E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mitt Romney promised this past weekend that the wealthy would “still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now” and that he’s “not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest.” And: “I'm not looking to reduce the burden paid by the wealthiest.”
He added, “I’m looking to bring tax rates down for everyone.”
That’s what he said on CBS’s Face the Nation, despite the Tax Policy Center’s analysis earlier this year that showed that those making more than $1 million a year would get a $146,000 a year cut from Romney’s plan (by lowering the top rate to 26.6%) – and that the poor would pay more than it currently does (because the base would be broadened).
(Here's the Tax Policy Center's full table laying it out.)
So what’s changed? Nothing, says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, who conducted the original analysis.
The key, Williams says, is Romney’s language. And Romney’s very careful here to say, “pay the same share of the tax burden.”
That means that if his plan cuts the rate for the wealthy, which it does, then he has to make that up with which “tax preferences that he’d get rid of,” Williams said. In other words, the only way the wealthiest would pay the same share is if Romney closes unspecified tax loopholes. And that is where Romney has been vague.
Though he promises to perhaps get rid of certain deductions, he has yet to specify which. When Face the Nation moderator Bob Schieffer pressed Romney, he declined to say what he would do.
“Well, we'll go through that process with Congress,” he said, adding he’d consider certain deductions and exemptions.
Asked what his ideas are now, Romney again cited Simpson-Bowles, the bipartisan commission formed by the president to find a solution that would reduce the nation’s debt and deficits. But he would only say “deductions and exemptions,” and didn’t specify which.
In fact, it would likely be very difficult for Romney to find the deductions necessary to keep the wealthy from paying the same share, because, as Williams points out, there aren’t many “deductions or exemptions” that have an outsized benefit for the rich outside of capital gains, dividends, and exclusions for municipal bond interest.
Things like state and local tax deductions and the popular mortgage-interest deduction discussed in Simpson-Bowles, Williams said, would most benefit the middle- to upper-middle class.
Romney has already said he would not raise the capital gains tax; he would keep it at the current rate of 15 percent for those making more than $200,000 a year. So that’s one lever eliminated to make up the difference.
He has said he would at least “consider taxing some ‘carried interest’ at regular income tax rates,” the New York Times wrote. But it’s not at all clear if he would actually do that, something the private-equity and hedge-fund world would strongly oppose.
“It is really hard to maintain the distribution, maintain the same share of taxes that they are paying now,” Williams said of the wealthy under Romney’s plan.
He also points out that Romney would “extend the Bush tax cuts, but kill the Obama tax cuts,” like the earned-income tax credit expansion, child-care credits, educational tax credits, making them “less generous, less refundable.” And: “The people hit by that almost exclusively are not the rich at all.”
Obama, by contrast, has promised to raise taxes on the rich. “Every budget,” Williams noted, Obama “said he’s going to raise taxes on rich.”
But there wouldn’t be enough revenue generated from the so-called Buffet Rule -- which would tax capital gains, as if it were regular wages – or eliminating oil and gas subsidies, popular with Capitol Hill Democrats, to make a big dent in the nation’s debt and deficits.
So, the choice is: A vague plan from Romney that, of what’s known so far, disproportionately benefits the wealthy and isn’t at all clear that it would raise enough revenue to offset its cost; or Obama’s, which targets the rich, but also would do little to close the nation’s deficits.
Leave a Comment:
Current stats;
Unemployent rate 8.2% (Dept. of Labor)
Gasoline $3.63 a gallon national average (Dept. of Energy)
Housing values -9.9% (FHA)
National Debt $15,736,971,094,472 and climbing (Treasury Dept.)
241 days, 14 hours, 9 minutes to the election
we were loosing 700,000 jobs per month, every month, when President Obama took office (we are now gaining jobs every month)
Gasoline was over $4 per gallon just before the 2008 financial crisis (both before President Obama took office).
The housing bubble burst in 2008.
And yes; we HAD TO borrow to keep from completely collapsing. That is better than CHOOSING to borrow to start TWO WARS and FUND TAX BREAKS... AT - THE - SAME - TIME!
Point for point.
Hmmm, guess you were asleep in 2007/2008. Remember, massive bank failures, proud old investment houses collapsing, our domestic auto industry on the virge of complete and utter extinction, housing market imploding and our stock market nosediving from 12,000 plus to 6,000. Or perhaps you suffer from short term memory loss???
You are right about one thing, can't wait for November when the President will be elected to his second term and perhaps, just perhaps, the GOP Congress, the most recalcitrant and obstructive in the history of our country will be chastized enough to do the job of goverment which involves a thing called COMPROMISE.
its certainly easy to randomly pick stats to make a "point", isnt it? lol.
gas prices? doubled under bush, fell by 60%, doubled again...due to...the global economy. duh.
unemployment? rose to 10% due to the housing bubble burst, which obama had nothing to do with.
housing values? same thing.
hey, you forgot to mention the stock market going up from 7000 to 13000 or so under obama. How odd you forgot that. :)
national debt? where were you when the GOP added 80% of the debt before obama?
Obama is far from perfect, and i've got some issues with him too, but lets aim for intelligent criticism, shall we? :)
How is losing 370,000 jobs a week better than 750,000 per month??
That 10% Unemployment happened in Dec. 2009 after the 800 Billion Stimulus. How is that Bush's fault??
slodon: it takes awhile for an economy like ours to complete economic cycles..as anyone who knows anything understands. The housing bubble burst started in 2007 or so, and took a couple of years to complete its fall. it doesn't happen overnight, nor conveniently on presidential terms.
it also takes awhile for stimulus to work..as anyone who knows anything understands. And according to the non partisan CBO, the stimulus prevented that 10% rate from growing higher, so it did work.
I wouldnt (and didn't) say the 10% was 'bush's fault", it was the fault of the housing bubble bursting..which had a whole lot of causes.
the point is that just blindly looking at the current unemployment rate without understand the fundamentals behind it is just mindless cherry picking of stats...like gas prices or housing values.
Yes Brian, Bush and the Republicans did massive damage to America.
Only a fool would let them have power again.
Lets use Nancy's plan.. Lets elect him and see what in him..
I would rather have Obama on Unemployment. That way he WOULD STIMULATE the Economy per Nancy Pelosi.
Obama saved this country form utter collapse. Folks choose to hate him, big deal. They hate him for some abstract reason. They can never give a concrete reason and then back up that reason with facts. Again, they can never back up that reason with facts.
GM is alive and Osama bin Laden's dead. That's all you need to know.
If Bush were still president, or god forbid, Romney had been president, GM would not exist and Osama bin Laden would still be seeping tea in that small fortress in Pakistan.
Obama in 2012, the alternative is not only ridiculous, it spells utter disater.
Buck,
Keep this quiet, but, a lot of them hate him 'cause he's black.
All these cries to see a budget, are they addressed at Romney or to Reid? I believe there is only one at this time being paid to produce one.
That would be congress.
while a president "traditionally" proposes a budge, either house of congress can propose it, and it requires congress to pass it and then have the president sign it.
net: its a shared responsibility, not a strictly presidential one. Plenty of blame on that...and we ARE spending money via continuing resolutions approved by the congress.
our political process is dysfunctional:
"
The short-term funding measures are necessary because Congress has failed to complete its full budget appropriations process, which has become a victim of sharp partisan divisions over spending priorities.
The last extension was intended to provide more time to debate and pass spending measures covering the remainder of fiscal year 2012. It's been over 15 years, however, since both chambers of Congress passed the full range of such bills."
Dysfunctional
Solve it by voting Democrats in 100%. Let all Republicans get jobs for the next four years. If the Democrats dont fix the economy like Clinton, then in 2016 vote in all Republicans.
Release your tax returns Willard! What, besides the declared business loss of $77,000 on your 2010 tax returns for the share in the care and feeding of your dressage horse, are you hiding?
The stay at home mom can deduct more than the average worker makes in one year for the care and feeding of her horse?
How is a horse that trots be a business? Exactly what business is that... Looks more like a wealthy persons hobby....
The Romneys are so out of touch with the rest of us...
I'm still waiting for some real plans that Romoney has, maybe he has looked at the things Obama couldn't get done, and decided that if you promise nothing then....
What's all the fuss about? I would think most everyone knows that Congress holds the purse strings and no matter who is President "with their so called plans" will anything be signed into tax law without them nasty little representatives "We" keep electing. President Obama is campaigning on the Obstructionists in Congress, while candidate Romney is calling for a working Congress. Boy are both of them in for some more rude awakenings! The fiscal cliff is coming and all I see is another extension of the tax cuts for a year or so with BOTH the incumbent President and future hopeful Romney. Real reforms most Americans are after are not labeled with backdoor deals, options out, special interest perks and other bi-lateral parties misconceptions of reforms. Speaking of fiscal sanity, where were the mass protests when our elected Government decided to transfer SSI into the general fund? Now contemplating that thought for a second here is another, If SSI was removed from the general fund today how long would the Government run (keeping in mind the enormous size of our Government of today) on just collected tax revenues minus SSI? Makes you wonder......
The GOP talks a good game..and they used to play a good game..but since reagan they no longer are the party of fiscal responsibility. Huge deficits, unfunded wars, tax cuts without spending cuts..its a shame, and republicans before them are rolling in their graves.
so when romney promises to restore fiscal sanity...frankly..he has very little credibility at this point. Tax cuts without details, an expressed desire to increase defense spending...its very unclear what he is going to do.
Not that obama is any better in that regard, but the dems aren't billing themselves as the party of fiscal sanity, so at least you get what you paid for with them, not victims of false advertising.
Kinda feel your pain vermontguy, but and there is always a butt in a conversation, uncertainty on the other side of the fence seems like a little karma!
what annoys me is that, since reagan, we've had two parties who look very similar in many ways..there is a lot less difference between the dems and gop than there used to be...and that's a shame.
I'm an independent, i'll vote for the best person...I used to like the GOP candidates a lot more back when they were fiscal conservatives and kept their nose out of your social life. Now they are big deficit nosy bedroom peekers who like wars, sad to say.
When will the media tell us that most of the highest wage earners are Black athletes?
Jamie, that's the weirdest post I've read all day.
Take from the poor and give it to the rich. Republican Robinhood.
whatif...
51% of Americans pay NO taxes...1% pay over 1/2...TOP 5% pay roughly 90% of taxes.
What is "FAIR?" If I make 50 grand annually and pay 25%, and a "rich" person makes $500,000 and pays 25%...they pay $125,000...is THAT NOT FAIR?
Really? You libs have a twisted sense of "fair" called Socialism...if you think Gov't should force wealthy to pay higher percentage you are just ignorant. Read the last sentence. Obama forcing RICH to pay "MORE" will NOT lower deficit...But hey, I guess in the LIB sick, twisted world, having someone else pay for you is OK?
Take an ECONOMICS 101 course...you'll learn real quick that the best way to increase tax revenues is NOT to increase tax rate on ANYONE...in fact, you lower the rate, to increase growth, as it allows INVESTMENT and MORE spending by all classes, creating more tax revenues...Obama is the one who really needs to take a Economics course, as he clearly doesn't understand that taxing wealthy MORE will force them to cut jobs, delay expansion and close down more sites, not only creating more unemployment, but reducing tax base for property taxes as well.
But, hey...welcome to Social America when that happens..
Love Libs-Only in a Libs mind does giving more money to the government mean their is fairness. Johnny cant read, Martha just lost her job and Sam had to file bankruptcy. Fuuny thing happened on the way to Rome. Never mind that if you took every cent for those in the top 1 percent, the government would still run out of money in a day, which means TATA, those the other 99 percent will have to now pay those cost. Seems the 99 percent dont mind raising taxes just as long as it thinks it dosnt include them. But if will, it has too, unless of course you use Lib math, then it dosnt matter what the truth is as long as they "feel," good.
Jerry and Hopeandchange are missing the point, and by a wide margin.
I'm a liberal and I certainl don't have a problem raising taxes when the country needs it.
Funny thing, I'm a liberal and a guy named Ronald Reagan agreed with everything I just said. I don't believe Ronnie was a "lib."
Ronald Reagan knew what was right, and so do 85% or so of the American people. It's folks like Jerry and Hopeandchange that have a problem with this way of thinking.
jerry: we've always had a progressive tax structure, under both dems and gop, whereby those who make more pay a progressively higher percentage of their income. Its obviously not a "lib" idea.
most people consider that "fair", although there is no official definition of 'fair' so anyone can claim anything they want about what is "fair". But yes, in your example, i don't think the same percentage is "fair". Prove me wrong. :)
by the way, 51% of americans (or whatever the percentage is) don't pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Most of them do pay plenty of other taxes...payroll, property, state, local, sales, etc. You really need to either get your facts correct or write more clearly. Ranting with incorrect facts just makes your post silly.
Jerry: Let's go with the scenario of a struggling self-employed plumber, let's call him Joe, who didn't earn enough to even pay income tax, one of the 51% who didn't pay any income tax. However, when Joe filed his taxes, he still had to pay federal taxes! And if it wasn't for the payroll tax holiday, his rate would have been higher than the wealthy pay on long-term capital gains or carried interest (15.3% vs. 15%). In future years, Joe built his business and is successful with taxable income of $100k. Now he has to pay income tax on top of the payroll tax. In the meantime, those with long-term capital gains and carried interest, mostly the wealthy, will continue to pay income tax on this amount at 15%, regardless of the amount. Is this the fairness you are talking about?
In addition, the wealthy do not spend the same percentage of their income as the poor and middle class. And to build the economy, you need to have more money to be spent. This growing dichotomy in earnings between the wealthy and the rest of the population will only keep the economy in a recession longer.
Jerry, you sceme tho have a bad case of Foxitis, you should see your doctor.
Oh oh. Hope and change has caught it as well.
Jerry you are contageous. Put on a mask and go to the hospital.
Here is another somber thought. Can our Government finish this year 2012 without borrowing more money? The answer, a dis-heartening NO! The Nation MUST continue to go further into debt each and every year to just operate. What is the answer to this out of control spending frenzy which is a sure path to Greece? Hire more public service workers? Raise taxes across the board? Freeze the size of Government and reduce Military contract spending? Who has the best ideas to motivate the economy and jolt the economy past a lousy 1.9% gdp rate? The Fed's stacked deck of cards has played almost all of their shuffle and interest free tricks and their sleeves seem to be empty. History does repeat itself just ask Ross Pero.
I think everyone needs to READ the last paragraph prior to commenting.
Romney's plan is identified as "vague" and "disproportionately" benefits the "wealthy." Obama's plan is identified as "targeting the rich" but not addressing the Federal deficit.
Read further in, BEYOND this article and you'll learn even more...as While "rich" would definitely pay fewer taxes, they still WILL be paying a larger percentage. Obama wants "rich" to pay MORE.
At what point in America did "fair share" change in meaning SAME PERCENT, to Godvernment expecting "rich" to pay MORE percent. To me (and I'm NOT rich), "FAIR" is equal percent, NOT including capital gains, and if you can't comprehend WHY that is different, please spend a few minutes educating yourself away from such ignorance.
THINK...If I make $50,000 annually and pay 25% on that income, I pay $12500 in taxes annually. ANOTHER "rich" person makes $500,000 annually and pays 25% on that income, they pay $125,000 in taxes annually. IS it RIGHT for ME or YOU to "demand" MORE from that person?
I'm all for closing loopholes, which the article above notes Romney's plan likely does. Heck, instead of asking for MORE percent, why isn't Obama asking for the loopholes to be closed? He likes Executive use of power, so why not go there, instead of Immigration in the Summer of Election year? Again, READ the MSNBC article, it clearly states, Obama's plan does NOTHING to address deficit.
Heck, how could it...He simply wants MORE money to SPEND more money, a plan that anyone with common sense knows it simply doesn't make sense..To keep spending MORE.
Bring up Bush, FINE...He spent too much money too...but Obama is the one asking for MORE money today...and you have to be an idiot to think you can SPEND MORE to get out of debt.
Heck...Let's...as Americans follow Obama's lead...let's ALL go out and MAX out our credit cards, spend, spend, spend...damn the payments...We'll get the RICH neighbors to PAY for our spending...Oh what...? Is it different?
Again, SPENDING is NEVER the way out of debt, be it a single person, couple, city, state or country. STOP spending...
Now, it's clearly easy to blame Bush, so please do...BUT, then THINK...even though that's ignoring Glass Steagall, let's PRETEND it's ALL Bush's fault...
Guess what...Obama is the one in "power" and he's saying we need to SPEND MORE...Really? Do you really think that gets us out?
If you do, you really need to take a few courses on Economics 101, as you have NO clue about how spending impacts deficit.
Feel free to blame Bush...but how does THAT justify Obama SPENDING MORE...NOT on "war" but on "social" programs.
Socialism is GREAT, until you run out of rich people's money to spend.
51% of this Nation are riding for FREE, no longer assisting in PUSHING the "cart." It's LONG past due for Clinton, Bush, and NOW Obama and BOTH House and Senate to get people OFF the cart, neither side has done anything. But again, Obama is there now...it's his chance...Hope and Change has added MORE people to unemployment that EVER. Recall that Obama extended the length of time people stay on unemployment. That has DEMOTIVATED people to take different roles and steps...ALL at the TAXPAYER's expense.
Time to wake up...Listen to some of those collecting unemployment...they "think" they should get Executive jobs, because that is what they had...Really?
My mom is a waitress, my dad was a truckdriver...I busted my tail to get an exec job...it doesn't mean I won't wait tables if something happens. it doesn't mean i won't drive a truck. DONE BOTH before I got a exec job. It PAYS bills...
WAKE UP AMERICA. Spending MORE is NOT answer.
Even MSNBC can't hit the FACT that TAXING RICH will NOT impact deficit...NOTE, it did NOT say Romney's would have no impact...
AHHHH...the hidden gem...It WOULD...as when "RICH" have MORE money, they typically INVEST...something I haven't got enough money to do...INVEST...
Instead, Obama tells us that we need more teachers, firemen and policement (Gov't JOBS)...though ALL are at LOCAL level and the NEED varies greatly and is DRIVEN by PRIVATE sector growth, NOT by simply Obama wanting MORE. From listening to Obama, it appears he thinks if we add those 3 positions, that it will somehow IMPROVE things? THINK people...adding PUBLIC sector jobs will NOT improve economy...EVER...it's TAX money that creates those jobs, and it takes MORE to pay for them. Obama's plan is to spend MORE "rich people's" MONEY to pay for MORE public jobs...LOL...Makes NO sense...
INVEST in private sector, let the taxes decrease...MORE money to spend...better tax base....
BASIC ECONOMICS...
Obama hasn't spent more.......spending increases are at zero increase...no president in our lifetimes has ever been that fiscally responsible.
Public sector jobs do help the economy, the govt is part of the economy...Reagan increased public sector jobs by the same amount they are decreasing under Obama.
Here's the deal.....when you inherit a $1.2 Trillion deficit thanks to GOP policies its hard to cut spending $600 Billion and raise tax revenue $600 billion to balance the budget.
Actually it's impossible..especially when you also inherit the worst economy in 80 years and a GOP congress that says their # 1 goal is to see you fail.
Obama is spending more.
Public sector jobs do not help economy when done prior to PRIVATE growth. To suggest otherwise means you haven't taken Econ 101...PRIVATE sector should dictate public need...You do NOT create public jobs to spur economy, period.
Common sense, YOU LOSE. Read Glass-Steagall Act...You ignorantly place blame on GOP, as you don't have the courage or capacity to read Glass-Steagall and hold Billy Bill accountable for it. You'd actually have to research that, but that'd give you something to do, other than be an Obama mouthpiece.
Of course, I get it...for you, no matter what the facts present...It's GOP's fault...that's NOT common sense...nor is it very smart...as it shows you haven't researched Glass Steagall, have you?
NOPE, otherwise, you'd quit blaming GOP and put the blame on Billy Boy Clinton...again GLASS STEAGALL REPEAL...look it up.
Jerry is wrong. Obama is NOT spending more.
Fact:
President Obama has presided over some of the slowest federal spending growth in decades, in fact, the slowest since the Korean War. His growth percentage is 1.4 percent. Ronald Reagan's was a whopping 9 percent.
Go ahead, look it up.
Well, Jerry, public sector employees also spend money in the local economy. If they don't have it to spend then the private sector has no market, hence no hiring there, either.
Delusional. Trickle down has been disproved with 30 yrs of statistics.
It's interesting to say the least. I don't even have to watch FAUX NEWS or listen to right wing radio. All I need to do is come here and read posts done by right wingers. I then know exactly what lies and fantasy tales they are up to today. I can go to their website and search the shows from earlier in the day and sure enough. There are the exact same words I see posted here. Some are even word for word. Plagiarized.
After reading nonsense telling us that Putin wiped the floor with our President Obama today, and actually knowing the real truth of the matter, this is disheartening. I really truly wish that people would please please think for themselves. Verify what you hear and see. That's all. Cross reference and go to sources that are neutral. What is so hard about that? If you don't have time to do the research then why the heck are you wasting your time spreading garbage. Just what this country needs, ehh?!
consider,
Find a lie in my post. #62..
Please, find a lie....PLEASE...
Read the last paragraph of this article...2 core points...Romney's plan, while vague would be beneficial to wealthy...That's GOOD..When did you last get a job from a poor person? Rich INVEST. Other point...Obama's tax the RICH plan does NOT decrease US deficit...
WHY would we TAX ANYONE more for MORE "social" programs that are by far the 2nd biggest cause of current economic mess.
Oh, TOP cause...YOU likely have NO capacity to comprehend, but Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was REPEALED by Lord Clinton...Obama Admin opposes reinstatement of this...
THAT was the cause of the mess, but again, you'd have to understand and actually research it.
Guaranteed, if you LOOK up, Glass-Steagall Act, you'd change your ignorant views...assuming you understand and read it.
Do it, THEN you can't possibly support Obama's actions lately, or like some to, give Clinton "credit" for Good economy and blame Bush for bad, as it educates you from that ignorant view. Not saying that's you specifically, but given your words, pretty obvious.
consider, by the way...
You can't find a lie...
You might disagree with perspective, but no lies...no twists...if you take Econ 101, you'll find it quite accurate.
But again,
Read about Glass-Steagall ACT of 1933...Read about the process of potential repeal in early 1990's that failed. Read about Clinton repealing it, with "bipartisan" support, though MANY from both sides stated it was NOT smart for Clinton to sign, and Clinton could have said NO. Read about Obama's admin being vehemently opposed to reinstatement of Glass Steagall...and Republicans are urging Obama to reinstate it.
I'd LOVE to have a journalist like Chris Matthews GROW a pair and have the courage to ask President Obama, "What's your view on reinstating Glass-Steagall Act of 1933?"
The reason Obama "SELECTS" his interviewees is to avoid this type of question, no different from Romney avoiding an interview with Maddow...but please...
Obama would stutter more than he does w/o his teleprompter in sinc if that question came up...as it's a "gotcha" question...Look it up, of forever LIVE IN IGNORANT DENIAL.
Jerry
You do know that the repeal of Glass Seagall was a GOP bill being pushed for years that finally reached a veto proof majority.
Please tell us you aren't that stupid to think it was Clinton's fault......
Really...you aren't that stupid are you.
Let's place the blame where it squarely belongs....right wing deregulation policies.
Again....you aren't that stupid.
Are you?
Common,
It was a GOP that got vetoed in early 1990's...
READ my earlier POST...NO 62...I noted BOTH parties did so....
But guess what...
A: UNLIKE YOU, I don't solely blame Democrats in my post. Though I absolutely understand that ultimately CLINTON SIGNED IT and could have said NO.
B: Unlike you, I comprehend that BOTH parties are at fault, while YOU lay blame on GOP.
It won't be long that you'll be blaming Bush for the next hurricane. Take a look at WHEN things were "good" for Clinton. When did things sour for Bush? WHo controlled Congress...HMMMMMM.....
It's like the "war" discussion....Bush FOLLOWED Congressional rules, Democrats and Republicans voted for it....Bush couldn't have "moved" w/o BIPARTISAN support on it...Obama, bypasses Congress attacks Libya. Yet Obama blames Republicans in Congress for current Economy.
Again, read my post on Glass Steagall...I have NO issue noting it was 2 Republicans that started repeal process. Do you have a problem noted that it had MORE Democrats in Congress FOR it than Republicans? Do you have a problem noting Clinton had FULL POWER to VETO?
OH WAIT...I get it...Obama can blame Republicans, and Bush...but NOTHING is EVER Clinton or Obama's job and/or fault.
Hmmmm...funny how that works....
Jerry, your statement "A: UNLIKE YOU, I don't solely blame Democrats in my post. Though I absolutely understand that ultimately CLINTON SIGNED IT and could have said NO."
Did you only skim over Common Sense's post?? She explained to you that Clinton could not veto this legislation because the Republicans had the majority in both chambers (Congress and the Senate). If he had vetoed it they would have over turned his veto.
For someone who says we all should "read the article before we post" one would think you'd also apply that to reading other people's posts.
And this brings us to your number one lie. The lie blaming Clinton for the collapse of our economy and the worst recession since the Depression. You are complaining that Dems are blaming Bush for this mess yet you turn around and try to blame Bill Clinton!
You seem to be unable to comprehend what is being said by Common Sense. I can't speak for her but I certainly think her post is quite plainly and clearly written. Maybe if you would calm down that angry red glow before your eyes might recede enough for you to read once again.
There's nothing "funny" about any of this. If Clinton were at fault I'd be the first to say so. But I can't because I don't make stuff up and I don't take anything anyone else says as fact until I check on it all. And if Obama deserved any blame at all for this mess we are in I'd also say so. But that is not true. Obama is a not perfect President but, then which one was perfect? I have seen that he is a good man and he is doing his best while facing the most appalling attacks by our Republicans in Washington. That is a fact.
I think you owe the President an appology for all of your accusations.
A little advice from an old school politics enthusiast. Do your homework and do it thoroughly. Never take anyone's word for anything, politics especially. They are a particularly deceptive lot. They don't always lie straight up. They use innuendo a lot. And misinformation is another one they use. I haven't caught Obama doing much of that. So I give him a thumbs up for now.
Love Libs-Only in a Libs mind does giving more money to the government mean their is fairness. Johnny cant read, Martha just lost her job and Sam had to file bankruptcy. Fuuny thing happened on the way to Rome. Never mind that if you took every cent for those in the top 1 percent, the government would still run out of money in a day, which means TATA, those the other 99 percent will have to now pay those cost. Seems the 99 percent dont mind raising taxes just as long as it thinks it dosnt include them. But if will, it has too, unless of course you use Lib math, then it dosnt matter what the truth is as long as they "feel," good.
If tax cuts really worked to add jobs, why haven't they done so already? Taxes under President Obama are _lower— than they have been in decades (at least my Federal refund says so).
But I keep forgetting, it's those nasty evil poor people who are the parasites and are keeping the Job Creators from doing their job--except, of course, in China. Record corporate profits. Record amounts of cash being held by corporates. And yet, somehow, it's not enough.
Didn't that used to be called greed?
excess...
Current Corp Tax rate in USA is highest in world. Japan was, but they lowered theirs in 2011. Republicans have urged Obama to allow US rate to be lowered. I guess Obama just hasn't had time...with some 162 campaign fundraisers...This is the core reason companies aren't hiring actively in USA.
Taxes are NOT lower under Obama...He's not CUT anything, he's kept the BUSH cuts in place. But why bother with the truth.
excessivelyperky-Greeds a good thing. Greed allows me to hire more people and pay them a good wage so they can care for themselves and their families. Greeds a good thing it allows me to invest and create more for people to earn and to hire more people. Greeds a good thing it keeps me from investing now under a Obama admin and to sit on the side lines so those that depend on me to make a living are assured they will have a job now and in the future. Because without greed, I would take a huge chance and not knowing what my burden would be and thus have to fire people in order to make sure the others have a job. For those that dont understand this concept is why I reside in Newport Beach and you reside not next door to me.
What do you call a Obama fundraiser? A tax payer vacation for the president and his family.
What do you call a 35k a plate dinner for Obama? Knowing the plight of the middle class.
What do you call a Obama fundraiser? Blame everyone and anyone for his failures and have a buch of limousine libs nod in agreement as they leave in the limos back to their gated homes with armed guards to keep the middle class away.
hope,
Socialism is great, until they run out of other people's money.
Libs somehow feel that "FAIR" means wealthy should pay MORE percentage, as they don't understand that FAIR still means RICH pay significantly MORE than middle class, or poor. OH, I'm FAR from RICH...make less that $75,000 annually, but I have no HATE or ENVY or desire for "RICH" people's money to make me able to buy a big screen tv, or nicer car. I figure, IF I do my JOB, and impress my BOSS, I'll get there...
My parents were dirt poor...but NEVER blamed RICH or ignorant thought RICH should be GIVING them MORE their money.
I'm all for CLOSING LOOPHOLES, but Obama wants RICH to pay higher rates...that is WRONG and BAD
What loopholes would you close?
I'm betting you have the same answer as Romney...
Nothing.
I'm rich and I love all the "loopholes" I get.
Is it fair?
No....I'll admit it.
The only reason I'm rich is because of a strong middle class.......My kids won't be so lucky if we balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.
I think we should be fair about taxation. Everyone should pay the same tax rate no matter what your income. Say 19%. The same for all, that's fair.
Jerry-1573453
From my wonderful aunt of 94 yrs, life long Democrat. Life Lessons:
1. Any fool can spend money
2. Voted Repub for the first time in her life when through the eyes of wisdom, she saw the Emperor (Obama) Had No clothes.
3. Does she like Roms? Nope she dosnt, but she will vote again Repub for the second time in her life because as she put it, the Working Mans party is no longer and how can the new generation see that this guy (Obama) is so over his head and will take us down a path that the grand children will look back at us and say, how can so many people be so fooled.
Common Sense- 4 U-Balance the budget on the backs of the middle class? You are serious of you trying to get a reaction.
Your aunt is wise..
And those fools spending money you talk about are the GOP.
Obviously you know what GOP presidents have spent........
And leaving a $1.2 trillion deficit for Obama to clean up.
Obama has kept spending flat in the worst depression in 80 years.
If you don't hate facts then blame the GOP for spending.
We wouldn't be here without their spending.
Game over, end of story, thanks for playing...please insert another quarter
Common Sense- 4 U-So sad so sad. Thats ok, you cant help yourself on your man love for Obama. I understand, he is your celebrity and you are far away from the gilts and glam here in So Cal.
Proof Dem polices dont work? Call it the CA. budget........
jerry: we've had progressive tax rates under both parties. It isn't a "lib" thing. Apparently most people think those who make more should pay a higher percentage.
Vermont,
I never said it was equal. It should be.
But Obama wants the disparity to increase, and the article states that it will not reduce deficit.
how about make all deductions or tax breaks go away, and everyone pays a simple percentage of their income bracket (which is likely lower or equal to the current %)? you would get 90% people paying Fed tax this way, not just half of population as it is now, and government will get more tax money with such a change.
Jery
I guess you are that stupid.
The current rate at which US corporations actually pay is not the highest in the world.
Fox news lies to you....you should really find more information sources in your life unless you like being clueless.
Hahahahahahahajajaaaahaahjaahjaaja
Common,
HEY STUPID...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
US CORP TAX rate, via wiki...and multiple other sources...is 38%...NOT including the added STATE rate factored in.
FIND one higher you IDIOT.
Not a great idea to quote Wikipedia in the middle of a debate, even on a board like this.
There are plenty of legitimate sources to quote if one wishes to do the research. Wikipedia, even if we stretch the meaning, is not research.
Buck, I noted there are multiple other sources.
I used WIKI as it's a Liberal site. It's not my job to present something that is readily available.
For that. US rate is 38%, Japan is NOW at 35%. ADD in US State RATE and depending on location Corps pay more than 50%....
Again, you wanna look it up, go ahead..Common attested that he knew better, it's readily availabe, even via IRS stats...
It's NOT a Fox News source, it's public knowledge...
I didn't need to look up anything, I already knew US was "worst"...you research it if you wish, but don't call my source out when IN FACT, in this case it was and IS accurate, other than it has Japan's rate PRIOR to their lowering it in 2011.
IF you knew this, you shouldn't have commented about my source. If you didnt know, you should have validated I was WRONG about my INFO, instead of ignorantly calling out a source, that in THIS case is ACCURATE.
next
Wikipedia is a "Liberal" site?
My goodness.
Buck,
You had me with me not knowing your capacity....you are RIGHT...
You'd best leave it there, though...it gets worse for you.
Again, next time you want to challenge my "source" validate that my facts were wrong, before attacking my "source" and you'll actually gain kudos. Simply saying that my source isn't always accurate (WIKI, which I realize sometimes is subject to junk), when in FACT it IS, other than that which I noted, proves you really should limit your comments.
Basically, keep quiet and people may only think you are an idiot, but keep posting like that, and you'll remove all doubt., as clearly my links showed accurate reflection of Corp Tax rates. The fact you aren't willing or able to validate...well, maybe is a signal that you should take a nap, research, or something, but don't confront me on my source, when it was accurate...
You know Jerry, the more I read your posts, the more I think you're probably around 16 years old.
Good for you.
Lowering the top tax rate is the only way to create jobs. Punishing those that employ people only causes higher unemployment.
Never took an Econ class or paid attention to reality did you?
Rhetorical question.
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
Common,
HEY STUPID...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
US CORP TAX rate, via wiki...and multiple other sources...is 38%...NOT including the added STATE rate factored in.
FIND one higher you IDIOT.
Oh, on the list, ONLY Japan is listed higher, but they cut theirs in 2011.
BUM BUM BUM BUM...BUMMMMMMMMMMMMM
dummy...
Dude
Are you so ignorant as to think the rate is what corporations pay?
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
Sorry man, that was just a stupid ignorant post devoid of business knowledge.
You obviously don't know much about business or the economy.
Please tell me you think businesses pay that rate.
Hahahahahahahahahahhah
Common,
Go back to you Xbox fantasies...what Halo?
You can always win there...you just lost here.
US, when you add Fed rate, with State rate forces Corps to pay more than 50%...
Clean your basement too....
Common, what...I present you with links...and you say I'm devoid of business knowledge...LOL...
Even funnier...an OBAMA supporter saying that. LOL...LOL...
Let's see....what, you get caught in your LIE about US Corp TAX RATE, and NOW you suggest that while I was RIGHT, that "NO ONE" pays that...
NOT a very bright comeback attempt dude...go back to your XBOX, you are way out of your league.
Common Sense- 4 U- You should stop while you are behind. The taxes I pay as a business and you should know if you really are a business that employes many people and not just a one man band, is huge. How in the world can you even imply that the tax rate, which includes all the other taxes, insurance, local state and federal tax is not huge. Are you kidding???
Per COMMON,
US tax RATE IS highest in WORLD,
BUT...
wink wink...nod nod...
No Corp PAYS that rate.
Common Sense has no "COMMON SENSE."
Hey...got news for ya bud...
Google Corp TAX rates...See what these "corps" LIST as their TAX rates...you'll find you are quite IGNORANT, quite possibly STUPID...
as it's factual...not hidden, public knowledge....IRS keeps public records...
But you are better off stopping while you have a bit of dignity...go back to HALO, ok? No one gets hurt there.
LOL....Common says he's rich...LOL...Must have a lot of monopoly money
"Huge?" We're using the word "huge" to define how much tax is actually paid? "Huge?"
My, but whatever happened to using real numbers?
Tells me someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
Buck, find a mirror...you may be right about one not knowing what they are talking about...look and see...
Tells me, that instead of validating and knowing what you are talking about, that you don't have a clue, nor do you care to gain that knowledge.
When you have no capacity to argue the point, argue the messenger, or their grammar, right?
As far as grammar, I don't nitpick. Folks are usually typing fast and mistakes happen.
As far as not having the capacity to argue the point, you have no idea what I can argue about nor what I can't argue about. If you were familiar with my posts you would've never made that statement.
As far as aguing the messenger, or more to the point, the message, I'll argue whatever the hell I want to argue.
Look, make your points in a concise manner, back it up with facts, and you're probably home free. If, like the poster above, you use words like "huge" to explaing a tax amount, well, you come off looking like you don't have the facts at hand, that you haven't actually done the research.
Cheers.
Buck,
You are right, I have no idea of your capacity, that is very clear with your words.
I could provide 100 links for one like ou, and you'd dispute them.
Regarding the ONE i provided, its easily validated, YOU chose not to, instead alledging the sourc wasn't accurate, when it was.
Next...
I love facts, maybe you can't comprehend those, but I love them it usually makes Libs resort to challenging any link providing, or changing the "rules" as it's really easy to research US Corp Tax rate and find millions of LINKS. I guess instead of DOING that this time, you forgot?
Next...
Fine. You win. My goodness. You know, if this were a real debate, face to face, you'd last about 2 minutes, perhaps less. It's not a real debate; it's a bunch of people sitting behind key boards. We're all a lot tougher at home, alone.
First, you tell me what I'm capable of, and what I'm not. You tell me what I can comprehend and what I cannot. You use the word "Lib" as if it were some sinister being. Fine. And then, though I find this part hilarious, you use the word "Next," as if you just won a legitimate debate, handsdown, when if fact you've only had a conversation with yourself.
This is what your writing tells me: You have a pretty good time listening to yourself, but you have no real intention of listening to anyone else, even when you might learn a thing or two.
Cheers.
Buck, I'd last 2 minutes? Really?
What...I give you a link...instead of YOU researching to validate it's factual nature you instead LIE.
And I wouldn't last? Hell, you had to LIE to enter the discussion, where does that leave you?
Wanna debate...let's roll...any time.
Somehow your words are supposed to threaten me....ooooooo
You might learn a thing or two, if you actually paid a bit more attention to things.
I'd LOVE to debate you..
Economy...
Iraq
You've already proven your only approach is to say my "link" wasn't accurate...yet you present nothing
Why, because, I assume you googled and found out I was right.
So you are right, I do win.
NEXT....
Jerry, I never said you were wrong. You are insistent on misquoting folks.
I said citing Wikipedia does you no favors since it's a site that can be tampered with.
Debate? Hilarious. Jerry, you're constantly having a conversation with yourself. That's not debating.
Okay, you win again. I'm now busting a gut. C'mon, admit it to us all, you're around 16 years old, aren't you?
Be good.
Just so we're clear: Neither Plan closes the deficit (not a big surprise). The difference? The Romney Plan moderately reduces the deficit on the back a of the poor and struggling Middle Class, another shift of wealth to the wealthiest Americans. The Obama Plan partially reduces the deficit by Not shifting wealth to the wealthiest Americans, but not really altering the current gap either.
Neither Plan is great. However, until the economy improves, it makes no sense to increase taxes on the struggling poor and Middle class, when they are the most needy, to allow the wealthiest to play more, retire earlier, and increase power over Legislation,including social agenda.. More money for the very wealthy to donate to Super PAcs.
Who does Romney think he's fooling? The Lemmings that hang on every word from the Right? Yes, plus those that don't bother to listen to unbiased sources. Mostly however, are those that BOW at the alter of Business and Wealth, which is not me, because Big Business is for Big Business and doesn't give a hoot about You.
Jerry
Are you really that clueless?
Are you trying to say US corporations PAY that rate?.....
Dude, perhaps you don't understand that a tax rate has nothing to do with what a company pays.......
Does that make sense??????????..
Are you bitching about a tax rate or what US companies actually pay?.....
Sorry man but I don't deal with people as ignorant as you....I'm used to dealing with net not a paper gross rate...sorry again if that was hard for you to understand....which I'm sure it was.
The one that dosnt give a hoot about you is the Dem party. Proof?
Lets see, Chuckie, Nancy and the rest of the far left claim GOP wants to eliminate jobs and put burdens on the middle class. Lets see here....If the so called greedy wanted to eliminate their customers WHO now have no money to purchase the goods or services of the greedy, then whom pray tell will the greedy sell to? There is no twisting in the wind on this one that at its simplest form shows the Far Left Loons how scare tactic they employ still work on those vulnerable and dependant on the crumbs the Dems give to their followers.
Posting in bold makes you look desperate when you have nothing to say. You know how when kids scream louder when they're angry.
Just trying to help.
Common,
Do you not comprehend WHY Japan lowered their rate?
It wasn't to make me look smart. It was to create an advantage for their country to solicit business. People complain about US sending corps and jobs to China. Their RATE is 25%...
I guess you aren't willing to research or look anything up. I based my statements on FACTS, you merely have some "opinion" that Corps have a "reason" to LIE about why they prefer to go off seas.
You buy they are greedy, I do too. I buy that their greed will make them invest here if they are given REASON.
Do the math...If I make 100,000 and have to pay 25%, I keep $75,000...THAT IS CHINA.
If I make 100,000 and have to pay 38%, I keep $62,000...THAT IS US, PLUS Avg State rate is around 12% MORE....so, roughly an additional 12000...SO after BOTH taxes, I keep $50,000....it's a really simple thing...
It baffles me how you "think" and "suggest" that somehow though the FED RATE is set, that they aren't paying it, when in fact IRS data shows otherwise...But that'd mean you would have to research it.
Better go back to your Xbox...
Plus, I'm pretty much done playing with you today...gotta work tomorrow....
Now, clean your mom's basement...
Ok Jerry
I just read your post that you finally understand that the tax rate means nothing about what US corporations actually pay.
So why do you post that US corporations have the highest rate when they don't pay it?....
What's your point?...
Just complaining for the sake of complaining?..
You just come across as stupid then reverse yourself then explain something different that you actually do understand.
Is your name Romney by chance?.......
Aaahajajajajajajjahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah
WHAT?
NO, you must have had your eyes closed.
Look, I presented the FACT that US corp rates are highest after you LIED and said they weren't.
THEN, you changed your story...suggesting that Companies "wink wink, nod nod" don't "REALLY" pay that, it's just a "number."
FLIP, FLOP.
What...get caught in your own lie and try to change, huh? WOW...Obama Lemming do follow very well.
Oh well, it's been really fun playing you tonight....
Though it felt more like I was a Big cat playing with a little mouse....still fun....
just hope I didn't hurt you too much with facts....I find those really damage Libs quite a bit.
Sorry, I'll try not to slap you around so much next time with all those big bad FACTS...
LOL
You gave up on stating "FOX" when it was obvious, I don't need FOX to tell you the truth...
Typical Lib response...change the discussion...LOL...
Now CLEAN you mom's basement...sheesh...
You mean Mittens is LYING? What a surprise, given the fact that he lies with every breath
moneyos1-Thanks she really is. Those that grew up in the depression and WWII really saw and lived through the real hard times and she is sadden on what her party has become. She still in disbelief how the new Dems really think Obama has done good for all Americans. Just dont tell her you think or thought Regan a good president. She will not talk to you like she did to me for 7 month she was so pissed and yes, she thought Carter not so bad . So if she thinks Carter was a decendent reident and Obama a huge joke, then what does that tell you?????
What does your grandma think of GW Bush?...
That would really say a lot about how smart she is............or isn't
Commom
She hated Bush Jr and thought Bush Sr. was a honest man but again as a life long Dem, she would have never voted for either anyway. Smart, I or her have nothing to prove to you. She has already proved her worth on this world by the tireless charity work, donations large and small to homeless shelters and many other community activities. Unlike the new Dems, she was not talk, but walked the walk for the Working Man. She has given over 26 million dollars in endowments for the jr and Sr high schools music programs and early childhood reading programs and Childhood Aids.
Will all that, she has walked the walk and if she saw what Obama was and was not. What have you done to help your fellow man except bash a president no longer in office. Tell Obama to pt his big boy panties on and lead and if he cant, step down and let another take over..
HOPE,
your last paragraph is the CORE.
Obama isn't a LEADER.
A leader NEVER blames ANYONE else for things, especially the person they replaced, NOR 50% of the constituents.
Bush didn't, Clinton didn't, Bush didn't, Reagan didn't...ALL could have very easily have BLAMED the prior for things, right or wrong in terms of actuality, but a LEADER is MAN/WOMAN enough to say...BLAME is irrelevant, let's FIX it. Obama FIRST speech was nothing more than his platform to blame Republican...thus alienating 1/2 of this Nation. NO POTUS SHOULD EVER do that.
The Teflon made needs to leave office in November, quit blaming Bush and GOP...as it shows he has NO CLUE of Congressional Makeup, or Clinton's actions...
Is it just me or is it sad and pathetic that right wingers hate Obamacare like it was the Nazi party trampling across America and then they nominate .........
THE architect of Obamacare ..........Romneycare was the same thing .......
Is hypocrite the first word in the GOP dictionary?..
Or the only word.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Obama bad....UGH...UGH...
Oh, i can't resist...
You do understand that Romney's health care plan was done for a SINGLE STATE/
Do you NOT comprehend the significant differences in implementation of such a plan at STATE level and Federal Level...If from no other direction than simply State Constitution perspectives? There is a REASON why Cornhusker Kickback, and Louisiana Purchase were needed for ObamaCare to garner enough Democrats to pass...do you not comprehend the difference?
Answer NO...so, back to basics...
Obama bad...
UGH UGH...
Common- Im just having childish fun on your expense. I know nothing anyone states will change your mind and thats ok. I just get a kick out of Libs and by wasting time tonight. Fact is Obama is terrible at his job and needs to be voted out. Will Roms do a better job, dont know, but we do know that Obama has not and time for some Hope and Change in DC.
obama is doing a better job at foreign policy (think iraq and al quada) versus bush, and I don't trust romney in that area either, since mitt seems hell-bent on starting yet another war with iran.
so I can't rate obama as "terrible at his job" given that this is one area that the president has a great deal of control over..as opposed to, say, the economy where congress is part of the picture too.
I get a kick out of obama haters who ignore anything good about his job performance. :)
Hope,
Now quit with the FACTS...
Common will blame GOP, did that with me.
He'll say you are not factual...when you prove you are, he'll say but "that, NEVER" really happens, even though it's FACT.
You know,
Typical Liberal effort to change the story and divert attention from facts, as Libs really like to focus more on
FEELING GOOD and EMOTIONS...
If it makes them "feel good" or is "emotional" that's all that is important.
I've learned, when I truly intend on communicating with Liberals to use the following types of sentence structures, though not grammatically good....
A: Obama GOOD....ugh, guh.
B: Obama BAD...OOOG....OOOG...
C: Obama help me...UGH UGH...
D: OBAMA hurt AMERICA...OOOOOG...OOOOOOG...
Those usually work very well, focusing more on emotions and feelings than factual content and data.
Of course be leary of posting links..then Buck and others will claim the link isn't valid, despite the fact that most have multiple options as links...
So, focus on...OOOOOG....OOOOOOG, and UGGH UGGH...that works better with Libs...
Of course you don't know if Romney wil do a better job.
That would require you to be educated in economics and history......
And of course to know what Romney stands for.
3 things you lack.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
Obama bad...
UGH, UGGH...
We dont know how Roms will be, but we do know that you put your hand on a flame and you will continue to get burned.
Vermont,
Let's see...
In Iraq, Obama continued BUSH plan. How is that "better?"
With Al Queda, he continued Bush Policy to kill Bin Laden, despite his campaign promises...I commend Obama for NOT doing what he said he'd do..great move.
Regarding our position internationally, in terms of Foreign Affairs...we are in WORST positions where it counts in world.
A: China
B: Syria
C: Iran
D: Saudi Arabia
E: Israel
F: Germany
G: Russia
H: Korea
I: Japan
I could list many more. While some of these countries may be like Obama, the policies and things Obama has done have NOT improved our position, they have decreased us.
Sorry, facts who you are way off...
jerry:
the obvious point here is that obama ,for example, would NOT have invaded iraq, as bush stupidly did. He continued bush's policy of FIXING this HUGE blunder, as he should have. Obama is better than bush because he wouldn't have been stupid in the first place like bush was. :)
Obama increased our focus on al quada..more drones, etc..which is better than bush.
Bush was a "cowboy president" who made crazy (stupid) decisions based on "knowing what was right and talking with god". It isn't clear at all that romney is much better, based on his warlike statements about iran. Again, recent history seems to indicate that the GOP loves to use the military in large, costly, stupid wars, and obama is smarter...he understands how to use our military effectively.
sorry, my facts are correct. :)
PS - I can list countries too. lol. doesn't prove a thing.
try again?
vermont,
UH, sorry, wrong.
Democrats supported it just as much as Bush did. Try to LIE out of that.
Al Queda....Drones...yep...good...he was opposed while RUNNING, but continues Bush plan, which DID include INCREASE in DRONE USE.
Do you not comprehend that the increase in DRONES was due to information gathered that Obama was Opposed to, but Bush used?
Oh, also, those DRONE attacks are "MUCH" better than capturing and interrogating...Heck WHY BOTHER with the potential of having a POW die, when we can just KILL them and their families with DRONE attacks.
But hey, Obama supports abortion too, so I guess that makes sense, philosophy wise.
NEXT...
Ok...
Drones have also had SIGNIFICANT negative impact globally by many, not just in Mid East...
LIST THAT...
Great, Venuzuela likes us better...Canada does...wow...
More worries of our position NOW than with Bush for sure...
next...gotta really check out...
So much playing with you, but again, I feel like a cat with a small mouse...slapping you around.
lol, what an ego.
who ordered the iraq invasion? bush. not the dems. Only the CIC can order the troops in. Try to lie your way out of that.
Obama is using more drones than bush. he's focusing more on al quada, for the simple fact that bush got distracted by iraq.
I see you can't prove anything about any of those countries listed. lol.
so much playing iwth you, but again, I feel like a smart person playing with a tiny intellect.slapping you around. :)
But again, the obvious point here (well obvoius to many, but not you) is that the haters who say he is a "terrible" president just plain ignore his foreign policy achievements, by making the same stupid arguments that you did. lol.
there is a reason the GOP is going after obama's economy, and not foreign policy, as hard as they can..because obama is weak in the area of economic achievements, but relatively strong in foreign policy areas. Fixing bush's iraq mistake and decapitating and destroying al quada are two examples of achievements that the GOP must avoid addressing, for example.
Jerry, for goodness sakes, listen, will you? Vermont said Obama would not have invaded Iraq.
You counter with saying Vermont is wrong because Democrats supported that war as much as Bush.
He didn't say "Democrats." He said "Obama" would not have been in favor of that war.
It's really very simple: Quit trying to win the argument and try and have a discussion. You may very well lean a thing or two.
Buckie,
Sorry, I'm done playing with you.
Your earlier, first response proves you aren't interested in meaningful discussion. I have no issue with someone confront my opinion, call me out. No issue whatsoever,
But you my child...you stated my link was wrong, weren't man enough to own that you were wrong, instead opting to sarcastically state I "win" on something that wasn't about "winning" but about owning your own error.
So unless you become something, no need for me to bother with discussion with you.
Regarding Vermont, I have read some of his earlier posts, while I don't agree with "all" I find many to be quite accurate regarding both parties. Seems to have a fairly level perspective, and I have no issue with having different perspectives.
Opinions are free and to each their own Buck, you can have those.
You can't however have your own facts...and when you call someone out on their facts and are wrong, next time MAN UP, or at least quit perpetuating your ignorance
Again, opinions are fine and varied, facts aren't...
Oh...
NEXT.
Oh my, now it's "Buckie."
Hilarious. Thanks for dismissing me, Jerry.
Age? Jerry? Around 16 years old? Am I close?
Stay well, Jerry.
The middle class and poor will pay the same tax rate as the wealthy when they can take all the deductions the wealthy get, which will be never.