress with huge bipartisan support."

C'mon, Jerry. It's no secret that Bush fabricated evidence and lied about the existence of WMDs to sucker members of both parties into giving him support for invading Iraq. The war with Iraq was illegal and it was fumbles severely resulting in the deaths of thousands of brave American soldiers.

On the subject of Bush fabricating evidence about Iraqi WMDS, here is a white paper from the National Security Archive which contains this tasty quote:

"A comparison of the CIA draft white paper with its publicly released edition shows that all the changes made were in the nature of strengthening its charges against Iraq by inserting additional alarming claims, in the manner of an advocacy, or public relations document. "

In other words, it was doctored.

did you know that Bush is considered a war criminal in a lot of countries and if he travels to any of them he will be arrested

annoyedperson - Really? Which ones?

Sailcat, the same evidence was gathered not only from our intelligence agencies, but Britain, France and Israel. We weren't flying solo. Iraqis later admitted lying to get us to do their dirty work. Not only numerous other countries agreed, but also a bipartisan congress, including Clinton and Kerry.

I can't believe people still post that link above you put up from the far left of the left ... Ezra Klein. He states that BO is responsible for less than 1 Trillion of the 5 Trillion on his watch. Which means outside of the 2009 stimulus, which equals that amount, BO hasn't added one dime to the deficit. That is beyond funny.

Klein likes to say the Bush tax policy cost us 9 Trillion in deficit. His assumption is from static numbers that when the tax cuts went into effect that percentage of revenue was automatically lost. If you look at the real revenue taken in (he doesn't) it actually went up. Cap gains revenue he estimated at the time to lose 20%, actually DOUBLED in around 3 years. But somehow he doesn't take that into account. Hmmm. If you look at the deficits following the 2003 tax cuts ................

2004 412 Billion deficit

2005 318

2006 248

2007 160

Those are whitehouse.gov OMB numbers

On 2nd thought sailcat, i think you could be right. Bush could have put on his hoodie and snuck into MI6 in England and doctored their intelligence also.

There was plenty of evidence coming in to demonstrate that Iraq did not possess WMDs and Bush either disregarded it or he had evidence altered to make it appear it did. The white paper I referred to (and to which I will provide a link) also states that Britain made similar changes in its intelligence. I haven't heard anything to suggest France was helping with intelligence that weighed against the Iraqi regime. Nonetheless, Bush was complicit in an effort to illegally invade Iraq using doctored information and outright lies to sucker congress.

National Security Archive White Paper:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm

Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet months before the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs:

http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

I don't care how you try to twist the facts o make them conform to your fantasies, Bush started and fumbled two wars and he sank the economy in the process. He is a war criminal and he was an incompetent and dishonest president.

These people who quote unemployment numbers, deficit numbers, and defend Bush are hilarious. The recession was started by wealthy people gambling with other people's money. The wars were started by a Republican president who never put the cost ont he books. I guess it's better to blame democrats than accept the facts and admit that you are responsible for voting for a president and a political party that bankrupted the country

Nobody could have said for sure that there were or were not WMD at the time. What we do know for certain is that at one time he did have WMD. We know that because he used it on his on people .... the Kurds. So we were supposed to believe Saddam found religion and destroyed all of it?

So what happened to the WMD? He either sold it, destroyed it, hid it in Iraq or shipped it somewhere like Syria. No one has been able to answer that question.

I wasn't keen on the Iraq war and rather we not have went. However i don't see it a stretch for anyone to believe WMD was there when he had used it not too long before we went in.

"Nobody could have said for sure that there were or were not WMD at the time."

Then what the hell were we doing invading Iraq??? I mean, damn.

Sailcat,

So what if Obama wins in November? The same polls have the Republicans retaining control of the House, and taking control of the Senate. That ought to keep him in check.

"The Federal government that governs least governs best."

I haven't seen polls that suggest the GOP will retain control of the House, but there is plenty to show that the president will be reelected.

And as far as the governing least thing is concerned, with the GOP doing destructive things like holding back the appointment of federal judges for months that cripple districts who are in desperate need of help, I would say you are to some degree wrong on that point. And before you jump in to say they are just being thorough in their evaluations, even the GOP says they pass every nomination; they are just obstructing the process to satisfy their own political agenda.

They obiously thought they did. There were pics of 7 delivery systems for WMD that they (Iraq) themselves provided i found in the link you put up. How could one look at that and not think he wasn't still doing it from all the other things he was going back on. That wasn't the only reason, he was violating numerous agreements to the cease fire required upon him after his invasion of Kuwait was thwarted. He was making missiles outside the limited range required. Selling oil illegally. Firing on our own aircraft policing the no fly zone. Denying inspectors constantly. And i'm sure other stuff. Again, i would rather they not have went ...but if i had to bet on if they had it or not i would have guessed he did. He used the stuff.

The stuff in the papers i read was mostly just a current state report. I'm sure we have the same thing made for Iran and North Korea.

The guy doing the write up for all the things there (Prados) is a famous conspiracy guy, including blaming the government for blowing up our twin towers on 9/11. Which i do find rediculous.

Sailcat, neither party is better than the other outside of ideology, They both operate to get re-elected and do their best to make the other guys look bad.

"They obiously thought they did."

The United States does not invade sovereign nations on a hunch. Furthermore, prior to the invasion, many generals and state department officials said that Iraq was adequately contained and there was no need to attack it. Add to that the fact that what little information that was being disseminated by Bush was largely falsified, and you have an unnecessary and illegal invasion on your hands. Bush is a war criminal.

Like i said, that wasn't the only reason they went. Iraq basically said "up yours" to virtually every requirement put on them from the surrender. And add shooting at our planes to that.

I read the papers that the non government group (national security archive ...not a govt site) that put that stuff out had. The 2002 paper was just a status report, that we probably have on every country right now. The guy that put that stuff out is very big into all kinds of conspiracies.

What specific item did Bush falsify to make him a criminal? If it was that easy to put something like that out he would have been prosecuted long ago. Not generalities, specifics please. But if you are a conspiracy buff like Prados that put that stuff together, i doubt i could have a meaningful discussion here.

The U.S. may have to make one of those "hunch" calls with Iran. They would be a disaster with a nuke, and it will be a disaster if there is a military strike. Close to the same situation that we will probably never know for sure unless they pop off a nuke in Israel or New York.

How would you handle Iran Cat?

Lets start with the white paper that was demonstrating that CIA reports had changes made to them that did not exist when they were first released, ATC. Intelligence reports were therefore being altered to falsify their conclusions. Claims by the Bush administration that it had evidence of WMDs as the date of the invasion grew near are proved to by false because Bush had been told months prior to the invasion by George Tenet that Iraq had no WMDs. US military officers were also expressing grave doubts about the need to invade. On July 28, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq, the Washington Post reported that "many senior U.S. military officers" including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed an invasion on the grounds that the policy of containment was working. Brent Scrowcroft who was Bush Sr.'s National Security Advisor was a critic of the invasion and published an article in the Wall Street Journal on 8/15/2002 outlining his reasons. The list of people who were in a far better position than Bush Jr. to know that an invasion of Iraq was a mistake goes on and on, but Bush resisted all efforts by qualified military, state department, and intelligence officers to change his mind. This shows him to be both dishonest and incompetent. He is a war criminal.

"How would you handle Iran Cat?"

I certainly would not lie to the public and to congress and invade it, ATC, as Bush did in Iraq.

You wouldn't bomb Iran i take it if intelligence says they have a nuke?

What specifically was altered from the report? I read that stuff (sigh) and don't see jail quality anything there. There were changes from the draft to the release. Even if there were changes after an official release, how do we know new information didn't come in and the CIA made those changes. Status documents like that are changed constantly.

I like the downing thing from prados. He states Blair "knew the no fly zone had no basis in law and therefore used it to provoke Iran". LOL The same no fly zones that have been put into effect for many decades around the world. Including Obama.

I can provide you with proof from a credible source but I cannot make you think, ATC. I can provide you with the names of credible military and intelligence officers who said publicly that Iraq was not a threat but if you prefer to believe Bush's lies, I think that says more about you than it does about anything else. Iran is a separate issue and I will trust President Obama's handling of the situation because, up to now, he hasn't seen fit to ignore all of his military, state department, and intelligence advisers and invade a country on a mere hunch. President Obama, quite unlike Bush, isn't a war criminal.

It's election year. Obama is leaning all over a guy named DeMarco who head up Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae to lower 29 million mortgages. Yes that's right, lower them. And who do you think is going to pay for that? The American Taxpayer.

Obama is doing it again. Trying to buy votes with American taxpayer money.

You talking about conspiracy king John Prados as your source? That white paper i read that is basically a standard status report? I read that and got nothing of the sort out of it. It was changed from the draft because it was just that ... a draft. I want a specific item reference and you say "read the white paper". I did and get nothing like that out of it. That's why i asked you for a specific item. I believe what can be proven and all i read told me nothing of sort of what you are accusing. One specific item please?

Some Generals thought Iraq contained, some didn't. That just tells me they didn't know and proves no one a liar to me. To accuse a president of being criminal is not something i do from reading no more than what i just read.

So how do you know if something was changed you don't like that it wasn't changed by the CIA? Those white papers are very basic military assesments that change all the time. Do you think also or blindly follow Prados?

Hey Joe if they use our tax dollars (more likely borrowed chinese funds) to pay down those mortgages, what happens if 3 years from now all that equity has come back they lost? You gotta love the govt trying to make the real estate market go where it wants.

I wish that passing the Buffet Rule would be enough to solve our deficit problems and turn our economy around but considering the amount of additional revenue that such a rule might bring in, it will have no effect. With such a rule I think that the supper rich will continue to invest but may give less money to charity which may have an adverse effect on some of the poor and needy that depend on these charities.

The stimulus did not work to turn the economy around as the administration projected. The President promised that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars yet his own White House is predicting that he is going to miss what he promised by more than a factor of 5. The President keeps calling for increasing taxes that he knows the Republican majority in the house is not going to vote for. We need some really new ideas here. I want the President to present a practical plan to keep his promise on the deficit and for turning the economy around. The President should realize that 2012 is going on right now and no changing of the current tax laws are going to have any effect on the 2012 federal deficit. "Doubling down" on the President's past mistakes is not going to solve the problem. We need what would be for the President a new approach. I want the President to also present a practical plan to pay back all of this money back that we have been borrowing.

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

I have no idea who John Prados is. The National Security Archive is based at George Washington University and it has won several awards for the quality of its research. The information provided is damning against Bush, whether you choose to believe it or not. The fact remains that the intelligence that was being shared by Bush withe congress and other nations had been deliberately doctored. It did much to influence the opinions congress had and were it not for the altered intelligence that had been provided, then the approval Bush so desperately wanted might have been withheld.

It is important to note that on February 13, 2003 Ambassador Joseph Wilson, former chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, resigned from the Foreign Service and publicly questioned the need for another war in Iraq. After the War started, he wrote an editorial in the New York Times titled What I Didn't Find in Africa that discredited a Bush Administration claim that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.

John Brady Kessling, another career diplomat with similar reservations, resigned in a public letter in the New York Times on February 27. He was followed on March 10 by John H. Brown, a career diplomat with 22 years of service, and on March 19 by Mary Ann Wright, a diplomat with 15 years of service in the State Department following a military career of 29 years. The war started the next day.

These were seasoned members of the ambassador corps and they were in a unique position to know the truth about Bush's aims and they acted out of a sense of honor and duty. It is too bad that Bush is unfamiliar with those principles.

Bush fabricated evidence? Obama found Bin Laden? It is amazing what credit befalls the presidents from the lunatic left. But here are a couple simple truths. Obama said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, he lied. Obama has more then doubled the deficit. Obama claims the policies of the past got us into this mess, well 6 trillion in deficit spending have not gotten us out of it either. Obama has done nothing but make matters far worse, and the blame game has run its course. It is time for the lunatic left to pull on their big boy pants, Obama has failed.

And there is only one simple truth when it comes to the right wing lunatic fringe: willful ignorance is always easier than thinking.

Right, Rick?

Here is a Washington Post analysis of the deficit during the Bush years vs. the administration of President Obama, by the way:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

Hey Sailcat-2064101 thank you for making my point. The lunatic left such as yourself is only interested in assigning blame. Obama has done nothing to solve anything, or improve anything. Obama is running from his record. Only the hands out gimme crowd espouse his greatness, not by his record, but on how successfully you can blame someone else for his failure. If you need to see willful ignorance, just take a look in the mirror.

Klein likes to say the Bush tax policy cost us 9 Trillion in deficit. His assumption is from static numbers that when the tax cuts went into effect that percentage of revenue was automatically lost. If you look at the real revenue taken in (he doesn't) it actually went up. Cap gains revenue he estimated at the time to lose 20%, actually DOUBLED in around 3 years. But somehow he doesn't take that into account. Hmmm. If you look at the deficits following the 2003 tax cuts ..........

Technically, assuming that the Bush tax cuts actually increased income by looking at the absolute value of revenues after they were passed is flawed. The most effective way to judge whether revenues went up or down is to compare them to GDP. Before the Bush tax cuts, revenues to GDP was approximately 21%. After they were passed, it dropped to around 16%. That proves that the Bush tax cuts did not add to revenues. In addition, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the Bush tax cuts cost America approximately $3.8 trillion every decade, meaning revenues would be lower than what they would have been had the tax cuts never existed. Try using comparisons instead of relying on absolute values.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

You had no point, Rick. You're just a troll. You knew that already, though, didn't you?

I think a lot of people, myself included, were expecting more from Obama. The man represents change, his campaign was run on the ideals of change and ran very well. However, looking back on it all, it was more wishful thinking. At a time our country was suffering from global trauma, a degrading economy and was disgusted with the wars, that seemed to be a stalemate---we elected a black president.

We need a REAL plan to address the debt and a REAL leader to implement it and we have neither. I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when he was elected. He didn't have much experience in the real world but he was a strong speaker. He has proven to be the most ineffective president since Carter. Both may be nice guys but they can't get the job done.

Promising to take public financing for his election and then becoming the first candidate not to. Promising to close Guantanamo Bay but keeping it open, running against the Patriot Act and then renewing it, as a Senator claiming a vote to raise the debt ceiling is a lack of leadership and then having it raised, running against the Bush tax cuts and then extending them, etc.

Sorry those are the President

Would that be anything like Obama promising to close Gitmo ... only to leave it open ?There are more instances of Obama contradicting Obama ... like his prior criticisms of his predecessor not running the country within a budget !

Obama has flip-flopped so many times he could be THE POSTER BOY FOR WAFFLE HOUSE !!!

Given Obama did promise a lot did you really expect him be able to accomplish everything he said he would try and do?? You people voted for the next president not the savior of the land. You seem to only look at what he hasn't done or wasn't able to do rather than what he has tried to do and done. Without the help of Republicans who don't wanna see anything done just so they could get reelected. Sadly some of you can't see that the president does not pass bills nor create them...that is the job of Congress...if you wanna see things done then I suggest you vote to get a super majority because that is the only way to get anything done these days. I commend Obama for doing what he has despite nothing but obstruction along the way.

Obama 2012

Obama my as... we have had enough of this wanna be , He has screwed up this country more than any other president in history , and thats all he will be remembered for , dont let the white trash put Obama back in the white house.

Obama is an idiot.

Dodger he is not smart enough to be an idiot , he has fooled 66 million in 08 , lets see if they are still just as stupid in November.

Gas is over $5 buck a gallon in many of the areas in this country and it has hit $7 in California. OH, PLEASE OBUMMER, NO MORE CHANGE, I CAN'T AFFORD IT!

Where in California is gas $7.00? I think you are lying to make the illusion of facts conform to your sad fantasies, Sharrianne.

Sailcat

He might be exaggerating but not by much, I just checked and the highest prices in California are in LA as of 10 hours ago and they top out at 5.99 9 or 6.00/gallon. There are many other cities in California that are right around the 5.00/gallon mark as well. The highest price in DC is about 5.499/gallon so he really isn't that far off.

@sailcat...I think I saw a report that on Catalina Island, California, the price of gasoline was around $7.

Not a fair assessment for the nation. But, a fact, nonetheless.

Really, now. To use Catalina's totally irrelevant gas prices to justify the statement that California has $7.00 gas is dishonest.

Can anyone actually point to anything Obama has not lied about? Cut the deficit in half, nope. Close Gitmo, nope. Bring the troops home, nope. Energy independence, nope. Constitutional healthcare reform, nope. Improved the economy, nope. Kept unemployment under 8%, nope. Put an end to business as usual in Washington, nope. Most transparent administration, nope...

How about these irrefutable truths as outlined by a Pulitzer Prize winning web site, Ricky:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/422/create-new-financial-regulations/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/230/centralize-ethics-and-lobbying-information-for-vot/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/165/train-and-equip-the-afghan-army/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/175/end-the-use-of-torture/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/195/seek-verifiable-reductions-in-nuclear-stockpiles/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/286/secure-the-borders/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/288/provide-a-path-to-citizenship-for-undocumented-imm/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/300/reform-mandatory-minimum-sentences/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/433/sign-a-universal-health-care-bill/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/439/create-5-million-green-jobs/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/382/secure-nuclear-weapons-materials-in-four-years/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/520/if-you-dont-have-insurance-or-dont-insurance-you-h/

That's just for starters, Ricky. This is why President Obama will be reelected...that and the fact the GOP is crashing and burning, of course.

He is a lunatic alright. What's more? He is stupid. Only the feeble minded are not able to see Obama for what he is. He is asking for more revenues from taxes? What does he plan to do with that revenue? Why did the number of people working for government and making over 100k, double under Obama from what it was under George Bush? Obama has never had to balance his own checkbook. Imagine him being fiscally responsible for the US checkbook.

I am an Indian who used to live on the continent of Africa. I would urge you to take a look at Zimbabwe. Obama's thinking is inline with Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Mugabe took the white farmer's land and gave it to the natives and now they are all starving. To think that Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa. A loaf of bread is now over a million dollars in Zimbabwe. How is that for fiscal policy?

"Obama's thinking is inline with Mugabe of Zimbabwe"

That is one of the most preposterous statements I have seen on this site, and I have seen some whopping lies posted on this site by the right wing lunatic frinte.

Wrong. You have to live in Africa to know what I am talking about. I would also ask you to read Dinesh D'Souza's book: The Roots of Obama's Rage.

Think beyond Republican vs. Democrat. Who is the best candidate? I would personally like to see a candidate as intelligent as Bill Clinton. I think Mitt Romney is that candidate.

The analogy is still false. Mugabe has been criticized by virtually all Western countries and in the UN for his savage human rights violations and that sort of behavior does not reflect the actions or words of President Obama at all. You need to stop reading extremist lies and you need to begin developing some critical thinking skills.

And Romney is just the GOP's #1 loser.

Hey Obama a village in Kenya called and they said they are missing an Idiot and would you come back soon.

Kn

Hey, Wayne. It is kind of embarrassing for an inbred, semi-literate hillbilly to criticize a Harvard educated man like your president, don't you think?

Anony Mous1 ... Ah, Dinesh D'Souza, another fav writer of the Right. Blames 9-11 on the liberal left and thinks women are better off working the kitchen stove and saying yes to a man who is probably far dumber than she. A born-again evangelical BS artist.

@Wayne#8.5: Actually they were looking for Romney, but you keep ranting and they'll come and get you.

Sailcat-2064101: If you heeded your own advise and applied critical analysis/thinking to Obama's tenure, you would no doubt see what a failure we have for President. Obama re-election strategy: Divide and conquer. Divide along racial lines, wealth, education, sex, age etc. There is no other President in recent history that did the same. It is a new low.

Since he is on his way to reelection, I would say President Obama's strategy is working much better than the Republican Party's failed ideological agenda of hatred and selfishness. But you are always welcome to post your ravings here: your blithering nonsense is very entertaining!

Sailcat-2064101: I overestimated your intelligence. No: You are intelligent; you just want to ride the gravy train.

And it is impossible to underestimate your intelligence, little man. Anyone who posts blithering ravings as you do has given up on rational thought and is imbibing deeply from the cup of deluded fantasies. You are still entertaining, though!

Ah: You are just senile. Go sit and the porch and hope that your Social Security check arrives because with the debt spiral we are in, it might not.

Really? Is that the best you can do?

While you are wasting your time trying to conjure up a witty riposte, here is what the Washington Post says about the deficit of the Bush years in contrast with the administration of President Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

Yes: That is the best I can do. After all, I cannot come/stoop down to your level.

I agree wholeheartedly that Bush was a FAILURE! That is my point. We keep voting for these failures. We need an intelligent President who has the politically savvy to work with Congress to get America on track. Obama had 2 years of a Democratic Congress and he wasted it. This is simply because he is incompetent. My point again, is that Bush was a MISTAKE. Obama is a FAILURE. Let's vote for the best horse in the race and that is Romney. If he doesn't do the job, then in four years, KICK HIM OUT. Why should we stick with failures? This is not a partisan thinking.

I think Mitt Romney is that candidate.

Uh, Anony, do you really think that a candidate who wants to raise taxes on those who make less than $40,000 while cutting taxes for the wealthy is a good candidate??? Do you really think a candidate who supports privatizing Medicare and throwing the costs of treatment onto seniors, cutting billions from social safety nets like Medicaid, and reducing Pell Grants and funds for domestic services while increasing the defense budget is a good candidate??? Do you think a candidate whose tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to future deficits is a good candidate??? Do you think a candidate who supported the bailouts of the speculators on Wall Street yet opposed the rescue of the auto industry is a good candidate???? Do you think a candidate who would repeal a law that tells insurance companies that they can no longer deny people with pre-existing conditions is a good candidate??? Do you think a candidate who thinks that people who argue for higher taxes on wealthy Americans are envious and that the wealthy (not the middle class) are the real job creators is a good candidate??? If you do, then I feel sorry for you. Very sorry for you.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Wow! Obama did promise he would take care of you. I didn't know it would have cost so much until you itemized it. By the way, Obama failed you on Health Insurance. He really thought he could get away with usurping the Constitution. Now all the good things, like eliminating pre-existing conditions etc. might be out the door if the Supreme Court dismantles the bill. That is inept and incompetent leadership by Obama and that is why he is a failure.

Technically, the healthcare law does not usurp the Constitution unless the Supreme Court says so. And you do realize that the individual mandate used to be accepted by Republicans??? Until Obama and the Democrats embraced it. Not only that, but Obama originally wanted a single-payer system, but the individual mandate was a compromise.

You just alluded to the incompetence of Obama: He cannot work with Republicans because he does not have the political savvy. Do you think that everyone of the Senators should automatically agree with Obama? That is where political skill comes into play and Obama does not have it.

There is no working with the GOP. They are obstructing the business of government even when it is to the detriment of the American people. The Republican Party only cares about power and politics. Our country doesn't matter in the least and the small minded hypocrites who cling to its failed political ideology are just willfully ignorant lambs being led to the slaughter.

Actually, any division is bad. The fact that you are blaming the Republicans and the Republicans are blaming the Democrats, is the root of the problem. There is no independence and there cannot be any if this partisanship continues.

That is why, I support voting for the best candidate in the race and that is Mitt Romney. The choice should boil down to just that. I refuse to believe that all the Republicans or all the Democrats are just plain bad. Moreover, a Democratic or Republican President has to lead from the middle. Why? Americans predominantly fall in the middle politically. Clinton did it. Bush didn't and he failed. Obama didn't and he has also failed.

Obama practically IS the middle. He cut taxes during the recession (moderate), stimulated the economy with spending (moderate), offered tax increases AND spending cuts to reduce the deficit (moderate), offered an individual mandate in his healthcare plan (center-right), asked for tax increases on the wealthy (center-left). Essentially, he's a moderate; Romney might be a moderate, but I don't think a moderate would lower taxes in the midst of a fiscal crisis and cut spending for Medicaid, Medicare, and education. How can you be moderate and support a right-wing elitist plan like the Ryan budget???

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

There you go creating a phantom and a diversion. Obama is running against Romney. Romney will be the President and he will make the decision. Unlike Obama, he will not pass the buck.

Obama did not cut taxes: He extended the Bush tax cuts and also there is a 1 year extension to the 2% reduction in SS.

What more taxes? Where in the hell did you see raised taxes?

Didn't you read the report that saying that local Governors refused to raise taxes so they started to layoff people (as spending cuts) to balance the budget , that's how we ended up with only 120.000 job created for the March.

If its not the rich (that wont even feel that raise , this just ideologically wrong to them), its going to be your sorry ass.

The rich aren't rich enough to pay for Obama's debt...Drop in the bucket.

Rather than stay on the message and the large picture of jobs or lack there of as you even noted under Obama's watch...

Just political postering for his liberal base to avoid the real issues. It's working on you isn't it. You hate the rich and think they can pay off Obama's debt he created don't you.

Please, old news, nobody hate the rich because they are rich. Give me a break!!! It is only right that the top 1% pay their fare share an share in the burden of recovering the American economy. It is not right that the poor and the middle class take up the whole burden. Please, what makes them so privilege, are you kidding me, if they believe in America like other Americans, they should understand. It is wrong to submit a budget to take away from the poor, elderly, and medical, social security, raise taxes on the middle class to give the rich a tax break. I do not know what planet you came from or understanding you but your theory does not make sense. Do the math!!!!!

Reagan raised taxes 7 times. The rich have lobbyists in Washington, you have nobody to stand for you nobody, unless Obama will take petty on you, and he will say to Republicans "show me how are you going to bring the deficit down and balance the budget?" They know how, but they will not tell you because its not in your interests. Yes, sure it will feed your ideology BUT NOT YOUR FAMILY.

Alina77: Obama's scare machine has gotten to you.

Obama will continue to divide the country along race, sex, education, wealth or any other category. It is the only way he can win. He has done nothing but he wants another term. Are you paying more for health insurance today than you were 3 years ago?

Alina77 - why should my property taxes be raised to support more government/state employees. You don't grow the economy with government jobs. New jobs should be coming from the private sector. The sector the President wants to tax more. I'm not giving my state or government another dime of my money until they learn how to balance their budget and quit wasting taxpayer money. We've all seen how well the GSA spents taxpayer's money. You can't keep taxing the middle class to creat jobs but I'm sure you don't own a house so property taxes are no concern for you. I'll beat your a taker - waiting for your government check.

gideb114: Gwad! Poor thang. Brain's been scrambled. We need universal health care!

HelloDock, are you referring to the Ryan budget when you talk about taking from the middle class, poor elderly, safety net programs, etc to give the rich a tax break? Just bear with me for a second... yes, the Ryan plan does reduce the tax rate on the rich to 25% (which is still 15% higher than everyone else). But the reason for that reduction is so that Republicans and Democrats can gut the tax code and reduce it to something ridiculously simple... starting with tossing most of the tax deductions, loopholes, and "tax shelters" that people hide behind. So by removing these reductions, the rich would pay more, but the lower tax rate evens things out so its not a straight up tax increase. So - assuming Ryan is telling the truth when he ways he wants to do away with these loopholes - it's not really a reduction on taxes for the rich... it's about the same, but it's more transparent and fair.

I truly have to wonder why people are so opposed to that part of his budget (we'll ignore all the changes to Medicare and other stuff). Isn't the liberal argument that the rich aren't paying their fair share? In many cases, they're right. We see it time and again with corporations and the very rich; the amount of taxes they pay is directly related to the tax lawyers they can afford. So the best thing to do would be to reform and simplify the system so there isn't any way to dodge the taxes, yes? But in order to foster a healthy economic growth rate - or at the very least, win over bipartisan support from conservatives - they just need to reduce the rate so there is no net increase in taxes. Those who dodged the system pay their fair share, the conservatives are happy with a competitive tax rate... everyone wins, right? I kinda thought this is the sort of thing that both Republicans and Democrats would jump behind.

If you can't stand the proposed reforms to Medicare and other spending programs, that's fine; but let's at least take the tax reform portion of the Republican budget seriously. It's a fair start to a much needed change. (And before anyone starts ranting about how Ryan hasn't proposed specific loopholes to cut - I'll grant you that. So rather than trash the whole idea, how about both parties start proposing some specifics to fill in the gaps?)

Are you paying more for health insurance today than you were 3 years ago?

Yes. But not as much of an increase as I had received the previous eight years under former President George W Bush. In fact, it has been beld steady for the last 32 months, though I can only afford the lowest plan offered for myself and 4 YO Daughter.

Thanks for your concern and question.

Peace, and I'll take a Republican-like Obama over any of those burnt offerings from the GOP/Tea Party Lunatics. However, I still can not believe this is all America can provide as choices for us to vote on. My opinion is that after President O is reelected, the Dems need to sweep out the GOP, and if they do not have us turned around in the following four years, then I will never ever vote for either Party again, and may well leave the US for my final years.

Somewhere that they actually have Universal Health Care. That gives one many choices, though I would rather stay here.

If after that the GOP has Jeb/Marco installed, We're Fracked For Sure...

Sorry for the spelling errors. I got shut out during edit.

Peace

If you accepted mediocrity i.e. Obama, then you deserve mediocrity. If you can only afford the lowest cost Health Insurance Plan, and you accept that there is no better way, then you are stupid. Obama had 2 years of a Democrat controlled congress and the best he could have done was to usurp the constitution.

Obama is no Bill Clinton. Obama's failure is unacceptable. He should not be rewarded for this failure with 4 more years. Let try again and if the next candidate fails, let's kick him/her out in four years. The only way to keep Government at all levels honest, is with our vote. Don't waste it time and again.

America: Stop looking at Democrat vs. Republican and vote for the best horse in the race and that is Mitt Romney.

If you want failure, i.e. the GOP, you need only vote for Etch-A-Sketch or any of the other losers the Republican Party is foisting on a disgusted American electorate! See you at President Obama's victory party in November!

Obama might have a Victory Farewell! The Gravy Train might come to a grinding halt! So, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched."

The GOP counted the chickens during its frankly hilarious primary race and none of its eggs are going to hatch in November! I definitely hope you enjoy the second four years of President Obama's administration as much as you did the first four!

Enjoy you say? We will have more of the same if Obama is re-elected: Debt and Destruction. Start digging your grave old man.

It is not a matter of if he is elected, little man. And as we are pulling out of this GOP-led recession with President Obama firmly at the helm, I can imagine you are planning to spend the next four years of Obama's administration exactly as you spent the last four: by whining and sniveling. Have fun!

Another 4 years of Obama will bankrupt our nation. You may not have to worry about it because you will be dead. I have to, because me and my children and their progeny will be stuck holding the bag.

You do realize that the Ryan budget would severely impair our economy by gutting essential social services, right???

And that Romney's own tax plan would add an extra $3.4 trillion to the $7 trillion in deficits projected over the next decade, right???

Seems more like 4 years of the GOP would bankrupt America.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

There is what has happened to the debt under Obama. Then there is what you think will happen under Romney. The former is just conjecture. The latter is reality. You can fool yourself but don't try to fool others.

Because that same rich guy gets a larger chunk than the poor guy when the tax rate is cut.

It works the same both ways.

Next time there is a tax-reduction, ask the rich guy if he'll accept the $20 a month or so that the poor guy gets.

suzzie,

The 30% surtax is on incomes over 1 million. This would be on a salary only and does not include dividends which are taxed at 15% regardless of the amount.

This means if an executive makes a salary of 1 million, he would pay no more than he is now. If he had a salary of 2 million, then he would pay a tax surcharge on the amount over 1 million of $300K.

I don't know about you, but I could do very well with a salary of 1 million. If it was 2 million, then I don't think anyone should have problem paying an extra 300K to reduce the deficit.

You may be able to live on 1 million and be happy but if I make 10 million and need more to be happy thats none of your business. Maybe I'll move to the Caymans and pay no taxes ever again. Maybe all the rich should move to the Caymans. Then who will pay your bills?

It's election year. Obama is leaning all over a guy named DeMarco who head up Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae to lower 29 million mortgages. Yes that's right, lower them. And who do you think is going to pay for that? The American Taxpayer.

Obama is doing it again. Trying to buy votes with American taxpayer money.

Susie

You have no idea what you are putting into print.

Both parties have great trip's by bus loads given to them plus their food and a day's out to set and listen to all the cheer leaders that is putting their party into the frenzy mood to holler, clapping and scream's. All then goes home after their 100 to 150 mile bus ride feeling good thinking they have done their part for their choice.

Find ONE of his speeches that doesn't seek to put people into groups in order to pit them against one another. Not there.

@PA2AK#14.1: Really? You think it might have something to do with the political campaign? Hell, commericals pit products against others. The President is one fine Man!

This the first time you have ever been to First Read? It is always like this here. In fact, this is tame compared to what it usually is. Usually it is constant personal attacks from beginning to end. I rarely comment on first read but do read through it just because of all the personal attacks. If I let loose with what I really think of some of the people who comment in here regularly I wouldn't last a day without being banned even though they seem to get away with it without consequences.

usually when the name calling begins it means that they have run out of talking points and are posting just because they can and also thous who name call are less likely to change their opinion and it doesn't matter what you say

others do it because that is who they are and they are just really blatant on how they feel

i try to use my wit to run circles around my opponents so im much much nicer then some

trust me this isn't the only site that does it either

It's election year. Obama is leaning all over a guy named DeMarco who head up Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae to lower 29 million mortgages. Yes that's right, lower them. And who do you think is going to pay for that? The American Taxpayer.

Obama is doing it again. Trying to buy votes with American taxpayer money.

So, if you post this several times, does that increase its truthiness, joe? How many times is this now, on just this one page?

If you repeat lies often enough, you might begin to believe it yourself but no one else is going to be fooled. It's still just hot air and BS.

Yeah I caught that too.

Tell me that isn't exactly how you have seen 0bama followers from the very beginning. Fanatical about a minus, a non, a sham, an empty suit!

@AJV#17.2: After 8 years of Bush who could blame us? "The Obama Man"!

If Buffet was so concerned, he could have his accountant calculate the difference between normal income tax and capital gains tax and mail in the difference. Otherwise be still you old buffoon...

And Oboomer blabbers on and on about de rich bein payin der fair share...

Who pays all the taxes? Top ten percent? Not enough for you?

And taxing combined incomes above $250,000 is considered a millionaire?

I need to pay more, while fifty percent of the population pays no federal tax?

pcman

I'd rather fall off a cliff then be hit by a by a pile of horse --it.

How about the Pope selling some of his treasures so he can give restitution to all the children who were molested by his priests, and pay for some food for the poor...

Maybe he can set a good example for the rest of us...

where is your love brother?

Dear Dr Sam,

Seems like you know alot about Christians when you aren't one yourself. Christians don't like marxists/socialist because its against the teachings of the Holy Bible, which is about freedom. Christians don't believe that government should take from people to give to their special interest groups and go to things they disagree with. We believe we should give to charities of our own choosing. Christians are the biggest givers to charitable organizations and that is a fact. Jesus never once said give to your government so they can redistribute it the way they see fit. But he did talk about the woman who had two small copper coins and gave to the Temple and how that means more than those who give a lot more and talk about it. You see, God wants us to give from our heart, not because we are forced into it by a government who has intentions we don't agree with.

Really, Fights? The bible preaches against Marxism? Are you just lying or are you insane? Which is it?

@Sailcat: "Fights". Pure ignorance. Always good to see you. Regards

Sometimes I worry that people like Fights have a license to operate a motor vehicle, Mac.

Yes, the Bible is against Marxism/Communism. You give yourself away with that ridiculous statement Sailcat. We are to worship God, not a human president and government!!! If you actually read God's Holy Word, you would understand!!!!!!!!

@Fights#22.7: That's not the way republicans tell it. They claim God is nothing but a great "wheeler/dealer. They say He hates the poor and infirm, and will only deal with those who can guarantee him a return of at least 300%. Otherwise, everyone else can go straight to hell. If that's true I don't think I like that sum-bitch atall. Think I'm lying? Read many of these posts strewn all over this vine tonight.

You Point Out a LOT of What Christians Believe... Yet YOU Condem Them for Wanting, and DOING, What the Bible Preaches... Christians GIVE More than Any Group to Assist those More Unfortunate....

In Addition to Condeming Them, YOU Demand They GIVE MORE to YOUR Choices of Disbursement.... That Is Our MAIN GRIPE w/Progressives & Pretenders of 99%..... We Want to GIVE to Those We Choose to GIVE to, & NOT Be TOLD to Give Where We Choose NOT to...

WE TOO are a Big Part of the 99%..... Over 99% of Us are NOT RICH, but Just Hard Working Americans w/Same Wish as Everybody Else.... Live American Dream...

Get OFF Our Backs "Dr. Sam," & Clean Up Your Own DIRTY HOUSE, Before Entering Ours w/YOUR Ideas of Redistributing OUR MONEY....

Ed Fazio, U.S.N. Retired

Fights, the bible does not preach against Marxism. You are lying...and insane. I am going with both. Damn.

@sailcat#22.10: Actually the bible does teach classic communism. Additionally, I think I agree with you about Fights. Probably constipated too. I often wonder why people hate Karl Marx so much. He was one of the greats. Communism as it is, and has been, was never proposed by Marx. I think most people just hear something and go wild with lying about it. My favorite though was Mr. Adam Smith. Damn shame we can't conduct capitalism the way He envisioned It. Regards

Well said Dr. Sam.

Your rant is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life, including here on newsvine and I've heard a whole hella lot of nonsense here. I make $76K a year and I claim about $2K in charitable contributions on my taxes. I also have a LOT of poor friends and a couple of poor kids that I donate another $15-20K per year because I'm a compassionate person and I like to help others less fortunate than I. I'm also a Republican and very proud of it. Surprise! I also think our current president is the most devisive, incapable, destructive, very intelligent in achieving his objectives (albeit throught brut force), but totally inept president in the history of the great United States of America. That's my opinion, with lots of fact to back it up, and I'm stickin by it. Peace, and may "the Obama" be ousted in 2012.

Leave the philanthropy to individuals.... they do it soooo much better than government.

Actually Mac. The Bible DOES NOT teach classic communism!!! Communism is classic EVIL!!

Lying is wrong, too, Fights, but you are lying when you say that the bible preaches against Marxism. You don't follow the rules of your fictional holy book very carefully, do you?

Fights

Dear Dr Sam,

Seems like you know alot about Christians when you aren't one yourself. Christians don't like marxists/socialist because its against the teachings of the Holy Bible, which is about freedom. Christians don't believe that government should take from people to give to their special interest groups and go to things they disagree with. We believe we should give to charities of our own choosing. Christians are the biggest givers to charitable organizations and that is a fact. Jesus never once said give to your government so they can redistribute it the way they see fit. But he did talk about the woman who had two small copper coins and gave to the Temple and how that means more than those who give a lot more and talk about it. You see, God wants us to give from our heart, not because we are forced into it by a government who has intentions we don't agree with.

I am a Catholic, and it seems to me that Christianity seems to support communism. Christians mainly condemn Communism because it advocates state atheism and is totalitarian. But the Bible does contain some "Marxist" ideas, like compassion for the poor and the working class. While I don't think Jesus was a socialist, he did seem to oppose the wealthy who hoarded their wealth while abusing the poor. In addition, he and his apostles preached of a paradise where everything was controlled and where those who suffered would be rewarded with immortality. Heaven technically has no government, and everyone in Heaven would be equal, which is a tenet in classical communism. Not to mention Jesus' disdain for the hypocritical Pharisees, who flaunted their wealth whenever they went into the streets. Seems similar the the Communists' disdain for the wealthy capitalists and bourgeois.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Listening to the Republicans is depressing because they bring misery to America. Their answer to the economy is to blame people out of jobs though it was the Republican trickle down policies didn't work while the special subsidies and tax breaks did. The Republican energy policy consists of continue to do what has always been done for their oil, natural and coal backers... subsidies, and minimal controls while allowing maximum price. The Republican international policy consists of war or threat of war. And finally the Republican healthcare policy is "Money buys healthcare. If you don't have money you don't deserve healthcare."

Has anything gotten better with the great Obama? No so evidently those depressing Republicans were doing something right creating jobs at the same time as keeping fuel prices low. I am so tired of the communist, I mean Democrats scheming to steal the working mans money. The dirty little secret ( not a secret if you open your eyes) is that you can steal all rich peoples money and it won't make a dent in anything. The true source of greatest money is by taxing the little people and poor under the guise of taxing the rich. If you enjoy the high prices we are paying now tax the so called rich and you'll get more of the same.

This kind of assertions can be written only by two types of persons:

FIRST: Top republican politician who like all of them,are been making this kind of statements during the whole period of Obama presidency to discredit his success with all this lies because they want to keep sucking the americans with their twisted and corrupted policies for personal benefit.

SECOND: A simple uneducated and ignorant maybe racist, who believe is been informed by some source like fox news,which twist and fabricate news to support their parties interests with total lack of true.

Sadly we have to live with this facts everyday.

Actually we're living the Republican dream. Tea Party and Republicans have ensured that. Unlike the tax theft that has been going on, with the rich getting richer and poor getting babies, how about a fair tax. Wages are wages no matter where you make them. Just fair... no special deductions for those in the higher or lower income brackets or for those other people... Corporations. In the Bush era fuel prices weren't all that low. When Bush got heat for the gas prices he told us we were addicted to oil. The Communist reference is interesting. American businesses going to China and Republicans fighting hard to retain the tax deductions for businesses moving there. I go to Vietnam because of the Communist threat and now get accused of being a Communist because I'm saying it was a rich man's game then and its a rich man's game now. No you open your eyes. You screamers buy Chinese products while allowing Communists to buy and hold 50% of US bonds. And you defend the billionaires who did that! Then there's people like the CEO of Coca Cola saying its easier to do business in China than in America. I guess he prefers Communists. The businesses that moved over there learned much. Exact more control over the people through manipulation of the government, shut down open discourse through threat, demand an apporved truth and create cheaper labor. Its the Conservative dream.

SJones-2729771: Very well put. Your post is filled with truth. Thank you. Regards

Why does anyone even listen to this "Lame Duck" shell of a leader? The last speech I listened to of his was the Oklahoma speech, which was filled with lies about how he was responsible for "record drilling" and other outright lies. He heralds taxing the rich which will do nothing but further ruin any chance of investment by small business. No one in Congress listens him because none of his "initiatives" will ever get passed as long as he is President. He has polarized the Congress to a point of stalemate. This is what you get when a novice acts like a bully without the necessary political skills needed to work with Congress. What a loser!

Maybe the students were confused? Possibly they wanted to hang out in school for four more years so they could drink beer and go to Spring Break while the Democrats agree to waive their student loans.

He believes he is the second coming. He believes his own lies. He is a megalomaniac of the highest degree. He will destroy this country if re-elected.

Howdy Ho #25.2: If what you say is true, then your ass is grass.

Nicely played, Mac!

President Obama will destroy this country by telling billionaires that must pay a little more.

No it wont solve the debt but it wont make it worse neither.

If you cut every program and leave the bush tax cuts in place you would still be a big debt issue.

There has to be a balance approach even if you don't agree. but saying the rich should pay no taxes and when the rich pay no taxes everybody is well off.

Guess what stupid azz the rich got to tax cuts 2001 & 2003 who aren't we well off now?

Did I hear we are not well off because of President Obama? of course I heard it but take would be a flat out lie.

bush had two tax cuts 2001 & 2003, medicare part D, two unpaid for wars & Wall street 800 billion bailout on a three page letter. To me and I know you want to forget about bush because its President Obama's fault. But that sounds like bush cut and spent for 8 years and made the country go into a great recession something we have not seen since 1930's

How can one man do all of that and in the same sentence say because President Obama tried to do something about it, it's his fault. The republicans tea baggers made the country so man at President Obama on the health care for most people in this country that we elected RWNJS in office and they dam near shut the government down just because they did not want to work with President Obama.

The same people who post in here saying "Obama Bin Lin" "He's a Liar" "He's selling class warfare" "He don't belong in the white house"