Good morning Feisty.

Why should the middle class continue to carry the burden?

Exactly. I don't care if it only added an additional $500. That's $500 more than we had yesterday and it begins to put things in balance between all people. Isn't that a basic concept of democracy?

Since the days of St. Ronald, the middle class has been continuously losing ground thanks to the tax code and the millionaires and billionaires have been gaining. Fairness in the tax code is an issue that the president is putting before us with good reason. The middle class needs a break before it disappears.

Hmmmm.......First tax the rich to pay down the debt. Let's see, that income from the 1%'ers should account for 0.006% of the national debt. Won't help much, so will the tax rates increase for the middle while the lower class still doesn't pay any tax?

So how many CPA's out there have already discovered a method of reducing what the Obama wants to tax? I bet the opportunities for them are endless.

Me, I may just have to defer earnings.

So when will Buffett pay his outstanding $335+M in unpaid taxes and penalities?

In the last eight years, the company I work for has given us two paltry raises that don't even begin to keep up with the cost of living. If they offer me another one this summer (which is doubtful), it won't have any more dramatic impact on my quality of life than the first two did. It won't be enough to make the repairs I need on my 100-year-old house, it won't help me keep my mother in her assisted living home for even one additional month, and it certainly won't allow me to sleep any better at night with all the other health and financial issues I'm currently dealing with.

So would Republicans suggest I just tell my boss "Thanks, but no thanks - that's just a gimmick"?

Sorry, but I can't afford to. And neither can America.

If we allow the GNOP to take control in November, the middle class will be extinct by 2016...

A very sad reality Feisty. The middle class has been carrying the burden for far to long with little more to show for it but the hope for a reasonably comfortable retirement. With the offerings of the current GOP agenda even that becomes a far fetched fairy tale that our grandchildren will be telling their children.

If the GOP had their way, the middle class would never have a retrement age, there would be no federal healthcare assistance, wages would be such that we could never build a nest egg and the corporations across the country would be held in reverence as a public idol.

Romney calls the Ryan budget, with its tax cuts for the 1% and elimination of Medicare as we know it "marvelous". President Obama proposes that millionaires pay the same rate of tax as their secretaries and it is called "class warfare". Only in the world of Republican talking points does that make sense.

If we allow the GNOP to take control in November, the middle class will be extinct by 2016...

I see that carrot top has been dipping into the 'sauce' early today....

Romney calls the Ryan budget, with its tax cuts for the 1% and elimination of Medicare as we know it "marvelous".

Said Willard, in his best Billy Crystal impersonation...

simply mahvelous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCtaOSsM_3Y

Why are the loons on the left sooooooooo jealous of success?

Nice try Michael. Why are the GOTPers trying to place the blame of the economy on the poor and the working class?

Seriously.

You do know that the top 1% have 99% of the control in this country.

We are not mad at the 1% for their success we just don't want to carry 1/2 of their tax load.

Seriously.

If we allow the GNOP to take control in November, the middle class will be extinct by 2016..

I agree with you Sam, but remember to 'quote' a carrot top muttering so other uninformed readers won't be confused you would support any statement the old gal spouts! lol

I wish Romney continued success in the business sector. How's that Michael?

Michael1969............................

I am not a conservative and I have no problem with anyone earning what ever they can possibly amass. If someone wins the lottery, is born into wealth, invents something or builds a fortune through years of hard work, perseverance and ingenuity; good for them. I applaud them for their financial freedom.

Where we differ on this point is that I am able to see success in many ways separate from financial achievement. Success can be something as basic as marrying, raising your children to be healthy, hold good values and live within the laws of the land. Apparently wealth is the determining factor of success of the supporters of the GOP and why the GOP continues to fight to preserve every advantage they can muster for the wealthiest people in the country.

In your other comment (#1.8) you stated that as a conservative you would like see everyones taxes go down and less government spending. Great! Let's hear your plan.

Feisty......... I'll take a community organizer over a vulture capitalist anyday. At least a community organizer does something other then 'getting off' on firing people!

AMEN!

I become a bigger fan of yours with each passing day. Keep up the great posts. I have a feeling that I would enjoy spending an afternoon with and Mr. Feisty discussing politics over a drink at a pub.

You DO know that your massiah, Obummer, is part of the 1%er club too? No?

Duh! Seems he isn't afraid of paying the 30%. I know this must come as a shock to you and you GOTP pals.

as a 2%-er (not in the 1%, sadly, but in the 2%)...the buying-power disparity between someone in the 1% and someone in the 3-5% is immense and substantial.

And the 3-5% is pretty big over the 6-60%.

Taxation should be on total wealth accumulated per year. Not on capital gains vs. income taxes, and at a progressive rate.

With no loopholes and taxation trickery to enable us to pay less effective rates than you.

Republican upper-crust really are the party of "screw you, I got mine and you can't have it", and their lack of empathy is a blight their party can't ignore any longer. And the proof is right here: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Fast on your way to irrelevance.

And you're dying off faster than you can replace your numbers because you have nothing to offer the youth. Only fear, stubborness, and racism.

Even those who win the lottery have to pay a lot of taxes on it, and at the higher regular income rate, not the capital gains rate.

And yet, they did even less than Mitt Romney does to earn his money nowadays.

Pray tell, where's the "fairness" in that?

But frankly, we have to take this discussion away from percentages and start talking less about fairness, and more about necessity.

We need the money, my friends, and conservatives have already bled the turnips dry. The turnips can't give any more.

It's time to start on the ripe, juicy tomatoes.

In this example, for whom do you feel sorry:

The person who earns $2,000,000 a year and pays 30 percent, leaving him/her with a disposable income of $1,400,000; or

The person who earns $20,000 a year (about 40 percent higher than minimum wage) and pays 15 percent, leaving him/her with a disposable income of $17,000 a year.

Which one, do you suppose, has 3 or 4 homes, 2 or 3 Cadillacs, and a car elevator in the garage?

And which one just barely pays for rent, health care, food, clothing, and the bus?

I have a feeling that I would enjoy spending an afternoon with and Mr. Feisty discussing politics over a drink at a pub

Let me know next time you are in my neck of the woods... drinks are on me! ☺

The reality of the Buffet rule is to get something done to start having a rational discussion about how the deficit can be reduced. Making additional tax cuts for the wealthy will not reduce the deficit.

@nomoresameo - This lame excuse from the left shows how much of the kool-aid you've swallowed and that you aren't even serious about being rational. Quit taking Romney's quotes out of context.

At least a community organizer does something other then 'getting off' on firing people!

You "fire" people all the time. When you don't hire them, you are choosing to fire them. When ever you switch services (insurance, mobile phone, credit cards, etc) you are FIRING people. Under the same context as Romney, you are just as "evil".

And you're dying off faster than you can replace your numbers because you have nothing to offer the youth. Only fear, stubborness, and racism.

Well said.

teknishan -- i agree, let us have all tax loopholes removed; here is a start:

1. Home mortgage deduction (deduct interest paid during the year)
2. Home equity loan deduction (deduct interest paid during the year)
3. State and local taxes (or sales tax if that works out better for you)
4. Charitable contributions (cash and property donated to a qualified organization)
5. Medical expenses (deduct those in excess of (7.5% of your AGI)
6. Personal casualty and theft losses (deduct your loss minus insurance payments)

President Obama mused about changing the rule’s nickname to the “Reagan Rule” if that might encourage more Republicans to support it.

Well, from I can see, a lot of republican clown noses got redder. Our President really knows how to scare those chickens with facts and humor.

Then there is that Georgie boy wanting to rename the Bush tax cuts too. So what's the beef?

james-1937467

1. Home mortgage deduction (deduct interest paid during the year)

For second and third homes, absolutely. But we want families IN houses, and one of the best tools to accomplish this is the tax break. Homeownership creates jobs. Every 4 houses = 1 full-time job (carpenter, roofer, landscaper, whatever)

1. Home equity loan deduction (deduct interest paid during the year)

Last ditch bank for retirees. I can't agree on this, save for additional houses.

1. State and local taxes (or sales tax if that works out better for you)

Don't understand what you mean here. Pay them? Sure.

1. Charitable contributions (cash and property donated to a qualified organization)

Agreed.

1. Medical expenses (deduct those in excess of (7.5% of your AGI)

Really? I'm in favor of writing off medical expenses, I consider it 'Act of God'.

1. Personal casualty and theft losses (deduct your loss minus insurance payments)

Act of God, again.

I'd rather focus on the squirrelly accounting practices of off-shore and havens, while removing non-mandatory expenses from write-offs (charity, cars, additional homes).

But glad to see you're thinking on it, too! That's what we need, more people thinking about it and working it out regardless of party lines.

Note: A few days ago I mentioned political candidacy. A friend of mine is running (we served together) in California for state assembly. big republican district, but he's a pretty economics-focused guy. I think he might be more on your train of thought, though.

smartvoter.org/2012/06/05/ca/state/vote/herold_m/

And you're dying off faster than you can replace your numbers because you have nothing to offer the youth. Only fear, stubborness, and racism.

***standing 'O'***

Reagan inherited double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and an unemployment rate that peaked at 10.8%

Why don't you tell us how many times did Ronnie 'Saint' Reagan raise taxes on the wealthy... Raaab?

In today's climate the hero of the neocons would be considered a liberal ZERO!

Were the investors for Solyndra and Eneg1 in the crowd of millionaries? Were they wearing "We Own Obama" buttons?

Bob Jones, If you have a point make it. Personal attacks are one of problems plaguing this country.

Another thing to think about, part of the purpose of a regressive tax code (i.e. very high taxes on very high incomes) was an effort to prevent an aristocratic control of government. The uncontrolled accumulation of wealth leads to uncontrolled attempts to accumulate power. The US is supposed to be a representative democracy, where the ideal is equal representation and protection under law.

A tax code which does to an extent redistribute wealth helps to prevent the kind of things we have seen this primary season. The single weatlhy individual making or breaking a campaign for President of the United States is not where we should be. Taxing at 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% works to reduce that kind of outrageous accumulation of wealth.

Many people complain that those earning the top 10% are paying 70%+ of the taxes. The reality is that they are also controlling 80%+ of the value (or wealth) of the nation. The wealthy should be paying more, since they control more of the wealth of the nation.

WELL SAID, Rob! Well said!

When the "rich" finally get fed up with this unfair treatment and pack up their crap and leave, the middle-class will be the new "rich" and the next target for this joke of a president.

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

BTW... IMHO... the only "FAIR" tax rate is a FLAT tax rate, charged to every citizen that has income. That included those collecting government assistance (which IS income for them).

Think about it. Fair is fair...

(now show me the clown nose, fisty!)

Why don't you tell us how many times did Ronnie 'Saint' Reagan raise taxes on the wealthy... Raaab?

That's a complete canard. Reagan if you read the link below was the patron saint of lower taxes. But you have a point Reagan did raise taxes. See Redhead great leaders at time buck their own party from time to time. Maybe Obama should actually articulate detailed spending cuts. But he won't. Why? I'm starting to think he purposely wants to bankrupt the US.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

JoAnne in PA

In the last eight years, the company I work for has given us two paltry raises that don't even begin to keep up with the cost of living. If they offer me another one this summer (which is doubtful), it won't have any more dramatic impact on my quality of life than the first two did. It won't be enough to make the repairs I need on my 100-year-old house, it won't help me keep my mother in her assisted living home for even one additional month, and it certainly won't allow me to sleep any better at night with all the other health and financial issues I'm currently dealing with.

One of the great principles we have in this country is the ability to take our employment elsewhere. If you don't enjoy what you do, or feel your efforts are not paying you what you believe you should earn, then take your talents where they will be rewarded.

There is no handout in the market, unless you are working for a union. You have the right to move your skill sets for maximum dollars. There is no government stimulus for you. You are the driver of your efforts.

1. Home mortgage deduction (deduct interest paid during the year)

For second and third homes, absolutely. But we want families IN houses, and one of the best tools to accomplish this is the tax break. Homeownership creates jobs. Every 4 houses = 1 full-time job (carpenter, roofer, landscaper, whatever)

I'm all for removing this one. Mortgages are a scam and this deduction is lobbied by the RE and banking industries. Australia doesn't have a deduction and they have a higher home-ownership rate, more homes owned free-and-clear, and faster pay-off of existing mortgages. Removing this deduction would encourage getting out of mortgages faster.

I am for keeping the existing Home equity loan deduction at $100k.

At ANYTIME, these really rich people can write a check as a gift to pay down the debt. They don't need to raise taxes if they want to pay more.

JUST BREAK OUT THE CHECK-BOOK if that's what they want to do with their cash. No reason to create new laws.

It's so poorly said when I hear, "They control X, so they should pay Y!" It's the weakest argument, EVER!

Redistribution of wealth through government kills nations, growth, jobs, etc. If you get FREE MONEY (and free services in lieu of money), you have no reason to provide for yourself. Family killer, soul killer, spirit killer, pride killer, it's the WORST way to live exist I could ever imagine.

the middle-class will be the new "rich" and the next target for this joke of a president.

Sick- The middle class will be the next target for Obama and the Democrats regardless of what the "rich" do. The "Buffet Rule" only generates 4.7 billion dollars per year. Where do you think they're going to get the rest of the money they need to fund their massive spending?

BTW- Why are you Democrats defending Buffet's secretary? She makes more than 400K a year. Doesn't that make her a member of the 1%? And if so, isn't she already paying the appropriate tax rate? Maybe the administration should have picked a better example for their tax arguement.

lisa s-1749992

Bob Jones, If you have a point make it. Personal attacks are one of problems plaguing this country.

Hey lisa...

Tell that to feisty and her minions. They are renowned for they personal attacks!

The Rich will never leave the US. That's a bluff, and I'll flat-out call you on it.

We could re-adopt Eisenhower (he was a Republican, too!) tax rates...the rich won't leave the US. That's a stupid statement from someone decidedly not-rich who's been given talking points from billionaires who decidedly won't leave the US no matter what.

Koch can whine all they want. They won't leave the US :) And they know it.

The only people who don't know it seem to be the conservative base of non-rich folk.

This? What you're feeling? Fear. Fear from a boogieman that doesn't exist, but fear.

Millionaires and Billionaires don't emigrate, or they find themselves no longer millionaires and billionaires. The other gov't takes it all on the way in.

JoAnnaSmith1:

Were the investors for Solyndra and Eneg1 in the crowd of millionaries? Were they wearing "We Own Obama" buttons?

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

If you ever figure out how to change the channel from FOX to MSNBC you become more enlightened about alternative fuel sources that would be better for America and the world.

On "Morning Joe" this morning T. Boone P was a guest. Yes, 'Mr. Oil' himself was there making some very astute observations about where we are today and where we need to turn in the future. First of all he stated that it doesn't matter to the oil companies who is president. It doesn't matter if they are democrat or republican. Oil companies will do what they want regardless of sits in the oval office. So much for the notion that Bush was able to control oil prices and Obama can't. He went on to say that we need to look toward alternative fuel sources for our best interest. He favors natural gas over electric alternatives. He believes that if we go electric, electricity rates will multiply ten fold. I agree with him. Natural gas is abundant for more than at least another century, is clean burning and affordable.

Simply trying to say the president failed because he backed Solyndra isn't fair. He is trying to help our country move forward in a manner that helps everyone pay less at the pumps and helps eliminate pollution at the same time. He wasn't running that company. He couldn't control it. If we stopped trying every time we failed at something, where would we be? We need a forward thinking president as we have in President Obama who will help take us to a better place. I hope he continues to look at other companies we can invest in and maybe the next one will bring us into a new age that helps everyone.

Warren Buffett owes one billion dollars in back taxes, penalties, and interest. The federal government is suing Buffett, and he is fighting it. So apparently Buffett doesn't really feel he should pay more in taxes, but it does make for a great Obama soundbite. As if Buffett's secretary, who is reported to make 60K a year is paying 30% in income tax. Where is the proof? Lets see Buffett's secretary's tax return which is the basis for the Obama tax policy.

This is nothing more then Obama stirring up more class warfare. Obama picks a fight with the 1% thinking the rest of the 99% will support his position. This is an Obama political stunt since he has no record he can run on, so class warfare, a make believe war on women, and partisan politics is his only hope for re-election. Obama supporters are not trumpeting his successes, just trying to blame someone else for his failures.

@James #1.36,

Once again the total absence of a definition for "loopholes" seems to escape the lefties like yourself. If you eliminate the deduction for home mortgage interest, you will make the U.S. a nation of apartment dwellers. Perhaps that is all the libtards understand, but such an extremist reaction that you suggest would KILL THE HOUSING INDUSTRY .... since it is already on life support.

Eliminating deductions for charitable contibutions would KILL charitable organizations such as St. Jude's Hospital, the American Cancer Society, Muscular Dystophy Association, the Heart Fund, the Humane Society, the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross (good to see their presence after deadly tornado ravages), etc, etc ad infinitum. To think you guys would take throw away compassionate organizations is hypocritical when you claim to be "for" the poor and middle class.

No, we don't need more knee-jerk reactions from the leftards regarding tax laws. As bad and as confusing as they may be, we don't need them "bastardized" in the name of political expediency. Some pay no taxes while others pay a lot but should possibly see a slight rate increase in their rates. None of this, however, has any significant long-run relevance if the U.S. fails to produce a budget and make serious attempts to live within it.

Anything less is just "redistribution of the wealth" .... take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots" .... whether they EARNED it or not !

teknishan...

Are you willing to gamble the future of this country on the fact that the rich won't leave?

I think you are full of it. I know one thing... when they DO leave and I (being middle class) am now considered one of the rich... don't come to me looking for a handout because my hand will be holding my gun. (And that's a fact.)

You people of the "gimme" crowd will have to find someone else to supply you with the means to live your miserable existence.

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

Credible Source for Tax Evasion, please.

Do not cite a company or corporation in source. Companies and Corporations are seperate entities. Their sole reason for existence. To provide limited liability coverage.

Also, buffet not sole owner or stockholder in company. Not even owner of 51%. So buffet is NOT 'berkshire hathaway'.

So provide source for criminal charge directly against Buffet, please.

ROB;

The gimme crowd?

You haven't been paying attention, my friend :) I'm a pay-or. Not a pay-ee.

And yes. I'll gamble that I won't leave when I get taxed more. Give me 3 more years and i'll be in that 1% ^.^ and I still won't leave when I get taxed more. It's a big, wide world out there.

And I got to see a lot of it courtesy of Uncle Sam and Never Again Volunteering Yourself.

Yeah Rob. I'll take that bet up.

Now, quit being scared of existence and deal with the problem at-hand. Not the 'problem you think might happen in an alternative reality or universe but have no proof, grounding or even something remotely resembling evidence to back up your claim'.

teknishan -- in my opinion, if we do not remove all loopholes / deductions we quickly get back to where we are.

you can deduct state and local taxes from federal taxes.

i agree on the act of God -- but should the federal government be the one to assume responsibility?

i think some form of flat tax is the only answer, the send your tax payment on a postcard type of idea.

i looked at matt's site. some things there i do not like -- "free" education; who pays for the buildings, athletics, professors, etc. it cannot be free; someone somewhere has to pay.

i appreciate his service to his country.

JUST BREAK OUT THE CHECK-BOOK if that's what they want to do with their cash. No reason to create new laws.

I don't think Buffet will be following that advice. He won't even pay the taxes (the oh so low taxes according to him) that are already way past due.

That's why he and Obama are so chummy. Birds (or frauds) of a feather stick together!

Sorry RationalOne-674831, you aren't allowed to put actual FACTS on here... You are only allowed to yell words like "hope", "change", and "fair" to make you points.

The fact that the top 1% pay some 37% of all the taxes collected doesn't seem fair to me..... And the fact that some 50% pay nothing (and many get a refund from THAT!) doesn't seem real fair either.

I can only hope the American people are smart enough to see through the simple rhetoric this time around. If we are dumb enough to re-elect him after these last three years, then perhaps we deserve what he is going to throw at us.

winemaker --

There is no handout in the market, unless you are working for a union. You have the right to move your skill sets for maximum dollars. There is no government stimulus for you. You are the driver of your efforts.

It's obvious from this regurgitated talking point that you know absolutely nothing about unions except some pablum that you've been fed.

I was a member of a union for some years before I went to work in the private sector. You don't work for a union. You work for your employer. There are no "handouts" except what the employer gives during collective bargaining. If employers are unable to bargain successfully with their workers, that's just their weakness, rather than a flaw in the process.

I was always the driver of my own efforts, which included nights and weekends, and sometimes resulted in my working for an effective wage that was less than minimum wage. The union didn't make me rich and it didn't hand me anything. I worked for every dollar I earned. I worked hard.

And I was good at what I did. However, in the end, I decided that with the way people in my profession were being treated, and the way the political winds were blowing, I would be better off out of it. I could see that there was no way for me to improve my situation much, even with a union. The union didn't have the power to change economic facts and neanderthal thinking. But, contrary to what people like you tend to think, I did have a skillset that I could easily transfer into the private sector, after a little additional training.

In short, you know not of what you speak.

I was proud to be a member of my union and to represent the membership when asked to do so. Like everything else, some were slackers, but most were not. I was not a slacker. I am not a slacker now. But I have met a few during my career in the private sector. Despite what you seem to believe, slackers are pretty universal.

In case you're still skeptical, I need only refer you to that classic called THE PETER PRINCIPLE. And it might not hurt to read Dilbert from time to time.

On "Morning Joe" this morning T. Boone P was a guest. Yes, 'Mr. Oil' himself was there making some very astute observations about where we are today and where we need to turn in the future. First of all he stated that it doesn't matter to the oil companies who is president.

That's a gross mis-characterization of the interview. Boone was asked if the what he thought Obama's energy policy had done to lower energy costs. And his unambiguous response was "The President has done nothing, the President doesn't have an energy policy". He was about to suggest that Romney would be more energy friendly but was cut off by Mika Brezeznski. Surprise Surprise

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

I have a feeling that I would enjoy spending an afternoon with and Mr. Feisty discussing politics over a drink at a pub

Let me know next time you are in my neck of the woods... drinks are on me! ☺

Thank you so much for the kind offer. I don't know that I'll ever be in that part of the country anytime soon, but if/when it happens, I'd find it to be an honor to sit with you to enjoy conversation and drink and I'll meet you half way on the drinks!

@ Rationale: Nice try. The "non-partisan" think tank group your are getting your information from is not so non-partisan. Geez, just look at who the founding fathers of the organization are. And, since at least 1984 they have also operated a separate entity called Citizens for a Sound Economy. Any guesses on who formed that? The Koch Brothers, or as I like to call them, the Brothers Grimm. Your little think tank organization has many conservative ties so the non-partisan aspect is complete BS and one could expect that the numbers and stats are manipulated.

I can only hope the American people are smart enough to see through the simple rhetoric this time around. If we are dumb enough to re-elect him after these last three years, then perhaps we deserve what he is going to throw at us.

Americans know better. The democrat strategy of demonizing the haves has failed time and time again. Ask George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale. Obama lied his way into office. It won't happen again.

Huh, and wouldn't you know it Anna, I accidentally voted that post up. It was a huge mistake. lol Minus one for winemaker.

In this example, for whom do you feel sorry:

The person who earns $2,000,000 a year and pays 30 percent, leaving him/her with a disposable income of $1,400,000; or

The person who earns $20,000 a year (about 40 percent higher than minimum wage) and pays 15 percent, leaving him/her with a disposable income of $17,000 a year.

Which one, do you suppose, has 3 or 4 homes, 2 or 3 Cadillacs, and a car elevator in the garage?

And which one just barely pays for rent, health care, food, clothing, and the bus?

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

Perfect statement Anna Molly. The GOP talking points keep saying that 50% of the people don't pay taxes at all. Really? I'd like to see verifiable proof of those stats.

But what you have stated is exactly why the GOP is faltering with the average American. When so many in this country have been reduced to earning minimum wage to about $10 an hour in the retail sector, how are they supposed to contribute at the same tax rate as those earning 2X or more than them and still pay rent, basic utilities, clothing and insurance for their family? The middle class suffers enough. The poor suffer the most.

But let's just elect more republicans so the rich can purchase more houses, vineyards, vaction homes abroad and of course elevators for their vehicles so they don't get the soles of their shoes dirty walking to the car. I JUST DON'T THINK SO!!!!!

That's why he and Obama are so chummy. Birds (or frauds) of a feather stick together!

I hate to be the purveyor of a conspiracy theory, but this one warrents at least a little consideration. There are some who believe that the quid pro quo for Buffet's support of the "millionaire tax" is Obama's failure to allow the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Why? Because Buffet owns a substantial interest in the railroads currently used to transport oil from Canada. It is unclear whether the construction of the pipeline would affect his current contracts for the oil transportation or only future contracts. What is clear is that Buffet would be a direct beneficiary of this administrations policy to obstruct the construction of the pipeline.

nms: If you ever figure out how to change the channel from FOX to MSNBC you become more enlightened about alternative fuel sources that would be better for America and the world.

Funny. Don't watch MSNBC, or FOX. Both are TV for idiots. You seem to have a grasp of their content though.

On "Morning Joe" this morning T. Boone P was a guest.

You see, T. Boone is just like Saint Warren. They're out for their own cause, not yours. Saint Warren doesn't mind paying more taxes, as long as he gets favorable treatment for his businesses, he'll make more in the long run. Same with T. Boone. You think they care about you? Really?

Simply trying to say the president failed because he backed Solyndra isn't fair.Simply trying to say the president failed because he backed Solyndra isn't fair.

Obama has failed for many reasons, Solyndra is just one. Even he admits his Warren Rule is nothing but a gimmick. Why is this man wasting our time on gimmicks?

And as far as gas prices go, Obama campaigned on Bush's inability to control them, and Democrats in Congress backed him up on that theme. So why the flip-flop on responsibility now? Watch the following videos on how Obama and the Democrats fully believed Bush was responsible for gas prices:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLP12X3EgM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI15B7W431M

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/video-flashback-obama-and-dems-blast-bush-for-gas-prices-in-2008/

This is all about scoring political points by pointing fingers at a minority group. Even if it is the right thing to do, the amount of money being discussed is a tiny fraction of our overall yearly deficit.

Obama is focusing on the 1% so that he doesn't have to worry about proposing real solutions to our financial problems. Every day I become more and more disappointed in the person I voted for in 2008...

Are you willing to gamble the future of this country on the fact that the rich won't leave?

You should share around whatever you're smoking.

What in your wildest dreams makes you think we even need the rich? What exactly do you imagine they do for us?

I wish they'd leave.

Then we could get back to doing what we do best as Americans which is working an honest day for an honest wage, building toasters and air conditioners and televisions sets rather than being forced to purchase the cut rate junk from China at American made prices.

let the rich leave. They do nothing but create a drain on the country. The knowledge to do the job exists in the people not the rich.

Don't you understand that the rich do nothing but skim the cream while the workers fight over the salty water left from the butter?

The American worker KNOWS how to do the job. They don't need the rich to sweat them for their labors.

I have an idea. Since the millionaires who were "surrounding" Obama think that they should all pay more in taxes, why don't they include a voluntary increased amount with their tax return next week. Then, they can let us know, through the media, how much extra they paid, and we can all see exactly how supportive they really are of Obama's dumbass idea. Put your money where your mouth is, big boy!

Steeler...

If you are going to make an attempt to poke holes in Paul Ryan's budget by comparing it to Mr. Obama's wishes, then you should also state that in the past two years the president has submitted his annual budget in writing and has not even been successful in picking up a vote of support...and also you should include the fact that the Democrat controlled US Senate won't even put their leader's budget up for a vote...because it is a nightmare of foolish spending and horridly increased deficits.

The president's spoken words mean nothing, as he has proved over and over again. But when he actually puts his desires on paper and submits them for review, he cannot even get a cheap reacharound from the members of his own party.

And Paul Ryan's budget is the subject of your criticism ?

michael, the retarded right loves to group people and give rights based on which group you're in(gay marriage comes to mind) so why shouldn't the looney left do the same thing about other issues? hypocrite.

mj,

If we bought toasters produced at US labor rates, they would cost $100. Sure, we'd get more people employed in factories, but the downside is the other 90% of the population would see their standard of living decrease dramatically.

Also, where do you think we'd be today without rich people like Bill Gates and the people that started Google, Oracle, IBM, etc.? Society needs the big dreamers/risk takers. Yes, they may receive extremely large rewards, but the rest of us also get rewards for their vision and hard work. Economics is not a zero sum game.

spider...

It is pretty funny that those guys wanting to rub elbows with the president and get their faces on TV to show how magnanimous they are to the public, don't all have their checkbooks in hand so they can simply write fat checks to the US Treasury. I'm sure all donations would be appreciated !

Ron...

You are correct. It's pretty amazing that when an amazingly successful businessperson like Mr. Romney runs for political office in this wierd nation, he or she would be better off trying to hide the fact that he or she had been an amazingly successful businessperson !

This place just keeps getting sillier every day.

Teknishan

Let me get this straight you want to remove the tax deductions for the rich but keep those that behifit you? Did I read that right? If we redsce deductions for one group it is certainly not fair to leave then for another. How about we try this! Instead of income tax we impose a flat tax on all income with no deductions for anyone.

Duane

No, you didn't read that right.

Actually, you have it completely backwards. I would write-off all the loopholes that I use, but keep the ones my in-laws use.

I'm a 31 years old, healthy, adult male. I own a business and pay less percentage of taxes than you, I'd wager. I have a good accountant.

Medical isn't exactly a large bill for me, either.

nomoresameo-

It's the person that worked to gain the education needed to make that level of income that bought all that stuff that employed the people making $30-$50k per year to build them, maintain them, improve them, repair them, and they paid a ton in taxes not only when they made the money but when they bought the goods, and paid for the upkeep, etc, etc.

They employed more people with their spending than Obama "employed" or "created jobs for" in 4 years.

My wife and I had a baby, we hired a part time babysitter for 4 hours per day (a legal U.S. Citizen, for the record) since we both work.

You could say our sex-life created more jobs than Obama, too. :)

Obama acknowledged that the rule would only raise about $47 billion over 10 years, but, he said, just because it doesn’t singlehandedly close the deficit doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be enacted.

Flyeisty....you are NOT listening to Mr. Obama.....The Buffet rule will do nothing to the Deficit. It is plain and simple......Class Warfare.

But that is OK.....Liberals have a hard time understanding straight, simple, succinct talk.

.....Liberals have a hard time understanding straight talk.

Oh, they understand all right. They just don't want to acknowledge the truth because, after all of their arguements, they would look like morons. My advice to liberals? Go ahead and let go. Trust me, it's not going to change the opinions we already have of you.

teknishan

Stop whining and break out your checkbook, write a gift to pay down the debt if you feel you're under-taxed, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

It always annoys me that anyone thinks we need more tax laws. If you feel under-taxed, nothing is stopping you or your pals like Buffett from writing a check as a gift to pay down the debt.

You go right on ahead, and play with your own money, redistribute your wealth at your discretion. The rest of us will continue to strive to that magnanimous level of success and give our money away to our own selected causes while you do the same by any means you see fit.

But lay off the class-warfare "Tax the rich!" attitude. They can spend it in a way that actually raises people up, creates jobs that allow us to hire our time on our own, doesn't corrupt our soul and spirit by creating more hand-outs and free services that make people feel like their existence is owed to Uncle Sam and his wonderful Government Cheese.

It breaks a person down when they accept more and more Government program "help" in their lives. Stay unemployed a long time, and you wonder, "I get money, why find work? I get free this and that, why work? If I work I lose these free things, I don't want to do that." It almost makes sense- if you can relax, watch TV, have time at home, and someone pays you to do it, why commute and work for 8 hours? It makes sense to enjoy your time more not living by a time card, right?

I'm telling you and all that think like you that the WORST thing you can do is take away someone's ideal of working for themselves and family. If you keep giving Uncle Sam more and more cash, that's exactly what you do via social programs that buy votes. Octo-mom is on the public payroll now in California- will that be 8, 9, 14 more votes for pro-welfare candidates since it helped them as children by paying a sick-in-the-head person become mother to a litter when she had no means of supporting them?

My god, how many more jobs we'd have if businesses and people weren't penalized for success... And how much happier many would be if they weren't raised to think "entitlements" are the root of happiness and a foundation for success...

Annnya Molly,

To respond to your comment, I was also a union-member when I was attending school. My full-time job while attending classes full-time. For my union dues, I saw no benefit for my contribution to the union.

And while the union protected the members, slackers cause many jobs to be lost. Non-productivity at one location caused the RR inspection point to be closed. Couldn't make revenues if the people slept rather than doing their jobs.

So what happens, the seniority system protects those who 'slacked', bumped the guys doing their jobs, while the problem employees continued doing nothing but get paid for nothing.

And for my dues, nothing changed, nothing happened to increase productivity. And the cycle continued until the RR shop closed and the work transfered to an outsource vendor. Productivity improved with the non-union shop.

Ever wonder why a government funded highway project never seems to be completed on time? Union rules at prevailing wages. Nothing like driving up the cost of the project. And a non-union shop can't bid unless they use union scale. Why, to protect the union.

So yes, I understand the union concept. And I disagree with the principals. Now however, I am out on my own after working a corporate job and loving it. My wines sell in the high-end range, I pay my share of taxes, and I do treat my employees well.

Anyone can make the sacrifice, improving their lot in life while not sucking on the government teat! There are opportunities if you are willing to take the risk.

And if I understand the Obama 'tax-the-rich' program, the tax is on earned income only. Mr. Buffett, who drives revenue from capital gains will still pay the capital gains rate while his secretary will be paying more than the present rate she pays.

WE JUST CAN'T WAIT to correct the error of 2008!

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”
― Margaret Thatcher

....and we are officially out of other people's money.

Michael from Sonoma

Helping people up? Let's change this narrative a bit, since you don't seem to understand the ultimate point.

Corporations are job-destroyers. Small businesses are job creators.

Let's change it up more with some facts.

Democratic states pay taxes.

Republicans states don't.

Your real welfare queens are Louisiana. Mississippi. Alabama.

Republican states are on the public dole.

Republican states are decrying the hand that feeds them those sweet, sweet gub-mint handouts.

So I'm tired of paying for their handouts and free welfare checks.

I'm tired of working while they get to sit in their bayou and swat flies all day.

I want them to go out and get healthcare, so I don't have to pay for it.

I want them to go out and get educated, so I don't have to pay for more fly-swatters.

I want them to build decent houses, so I don't have to blow my taxpayer dollar everytime a hurricane hits the hurricane coast.

I'm sick and tired of their rhetoric, without actions backing it up.

That's the real state of this nation. YOU, republicans, are the welfare queens of the world. YOU, republicans, think of yourself as independant and strong while you live off of government jobs, in subsidized housing, in hurricane tropics knowing that FEMA will be there to pick you up when the hurricanes inevitably hit.

Go get an education, and go get a real job that adds demand to the economy. Go somewhere where your beliefs aren't constantly confirmed by your neighbors, but your mind is challenged on a regular basis.

Get a job, welfare queens.

Except you guys in Texas. You guys are doing okay. Maybe send a letter to your eastern counterparts about getting off of my government teet.

/TRUTH

Buffett Rule: Obama names a tax law after a billionaire who owes back taxes.

I believe it.

First problem -- The right-wing tunes in almost exclusively to FOX Noise, Hate Radio, and completely bogus websites and chain Emails. This is the propaganda they are fed:

Propaganda #1 "Democratic reforms of the tax code are all about envy and class warfare." Not! -- No one begrudges the rich their riches, and in fact this has been proved throughout US history with support of rich presidents in the past. However, the difference was and still is whether that politician shows empathy and understanding of those less fortunate, whether that politician set an example in his/her personal life (paying more than a 14% tax rate and not sheltering money in the Cayman Islands), and policies that asked for shared sacrifice rather than policies that attacked programs for the poor, sick, and elderly in order to give tax breaks to the rich.

Propaganda #2 "The Buffet Rule (formerly the Reagan Rule) is about taxing the rich 100% to pay off the deficit."NOT! Let's start with the deficit, and talk about the trillions of debt the Bush tax cuts have already created. Now Teapublicans want to double down with even more tax cuts for the rich, and have no other way to pay for those cuts expect to destroy programs for the poor, sick, and elderly. Even if we did end all trust/fund government programs, the Ryan/Romney plan still fails to reduce the deficit. They can't even pay for the debt that would just be created with more tax cuts.

All we have to do is look at job creation during Clinton versus during Dubya to understand immediately that tax cuts do nothing to create jobs. And anyone who is serious about balancing the budget cannot support "starve the beast" illogical thinking anymore than the myth of taxing the rich 100%, because cuts in spending alone will not balance the budget either.

We must take a multi-prong approach starting b closing loopholes, enidng corporate subsidies (tax expenditures), and requiring millionaires to pay at least a 30% tax rate. Also, we need to continue cutting spending, especially defense spending, create jobs here in the US with carrot and stick policies, improve trade deficits, reduce cost of living for health care, college education, etc. so that people have more disposable income to create demand, and so forth.

But this crazy talk "if P than Q" fallacious hyperbole such as taxing the rich 100% has got to end if we as a nation hope to have meaningful discourse about deficits. The right-wing Echo Chamber and Cone of Silence media has been the most detrimental factor -- The first order of business should be to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

I would gladly give up my deduction if they lower my rates. I don't feel the deductions on mortgages, HELOC's, Capital losses, etc is a good system. It helps the people who have wealth and does nothing for the ones who do not. I believe in a progressive tax rate.

There are two sides to the problems our country faces. We spend too much money, but we also do not collect enough money. The wealthy and multinationals get all the breaks and the middle class and small business owners miss out on a lot of these breaks. The roughly 50% of the people who pay no federal income tax has a lot to do with policies of Bush. He is the one who doubled the tax credit per child.

We need to find meaningful cuts to our military. We spend more on our military than the next 10 highest military budgets COMBINED. There are cuts which can be made which will keep us safe without spending 3/4 of a trillion dollars a year. We need to get our troops home and stop illegal wars which cost trillions of dollars. We need to stop being the world police. We need to stop the idea of spreading democracy and freedom across the globe.

We need to control costs associated with Medicare. We need to reform Social Security to ensure the millions of people who have paid into these programs their entire working lives have something to show for these dollars. These are not entitlement programs, these are poorly run programs in which the government has made us pay into promising us benefits when we retire. Give me all my money back or have a working program in about 15 years, so I can receive the benefits in which i paid into all these years!

Bush was one of the worst presidents we have ever had. Obama has left a lot of his bad policies on the books and gave us Obama care. This is 12 years of poor leadership. I only hope if elected, Romney will get us moving in the right direction, but I have heard very little from him which makes me believe he will make meaningful changes to fix our problems. Until people get back to work, and the economy expanding at a healthy rate, we cannot prosper as a country.

My god, how many more jobs we'd have if businesses and people weren't penalized for success.

What a crock of crap -- You see what I mean? This and other crap such as 'job creators" -- RWNJs, please support your claims with evidence, data, facts, because you are just parroting squawking points. Prove how you or someone you know has been penalized for success. Except maybe single people with no children paying a higher tax because they don't benefit from the $1,000 per child tax write off -- Come on, WTF?

cokeorpepsi -- Agreed that deductions need to be removed--BEFORE tax rates are reduced, and NOT more than the difference in revenue, preferably with more revenue in the ratio. People who are getting deductions know that if they had to pay taxes on their income regardless of lifestyle choices such as having a sh!t-load of kids, they would have to pay more. Fairness is a hard thing to come by in this country these days.

Why are you okay with Romney paying a 14% tax rate and keeping money in the Cayman Islands--how about that one? You people are f#@%&! in the head.

two word solution: FLAT TAX.

You would think that the rich would love this idea because:

a. they swear they pay higher taxes than everybody else. of course that's only because they only count the exact dollar amounts, not the effective rate. Old trick that only works on the stupid. If I make $10,000 and pay 15% in taxes then thats $1,500, but if you make $1,000 and pay 30% in taxes then that's $300. yeah I might have paid more actual dollars, but you're getting hit far harder.

b. all those lazy good for nothing freeloaders that the right and the rich swear comprises 99.99999% of the poor in this country (they just can't seem to grasp that there are plenty of folks that do want to work and can't find work) would have to pay their share too because, you know, they don't pay taxes of course.

But of course, as long as any G.reed O.ver P.rogress lawmaker breathes oxygen in congress a flat tax will NEVER go into effect. Because:

a. now everybody really WOULD have the same effective rate. No more loopholes (I still crack up over the corporate jet deduction), no more exemptions, no more paying a lower rate just because you made your money differently (cap gains) than the next guy (job wages), no more stashing dough overseas (HELLO WILLARD!!!), and of course there's that whole tax code that we would then be able to reduce to a fraction of it's current size.

b. no matter how much the wealthy yell about how much they really are the most heavily hit, they really know that they get off like bandits. Hell if I was rich and all my money came from cap gains, I sure as hell wouldn't want taxes to be fair again. I make money from a job AND from cap gains, I know the difference.

I got a couple question for GOP\Romney supporters.

1. Would somebody write to FoxNews and ask them to ask Romney in an interview: If elected president, would you enact a new tax law which limits the effective rate for ALL forms of income to a maximum of whatever YOUR effective tax rate is for that given year? In other words Mr. Romney, since you and the GOP are the party of low taxes, why don't you pledge right here and now that NOBODY pays a higher RATE than YOU?

2. There was so much rage on the right with this birther stuff, why is willard so reluctant to release his TAXES? because he KNOWS what will happen when 90+ percent of americans (dems AND REPUBS) see that he had a lower rate than they did, even though he's worth hundreds of millions, and some of them are struggling to keep a roof over their families' heads.

Yes I'm a leftie but I do NOT advocate punishing success. But I also don't advocate punishing others that are not as successful because they chose to make their money via a different method.

hboogy,

Corporate jet deduction?

hboogy,

Willard has already released his tax returns! And FRH why waste good urin on your leg?

Tired1947,

Lets see the previous ten years, not just the year he threw us a piece of to try to quell the pressure. I'm betting there's a year or two where he probably paid an effective rate of under 10%. Heaven help him if that gets out. But what do you think of my idea of asking him to make a law if elected president that nobody pays a higher effective rate than he does during any year that he is president?

Mark,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/us/politics/08lobby.html

The corporate jet deduction would not really put a dent in the deficit at all. I just find it funny that it exists. I seriously doubt that any millionaires/billionaires would stop buying them just because they can't deduct their depreciation anymore.

It's kinda like that joke where a guy asks a yacht salesman how many miles per gallon does the yacht get. The salesman replies "if you're really worried about that then you don't need to be buying a yacht" LOL

hboogy,

I am familiar with the "deduction," which applies to other pieces of equipment as well as airplanes. Why single out jets?

Corporate jets are my livelihood. Most of the individuals and companies that buy airplanes are not the profligates the public seems to make them out to be. You would be surprised how cost conscious even those who can easily afford these aircraft are. Deducting depreciation right away can make all the difference in the decision to by an airplane, and my struggling industry needs all the help it can get. As you said restoring the past depreciation schedules would be a drop in the bucket in regards to the federal deficit, but the sale of even one jet is a big deal to my industry.

Another aspect of corporate jets not ever reported on are the jobs aviation creates. There are a lot of people working every time Mr. Big takes off. Pilots, mechanics, fuel and ground support personnel, catering, dispatch, administrative staff, ground transportation, and so on. Not to mention manufacturing, service support, airports and all the associated businesses.

Classic trickle-down! I know that is a dirty word here but my industry lives and dies by trickle-down. The wealthy are notoriously fickle - little ripples can become tsunamis-and when they flinch often the first thing to go is the jet. Most of us who have been in this crazy business for any length of time have fairly long resumes.

The yacht salesman joke is funny but not reflective of the greater truth.

To Michael who said this "You DO know that your massiah, Obummer, is part of the 1%er club too? No?"

No duh, we're not idiots here, Thats why Obama keeps saying "We should raise taxes on the people who don't need it, people like me".

We aren't idiots, but you seem to be.

Tecknishian said this:

"And you're dying off faster than you can replace your numbers because you have nothing to offer the youth. Only fear, stubborness, and racism."

Feist DumFux and Evie quoted and applauded this statement.

To which I say...... Oh Really?

Ron Paul at Chico
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUMsFydtGB0

Ron Paul at UCLA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOKkjybzoSE

Ron Paul at Berkeley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dtikarhVhg

These kids are way better "liberals" than you are.

They want an end to the wars, the corporate handouts, and the debasement of our currency.

They want an end to the crony capitalism.

They want to bring the troops home NOW, and stop pouring our youth and our money into ratholes overseas for no gain in undeclared wars.

They want a restoration of our Constitutional Liberties. Ron Paul Revolution!

ACTUAL CHANGE!!!!

We're in trouble now! The 'rich' will leave the United States. Where will they go? Europe - for 'socialized' medicine? Don't let the door hit your backside on the way out!!

http://www.taxmeless.com/page4.html

Warren Buffet not paying taxes? Why is that surprising - he is a proud member of the 1%. All the 'tax evaders' in the White House? Also part of the 1%. The RWNJ would have us believe that the tax cheats are illegal immigrants and welfare queens? If poverty was so lucrative - maybe it ought to be listed on the DJIA.

The 'conservative' dingbats have the perfect candidate to represent them.

RWNJ Dingbats United (how's that for a non-labor union?)

No taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.

-George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

10 Richest Presidents

10. John Tyler (51 Million) – ranked the 35^th best president

9. Franklin D. Roosevelt (60 Million) - ranked the 3^rd best president

8. Herbert Hoover (75 Million) - ranked the 34^th best president

7. Lyndon B Johnson (98 Million) - ranked the 11^th best president

6. James Madison (100 Million) - ranked 20^th best president

5. Andrew Jackson (119 Million) - ranked the 13^th best president

4. Theodore Roosevelt (125 Million) - ranked the 4^th best president

3. John F Kennedy (approximately 125 Million) - ranked the 6^th best president

- If Elected: Mitt Romney (200 Million)

2. Thomas Jefferson (212 Million) - ranked the 7^th best president

1. George Washington (512 Million) - ranked the 2^nd best president

It looks like Romney is in good company if elected President… 7 of the wealthiest presidents are ranked in the top 15 and 8 in the top 20. History shows that the wealthier the president is the more likely that he/she will be successful.

Richest Presidents

www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0220/Presidents-Day-trivia-Who-were-the-10-richest-US-presidents

Presidential Rankings

teknishan- Not quite the truth, though you have some bits and pieces in there and we even have some common ground- Getting people off the public payroll.

You reference Louisiana. Mississippi. Alabama as the worse offenders (really, really bad choices to reference in your case, here's why...)

Louisiana- Democrat Governors- since 1877 ALL Democrat except for about 13 years. 1877-1980, ALL DEMOCRAT- It's kind of hard to reverse 100 years of bad leadership, creating welfare states. Give us some time on that one to reverse the damage done over 100 years, mmmkay? Since 1980, the state now flip-flops back and forth Dem/Rep, but at least it's a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

Alabama- Democrat Governors- since 1825, only 23 years Republican leadership. 1874-1987, ALL Democrat. Again, 100+ years straight Democrat Governors. How many generations of hand-outs is that?

Mississippi- Democrat Governors- Since 1825, only 23 years of Republican leadership. 1876-1992, ALL DEMOCRAT Again, 100+ years of Democrat rule, give us some time here, too.

You wonder why they are backward, and sucking the public payroll dry? 100 years of being taught that was the way to do things, my friend.

You really should do your research prior to referencing "truth" about "red states". I believe they have an extremely hard uphill battle to reverse 100 years of liberal/social policy due to a century of people you'd vote for with eyes-closed because they have a (D) next to their name on the ballot. You don't think these became the worst welfare states overnight, or in just the past 10 years do you? You are smarter than that, and if your ego doesn't bruise too much to admit that your party built a strong welfare foundation you now complain about in the very states you referenced to us as the worst offenders, you might realize perhaps there's a better way to do things that is more balanced.

/smackdown

nice work Michael , but you are baffling the libinistas with reality , stop it