Ain't enough millionaires and billionaires

Corporations, employee unions, or any organizations or groups who gather together for the purpose of making money or promoting a cause should not have the same rights granted to a citizen of the United States.

Money and any form financial support given to a political party or individual running for elected office are not a form of speech and should be regulated.

Money and any form financial support given to a political party or individual running for elected office should not be exempt from any tax burden.

All donations of money or financial support given political party or individual running for elected office should be public information with all donors identified.

I will never understand why anyone would support a candidate that has completely flip-flopped on EVERY single issue he has ever supported. Look it up. EVERY ISSUE. Some even in the same week!

Romney - he's not in it for you.

Where are your Taxes Romney? What er you hiding?

Last year, while holding the debt ceiling hostage, the GOP showed that they would even allow defense spending to be cut before they would allow tax rates for the wealthiest 1% to increase. Of course, now they are trying to get out of that decision.

Seeing that MSDNC plays Obama Ads on their website for free ( first read story 4 hours ago ) its clear they have no pretense of impartiality.

But we all knew that. No news here.

I suggest you all google the Scott Brown Ad on the very same subject about Obama thinking business only succeed with governments help. Just take a look at the Ad. You know just for some balance. Or then again, MSDNC could step up and show some journalistic integrity and run a story on the Brown Ad.

Do you think I'll have to wait long to see the Scott Brown Ad on this site? It's probably the most compelling political Ad in the last couple decades. If you want to stay somewhat informed I suggest you look beyond this "front" of a news source.

The GOP plan is clear, they want to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy and raise the taxes on the middle class.

Call Romney and tell him to help the middle class and to STOP helping the wealthy.

Romney knows how to MAKE money. If anyone can get the U.S. out of the disastrous economic mess Obama created, its ROMNEY.

Obama only knows how to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND, and get NOTHING in return. Well, unless you count the highest national debt ever and the 1st credit downgrade in history.

they want to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy and raise the taxes on the middle class.

No. They want to keep the tax policy for everybody.

Who's raising taxes on the middle class????

Germangum....Credit downgrade courtesy of the House Teabilly's. Financial crises courtesy of GOP oriented de-regulation. Magnitude of national debt courtesy of Bush, Cheney and massive tax cut at the same time as two open ended wars and a huge drug benefit for seniors. Stimulus package of Obama credited by all major economists as stopping the downward Bush recession spiral and financial meltdown. You can try and revise history to sleep better at night, but the reality remains.

Wrong Bluecat. This is OBAMA"S ECONOMY. Man-up!

What happened to raising taxes on only the millionaires and billionaires? You are confused. so I will put you in the Republican camp. Democrats only want to RAISE taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Republican only want to raise taxes on the minimum wage people, unemployed people, disabled people, people on Social Security. They do not want to raise taxes on themselves, Mitt Romney, his five boys, Rupert Murdock, Bill Gates, The CEO's of all the Corporations that ripped off the Government and in turn the American people. They don't want to tax that money in the Cayman's, Bermuda, Switzerland, Ireland and wherever else that $21 TRILLION the wealthiest Americans and CORPORATIONS are hiding.

Funny German, recent Economist magazine article (July 14th edition) discusses how strong the U.S. economy is with increased Corporate profits, increased exports and a very strong financial sector with well capitalized Banks. The problem is the growth here is taking place in sectors that do not create a lot of blue collar jobs. Reality is with Mittens even more such jobs would be gone because he would have let GM, Chrysler and all the supporting suppliers go under. No one with any sense believes that the day a president takes office is the day his policies begin. Obama has stopped the downward Bush spiral, created millions of jobs, stabilized the financial sector. Actually quite a lengthy list....

GermanGem: (You should change to GermanPhonyGem, or PhoneyGem, whichever you prefer)

Romney knows how to MAKE money!!

So did Al Capone, Madoff, Wall Street before the meltdown in 2008, and a host of other thieves and gangsters. The only thing Obama is trashing is the hopes of the GOP in November.

Candice...you asked who wants to raise taxes on the middle class?

The answer is...the republicans. Middle class tax cuts they want to end include a child tax credit that saves families an average of $850 a year, as well as an education credit, fixes for the marriage penalty, etc.

http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2012/07/24/gop-in-senate-press-tax-cuts-for-rich-while-letting-those-for-poor-middle-class-expire/

You lie Herr Gem. You lie and distort.

Obama/Biden 2012!

US DebtClock.ORG

You will need to now how to add and subtract which might be an issue for the left.

German, a tax shelter in Burma?, where oh where did you get those funny mushrooms? "Millions" of GM jobs shipped overseas since the bailout, please stop it my sides are hurting....

You lie Herr Gem. You lie and distort.

Obama/Biden 2012!

I read international news all the time and have never read anything like that.If Mr.Romney would have released his tax reports months ago,this would probably be gone.It's his intransigence ,dishonesty and condescension that people dont like.Americans usually like rich people and admire them but he has left a whole lot to be desired with his constant flip flopping ,lies everyone knows are lies,his intent to repeal ACA and defund SS ,medicare and medicaid raise taxes on middle and low income people and lower them for the rich.I see a lot wrong with a man with his stated goals being so secretive.He is on the public stage,you can forget about privacy and now it's going to come faster and hotter than you can imagine because Mr.Romney is going to have another major FAUX PAS and probably mess up some delicate negotiations.Shudder to think.

There you go again "Germ" spouting nonsense, the Myanmar issue is trying to open them up to trade. Closed society for almost 40 years. Get a grip and get your head out of the gnarly old elephant's arse, Bush and War Criminal Cheney gave us a bogus war, costing over 4,000 American lives, and untold civilian deaths. Medicare drug policy not paid for, tax cuts not paid for, Enron debacle, Haliburton and obscene war profits, bank failures, housing collapse, Katrina FEMA mismanagement (heck of a job brownie) Patriot Act, take you away without a warrant, listen in on your phone conversations without a warrant, authorize a little bit more mercury in your drinking water, reduced VA benefits, wall street crimes, too big to fail bailouts, TARP. started fast and furious program the list is endless and Romney was part of that era with the vulture capitalism. No such thing as trickle down economics and most the uber-rich only create paper money wealth nothing tangible. Don't kid yourself, repugs. get full control again the Country will really be in a recession. You and the rest of the haters are just regurgitating same old Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity rants. "If you believe a lie, then its not a lie", there you go Der Germ ignorant elephant.

GermanGem - Bluecat 55 has provided excellent information and backed it up with sources.

Now on to YOUR claims . . . . On July 11, 2012, President Obama eased business restrictions on Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) - "Via five laws and four presidential decrees, U.S. sanctions on Burma up until today included "visa bans, restrictions on financial services, prohibitions of Burmese imported goods, a ban on new investments in Burma, and constraints on U.S. assistance to Burma," according to a February 2012 Congressional Research Service report" (source: .rttnews.com/1921071/u-s-eases-burma-sanctions-in-bid-to-capitalize-on-democratic-reforms.aspx?pageNum=1 )

This was done as a result of democratic changes and human rights progress as evidenced by the release of Noble Peace Prize winner Ann San Suu Kyi and her election as member of the Myanmar government.

Now the specific comment that President Obama "is setting up a new tax shelter for the rich" is false. First, President Obama would be prohibited from doing so under federal conflict of interest laws. Second, the nature of that type of activity by the President would involve violation of multiple financial regulations which could not be hidden as they would be documented by multiple agencies both in Myanmar and the US (the money transfers).

Lastly, if you wish to make a statement like that, how about proving proof to back it up. Bluecat was courteous enough to do so. Surely your innate goodness and desire to show him up would drive you to present a factual arguement.

Gem is a well-known troll.

Romney just won the award for Misleading Man (really, he was given this award).

When Romney is unscripted we see the truth. Let's talk about "values." Romney lacks empathy, has no sense of fair play, or the importance of people being treated with dignity (that POW like McCain knows). Shell games -- that's all Romney knows.

Have you heard the term “gilding the lily?” Romney does this even when he doesn’t have to, because he derives pleasure from it. The sad reality is Romney hasn’t grown much from the time he bullied other boys in school.

Romney is a weak, capitulating, hack job. To quote Rick Perry, Romney would get treated pretty ugly out there by the common folk if he had to leave his gated community.

A lot of hate here, I see. Gem's correct and Bluecat and the gang are wrong. This is most certainly Obama's economy. Any time there's a positive jobs report, Obama takes credit for it. When jobs were created at GM, he took credit for it, even though Congress SCRAPPED his overhaul plan and created their own. He takes credit for anything positive, regardless of whether or not he deserves it (think bin Laden's death), but we're still supposed to blame Bush for all the negative things out there? When is President Obama going to put the whipping boy away and take responsibility for his term in office?

Obama misrepresented things in his quotations as well. You don't 'spend' money by giving the rich tax cuts. That's merely lowering your revenue (in principle. Keep reading, though.) You cut spending by lowering the amount of money going out. Lowering the amount of money coming IN is not cutting spending. But even if it were, lowering taxes on the rich is NOT equivalent to lowering the amount of money coming in. Bush lowered taxes on everyone. In 2006, the top 1% of Americans were paying over $100 billion MORE than they were paying before the tax cuts.

How can this be? It's simple. When the tax rates on income are lower, millionaires are more likely to invest. They invest more and they end up paying MORE net taxes than they would have under higher rates. Think about it this way. Let's say you run a gas station and you're selling gas for 3.50 a gallon. What happens if you raise your price to 30 bucks a gallon? You're charging more, but are you going to make more or less? You'll make nothing, because no one will spend that much when there's other options.

In like manner, raising taxes on the rich only makes them more likely to hoard their money and keep it out of commission, which is the LAST thing you want when you're trying to create jobs.

Tax cuts for the rich mean more jobs and more money in our economy. It's that simple, and the numbers prove it.

Je t'aime TRES TRES beaucoup CubsFan!

TruePatriot, your post is devoid of anything factual and is composed of nothing more than character slams against Romney and GermanGem. If you'd like to conduct a rational debate, take the claims made by the side you disagree with and prove WHY they're wrong. Coming on here only to name-call and shout "I'm right, you're wrong" isn't going to convince very many people.

Turner, after weeding out all the name-calling and vitriol in your post, I was left with two basic contentions from you. The first is the same old "Bush lied, people died" mantra, and the other is about all the terrrrrible spending that Bush did on things like Halliburton.

To start with, Obama makes Bush look like a spending amateur. Obama has spent more in three and a half years than Bush managed to spend in EIGHT. Oh, and Halliburton? I know you hated those so-called sweetheart deals, and I'm sure you were very happy when candidate Obama said he'd put an end to no-bid contracts to places like Halliburton. But how do you explain Obama's no-bid contract he awarded to SIGA technologies worth over 400 million dollars? Worse still, how do you explain the over 500 million dollar no-bid contract he awarded to none other than HALLIBURTON?

As for the boring "Bush lied, people died" deal, here are five quotes from five more "liars" for you if you're that upset about Iraq. I have more than a dozen others, but I don't like making posts that long:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Is that a chapstick in your pocket cubsfan2012 or are you just happy to see faux germangem?

Gem, Yes it has. I prefer discussing our vacation plans or something along those lines. ;)

cubsfan2012, July 13, 2012

I'll be leaving in about 15 minutes, and I won't be on tomorrow. Probably be back Monday night. Do me a favor: if you see Gem tomorrow, ask her if someone made her mad tonight. She seemed like it

cubsfan2012, July 14,2012

↑ How CUTE!

I've got my very own stalker!!!! :-D

Wah wah. At least not ALL of my posts are lame (see # 2.30 above).

snk -- The trolls are notorious for having more than one log-in so they can pretend to have agreement and vote their posts up. But they will get busted, just a matter of time.

I could debate that first part . . .

And now you're accusing me and Gem of being the same person? LOL! If that's the case, I ought to make it into the Guinness book of World Records for fastest typist if I can type this much stuff for you under this name while also typing whatever Gem's typing wherever she is right now.

Just so you know, I've seen liberals make that charge on this site before. What you don't realize is that MSNBC pays attention to those charges and checks them out. They can check the email addresses, Donkey, and can even trace them back to IP servers. But when you make them go to all that trouble and then they find out that the two posters ARE actually two posters, they're usually not to happy with whoever made the trumped up charge in the first place. ;)

I remembered you cubsfan because your posts are so pathetic.

BTW: you do know germangem is a dude, right?

lol, CubsFan we have a stalker honey:)

for the record all you Gem haters, whoever the next president is, it will not affect me, nor do I have any young children. Go for it, bankrupt the country with 4 more years, obama will do it in 3 lol

snk I can assure you that I am ALL woman. I'd post a cleavage shot but I have too much class for that.

GermanGem

ALL politicians have off-shore accounts. Obama is setting up a new tax sheltor for the rich in what used to be Burma. Try reading the WORLD news sometime instead of only MSDNC politics.

Bluecat you are totally misguided. GM shipped millions of jobs overseas AFTER American taxpayers bailed them out.

Dont just post your facts, shows us the link to the world news article???

GermanGem

US DebtClock.ORG

You will need to now how to add and subtract which might be an issue for the left.

How is this for some numbers for you:

1.42 trillion deficit left by Bush. Deficits add to debt.
2009 bush last budget 3.517 trillion dollars... yes 09 was still a Bush budget. But since you are German you wouldn't understand how our government works.
Minus 185 billion for ARRA, thats "Obama spending".

Bush had requested 3.11 trillion dollars for fiscal year 2009
This also included appropriations for the war that weren't plan of the budget, Obama made sure they were added.
In the end we end up with 3.517 trillion budget for 09.
Minus 187 equals 3.332 of total Bush budget for 09 the rest is Obama spending which equals 187 biilion.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Table 1.3

2010 Obama budget 3.456 trillion

2011 Obama budget 3.603 trillion

2012 Obama budget 3.795 trillion

(187 b in 09 for ARRA) + 3.456 + 3.603 + 3.795 = 11041 / 3 = 3.680 trillion dollars average a year.

3.680 minus 3.330 = 350 billion average Obama spending in hes first term every budget.

A total of 1 trillion added to the debt under Obama for 3 budgets. Bush added 6.1 trillion and left a 1.42 trillion deficit.
Left a 1.42 trillion deficit Left
Left a 1.42 trillion deficit Left
Left a 1.42 trillion deficit Left
Left a 1.42 trillion deficit Left
Left a 1.42 trillion deficit Left

The 2013 budget has a deficit of 900 billion. A 520+ billion cut while creating more than 4,000,000 million jobs and a growing economy.
you are an ignorant go back to your fox news or your fake world news

Link to Pelosi spending her money from her offshore investments on a new Jet. And note the '.org' in the address. This ain't some lame source like ChaCha search or Wiki, folks:

://www.panamalaw.org/nancy_pelosi_gets_a_200_seat_jet.html

GermanGem

lol, CubsFan we have a stalker honey:)

for the record all you Gem haters, whoever the next president is, it will not affect me, nor do I have any young children. Go for it, bankrupt the country with 4 more years, obama will do it in 3 lol

snk I can assure you that I am ALL woman. I'd post a cleavage shot but I have too much class for that.

You sure you aint hitlers daughter? It wont affect you that means you aint American. That means that you are really German and i can see why you post such BS.

Gem:

So you're a fat dude too. Congratulations. You still lie and distort Herr Gem.

Obama/Biden 2012!

↑ These, Ladies and Gentlemen, are examples of Liberals trying to be rational . . .

CubsFan2012

Link to Pelosi spending her money from her offshore investments on a new Jet. And note the '.org' in the address. This ain't some lame source like ChaCha search or Wiki, folks:

://www.panamalaw.org/nancy_pelosi_gets_a_200_seat_jet.html

Where in the article does it say she bough that plane form money she had on her offshore bank account? It seems to me like a fake article. The article comes across as if the website had something against Pelosi... Not as a website that actually deals with what the homepage states.

I am American but have a secured future that does not involve or require the U.S. government. I am very fortunate.

Yes CubsFan, its sad.

Its ok to disagree folks, but name calling and personal attacks are not ok.

Don't forget, Gem. You can tell a great deal about a person by looking at the character (or lack thereof) of their enemies.

I'd say you've got a pretty high ranking. ;)

Right back at ya CubsFan:)

btw, thanks for joining me tonight. Vous etes l'amour de mon vie:)

How does one even locate such a BS site as panamalaw? And what a real condemning exposé too! Damn!

Obama/Biden 2012!

Are gem and cubsfan true compassionate conservatives? I think I'm going to hurl.

GermanGem

I am American but have a secured future that does not involve or require the U.S. government. I am very fortunate.

If you were a real American you would understand how this whole economic mess came to be and what started it all. Instead you sit there and blame the president.

This is a huge mess that didn't start in the last 3 years it has been 40 years in the making. It will take as many years to fix it. You are a traitor... When things get though in our great country you choose to pack up and leave. GOOD!!! we don't need people like you.... many of us in here might disagree on many issues but we all do it with only one thing in mind to see our country prosper.

Snk,

Google, dude. I barely bothered to even read the article. I've read the same thing in a dozen other places, including the NY Times and Huffington Post. If you'd like to switch the debate from all the senseless dribble you were concentrating on to the issue of whether or not Pelosi actually has offshore accounts, I'd be happy to oblige and to provide you sources more to your acceptance. Sit tight for a minute while I dig some up. I'd tell you to do it yourself, but most liberals are too lazy to type in something like "Pelosi offshore accounts" in Google and see what they find.

Bitterhawke.

When the Bush Tax cuts expire in January. Every body's taxes will increase by 30% according to a CPA I know. If Obama is saying that those earning less than $250,000 will not have their taxes increase one dime is also saying that taxes will go up on everyone with an Income over $250,000.

Key words here is reading comprehension.

DB Akron

Bitterhawke.

When the Bush Tax cuts expire in January. Every body's taxes will increase by 30% according to a CPA I know. If Obama is saying that those earning less than $250,000 will not have their taxes increase one dime is also saying that taxes will go up on everyone with an Income over $250,000.

Key words here is reading comprehension.

Can you post the link to the CPA????

Alexis,

It's precisely BECAUSE Gem is a true American that she knows what caused this financial mess. I know you'd love to blame Bush, but that game doesn't work anymore. People aren't that stupid. Bush was four years ago. Obama has taken a bad economy and made it WORSE. He told us in 2008 that he was the one who could FIX the problem. So how come he told us that if he couldn't? He even went so far as to tell Matt Lauer that he would be a one-term President if he couldn't fix the economy in THREE YEARS.

TIME'S UP, MR. PRESIDENT. NEXT!

If you truly wanted America to prosper as you so passionately contend, you'd be willing to thoroughly examine both sides of the argument and engage in a rational debate without devolving into petty garbage like Hitler slams against anyone who disagrees with you.

You're only correct about one thing, and that's the fact that we're all Americans. Red, blue, Lib, Rep, or somewhere in between, we're all in this boat together, but THIS BOAT IS GOING DOWN. And the current captain has had three years to get this Titanic away from the iceberg and back to port, but instead, he's hit that iceberg over and over and over and over and over again.

Obama has spent more in three and a half years than Bush spent in eight. You cannot deny that. The stats are out there. It's fact. He promised unemployment would stay below 8%. It went over 10 and is currently 8.2%. He promised blacks jobs. Their unemployment is 14.3%. Everywhere you look, this man has failed.

GIVE ME HIS SUCCESS LIST!

C'mon, I'm serious. Tell me what this guy has done that's so awesome. If you're a typical lib, you'll appeal to two things: "GM's alive and bin Laden's dead." But as usual when you take your talking points from Joe Biden, you'd be wrong on both accounts. GM is only alive because Obama was so generous with our tax money. They still owe BILLIONS no matter what Tom Hanks may coo to you in a documentary. If you take any failing company and give them a few billion dollars that aren't even yours, chances are they'll stay afloat a bit longer. And Juan Gonzalez, the leader of the CIA enhanced interrogations, states in his book Hard Measures that it is BUSH who deserves the credit for bin Laden's death because it was BUSH who was the proponent of the black ops, enhanced interrogations, and water boarding that finally made KSM crack and give us the intelligence we needed.

So here's your shot: What has Obama done that you can be proud of?

Lol, Gem, you're posting French that you haven't taught me yet. ;) But if I had to make a total guess based on some of the Latin roots, I'd guess the last half says "of my life," correct? If that's right, I understand the rest of it too. :)

au contraire alex. I DO know how it started, the LIBERAL AGENDA. The hippies have ruined this country. Whatsmore, I am FAR from alone in giving up. Do you have any idea the LARGE amount of U.S. citizens relinquishing their U.S. citizenship? I don't know the exact number, but its a SERIOUS number. Denise Rich ring a bell? And the co-founder of Facebook? I don't solely blame obama, I blame the liberal agenda of promoting welfare and poverty and chastizing those who work hard and are successful. Its killing America.

thanks for going into detail CubsFan:) Everything you said is also 100% accurate.

Alex

Bush vetoed fiscal 2009 because it was higher than what he asked for. Obama signed all the objectional costly legislation in March 2009. He also added the stimulous package on top.

When Obama signed this stuff, he took possession of it.

Current Deficits Bush 4.98 Trillion in 8 years, Obama 6.0 trillion and counting in 48 months and GROWING!

Gem,

Don't give up yet, Honey. I haven't. Remember the JFK quote I posted awhile back?

CubsFan, ill tell you one thing he has been very successful at, he has made the American people aware of the lies that Republicans are telling them when it comes to taxes and revenues. Every poll that you see out there its a 75 to 25 that people want taxes to go up for the more fortunate in this country. And by the end of this year taxes will go up and he will have the approval of the country.

For 40 years the trickle down theory hasn't worked. 15 trillion and counting proves it.

You even have some Republicans admitting that taxes need to go go back up to Clinton levels in order to balance our budget.

You are right what i said to the German traitor was out of the line. But i cant stand somebody that would think like that.

yes CubsFan, you're translation is correct. I didn't know you knew Latin. I would love to learn it someday.

Think like what alex? I'm a realist dear. The writing is on the wall, or should I say on the DebtClock.

DB Akron

Alex

Bush vetoed fiscal 2009 because it was higher than what he asked for. Obama signed all the objectional costly legislation in March 2009. He also added the stimulous package on top.

When Obama signed this stuff, he took possession of it.

Current Deficits Bush 4.98 Trillion in 8 years, Obama 6.0 trillion and counting in 48 months and GROWING!

HA!!!! The 09 budget is a Obama budget because he added 187 billion for ARRA???? DUDE DO YOU KNOW HOW @%#%#% YOU SOUND SAYING THAT???

The National Debt as of 09/28/2001 = $5,807,463,412,200.06 ... as of his last budget year 09/30/2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75 ... thats a little better than doubling it, or increasing by $6.1 Trillion.

I think you have the 6 trillion backwards....

First off, "You are right what I said to the German traitor was out of line" comes across as just a SMIDGE disingenuous, Alex.

But as for the substance of your post, it's the Left and not the Right that is the party of lies. Why do people want taxes to go up for the rich? Because the Left has lied and told them that's what's best for the country. The numbers speak differently. Bush CUT taxes on the rich (I know you know that because you bash him for it). But what was the net result? The top 1% of the country went from paying around $300 billion in taxes in 2001 to paying over $400 billion in 2006! Scroll down to find my explanation of why that happened. It's lost somewhere in the midst of this madhouse page.

And going back to the Clinton tax levels would be fine and dandy IF you went back to the Clinton levels of SPENDING.

Don't you understand that taxes are not the answer to the debt problem? If you confiscated all the wealth of anyone in the country with over a million bucks, you'd only have enough money to run the government for eleven days. If you gave anyone making over 250K an income tax rate of 100%, you couldn't even pay the interest on the debt for a single year.

The top 50% of our country pays 96% of our taxes. The top 25% pays 83%. The top 10% pays 71%. And the top 1%? They pay over 40%. You can only take so much money from folks, Alex, before they RUN OUT. And the rich will run out LONG before you even make a DENT in the debt.

The answer is to lower spending. Period. And that's what the Republicans feel should be done.

Very cute Alex

asking for a link to my accountant. He's not going to advertise that number, btw it comes from an acountants organinization, NOT HIM.

Currently everyone's taxes goes up 10%. Add to that the loss of the elimination of the marriage penalty. Estimated to cost another $1600 per year to families. The boost of the Child Tax credit - Gone. These also affect the "rich" but not the extent it does to us lower income people. There are some 30 tax breaks and tax cuts that expire in that package. The sum of the business breaks and cuts makes them lose 30% like the families do.

Gem, I actually don't know Latin, but I know a few common Latin roots that are shared in several languages. The reason the last three words of your post are so similar to their Spanish equivalent "de mi vida" is that both languages are Latin in origin. Combinations like 'vid, vis, viv, and vie' usually have something to do with life or living in languages like Spanish, French, and Italian.

But as for your original sentence, Je t'aime, aussi. Tres beaucoup. ;)

I may end up heading off shortly, btw. I'll still be around for a bit, though. :)

GermanGem

yes CubsFan, you're translation is correct. I didn't know you knew Latin. I would love to learn it someday.

Think like what alex? I'm a realist dear.

If you were a realist you would understand how this whole mess came to be...

Obama laid out hes plan for the country back in 2008 and what happened in the last 3 months of 08??? 1929 dejavu all over again.

I remember when i was in middle school i learned about the Great Depression. I read the grapes of wrath and i though to myself wow those people back then had it tough. And now look our country.... people are facing the same problems they had back in 1929. World war two took the country out of the depression and that was after 15 years. Its been 3 years and you guys are asking why Obama hasn't fix it.

The rich ARE running out- of the country. Guess who will be left to pick up the tab? Thats right- the middle class and their children, and their children...

Cubsfan, you are VERY smart and a quick learner. Hope it rubs off on me:)

Alex, you left out a bit of your history lesson. Who was in charge for most of the Depression? FDR. The guy who started all the socialist progressive programs that Obama's trying to use now. Have you read "The Forgotten Man"? If not, read it. FDR prolonged the Depression, just like Obama has prolonged the recession.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Gem. You're overrating again. You're easily as adept of a poster and as intelligent as anyone, including myself.

Are you one of those neo-nazi's?

The RICH are running out. You guys are posting too fast for me!:)

omg, neonazi? lol! I'm half italian peaches, I don't think they would accept me lol.

Dude, IF Obama hadn't added spending to fiscal 2009, I would agree with you, but he didn't. He added, and not only that signed what Bush refused to sign.

jan 2001 to Jan 2009 is 4.98 Trillion in deficits. That includes $150 Billion Democrats added to TARP. That includes $300 Billion in TARP that was paid back in Fiscal 2010. That includes $200 billion for both Fiscal 2009 & 2008 that Bush did not request that a democratic controlled congress added.

You are trying to minimize what Obama and the Democrats in congress have done at the expense of the other party.

You cannot charge Bush with what he refused to sign. It is truly disengenuous and unfair. But then, that is progressive 101 these days.

Oh, joy of joys . . . Cuddles has arrived. Pay attention everyone. The talking Koala will now impart some of his wisdom on us. Along with a few insults, idiotic questions, and a dash of sheer nonsense.

The top 50% of our country pays 96% of our taxes. The top 25% pays 83%. The top 10% pays 71%. And the top 1%? They pay over 40%. You can only take so much money from folks, Alex, before they RUN OUT. And the rich will run out LONG before you even make a DENT in the debt.

The answer is to lower spending. Period. And that's what the Republicans feel should be done.

When Bush took over spending was at 1.9 trillion and when he left 3.5 trillion.

1.6 added in spending.

Obama took over at 3.5 and has gone up to 3.8.

Now that we have a democrat in congress..... now you guys want to cut spending.

Sometimes i feel like this whole thing was done on purpose.... You create this whole economic mess (Bush) and get a Democrat in and blame him for all the spending (Bush spending) and then your solution for all this is to cut SS and Medicare and cut discretionary spending in half (the Ryan plan).

Obama will expose the Ryan plan for what it is before the election you can count on that.

Alex, you're clearly running out of ideas. You're no longer responding to what you're quoting. You're just quoting and then presenting a short argument about why you think you're right. You just breezed through the stats about how much the rich pay and moved on to yet another issue. Sigh. You're wearing me out, here, dude.

Amount added to the national debt by Bush: Roughly five trillion.

Amount added to the national debt by Obama: Roughly six trillion.

Amount of time Bush took: Eight years.

Amount of time Obama took: three and a half years.

Amount added per year by Bush on avg: 625 billion

Amount added per year by Obama on avg: nearly 2 trillion. (That's 2000 billion)

Capiche?

DB Akron

Dude, IF Obama hadn't added spending to fiscal 2009, I would agree with you, but he didn't. He added, and not only that signed what Bush refused to sign.

jan 2001 to Jan 2009 is 4.98 Trillion in deficits. That includes $150 Billion Democrats added to TARP. That includes $300 Billion in TARP that was paid back in Fiscal 2010. That includes $200 billion for both Fiscal 2009 & 2008 that Bush did not request that a democratic controlled congress added.

You are trying to minimize what Obama and the Democrats in congress have done at the expense of the other party.

You cannot charge Bush with what he refused to sign. It is truly disengenuous and unfair. But then, that is progressive 101 these days.

Dude, you lie to yourself. 09 is a Bush budget. Obama added 187 for ARRA nothing else. The reason Bush refused to sign the 09 budget was because Democrats wanted to add war spending in there and Bush refuse. Remember he vetoed the budget. Obama added the war spending and it came to be a 1.42 trillion deficit. that's what Bush was hiding.

Im going to look in my bookmarks for some kinks for you.

I'll be leaving in a second, Gem. Je t'aime. :) I'll be back on tomorrow. Hopefully we'll find a better crowd tomorrow!

But at least Alex is being decent now and turner, TruePatriot and most of the other loud mouths left! :D

CubsFan2012

Alex, you're clearly running out of ideas. You're no longer responding to what you're quoting. You're just quoting and then presenting a short argument about why you think you're right. You just breezed through the stats about how much the rich pay and moved on to yet another issue. Sigh. You're wearing me out, here, dude.

Amount added to the national debt by Bush: Roughly five trillion.

Amount added to the national debt by Obama: Roughly six trillion.

Amount of time Bush took: Eight years.

Amount of time Obama took: three and a half years.

Amount added per year by Bush on avg: 625 billion

Amount added per year by Obama on avg: nearly 2 trillion. (That's 2000 billion)

Capiche?

You actually think that when A president comes into office he signs the new budget that same month? You are wrong!!!!!

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

Read the first sentence.

You told me to scroll down to find your post in this madhouse. Didn't find it yet... jeessh relax.

Great talkin' with ya CubsFan. See you tomorrow:) I'm sigining off too:)

Good night alex. Glad we got a better discussion going as we continued on:)

Alex, you're clearly running out of ideas. You're no longer responding to what you're quoting. You're just quoting and then presenting a short argument about why you think you're right. You just breezed through the stats about how much the rich pay and moved on to yet another issue. Sigh. You're wearing me out, here, dude.

Amount added to the national debt by Bush: Roughly five trillion.

Amount added to the national debt by Obama: Roughly six trillion.

Amount of time Bush took: Eight years.

Amount of time Obama took: three and a half years.

Amount added per year by Bush on avg: 625 billion

Amount added per year by Obama on avg: nearly 2 trillion. (That's 2000 billion)

Capiche?

I know you left already, but here is another way of how you can look to who the 09 budget belongs to.

Obama has signed a 10, 11, and 12 budgets and he has to give hes next budget for 2013 in October. So you are telling me that he will do 5 budgets in a 4 year term? huh? it doesn't compute. just because he added money for ARRA it doesn't mean the whole 09 budget belongs to him.

That goes for you too DB....

Alex

The great Depression didnt have to be so great a depression. Obama and Bernanke are following Roosevelt & Hoover. Roosevelt doubled what Hoover did in 1932 which was public works projects. Despite those efforts we still didn't hit bottom until 1934.

The only significant change in policy in 1934 was that the Smoot - Hawley Tariff act of 1930 did not have another major installment. We were in trouble because finance was bankrupt from the crash in 1929, then we started playing with tariffs in order to protect American jobs. Hoover only asked for farm products, but congress decided that industries needed protection too. That protectionism caused foreign countries to boycott American products causing inventories to swell faster and lay-offs to accellerate.

Democrats treat the economy like there were not problems before 1929, but there were several depressions and recessions in our first 150 years, and NONE were as bad or as long as the Great Depression. The closest to our situation is the depression from 1920 - 1923. Lasted 36 months - thats it. Unemployment rose quickly like ours did in 2008. This depression was brought on by a huge expanision of government spending fronm 1916 where a budget was 720 million to 18.5 Billion in 1919. 1916 was a balanced budget.

Every budget after was a deficit despite raising taxes from a revenue of 720 million to 6.6 Billion in 1920. 1920 started with about 4-5% unemployment and by December that number was between 9.5 & 12% depending upon source.

Yes, Republicans cut the Budget from 18.5 Billion to 6.3 Billion in 1920. Most of the cuts were cutting military and no more spending huge sums on foreign aid (rebuilding Europe) and no more money to creating the league of nations. But the layoffs were dominated by factories closing their doors. They were losing money, because taxes were high and demand for products dropped quickly.

By 1923 Republicans had the budget cut to about 3.1 billion with taxes cut to about 3.8 billion to pay down the debt from the teens. The economy had recovered and unemployment had returned to the 1919 level of 4 - 5%.

There are several differences between now and then. First we have created huge entitlements, in 1920's they did not exist. They are about impossible to control. Second, republicans can get tax cuts, but they can no longer get spending cuts because no one wants what they have been promised to be cut - just like Greece.

We have a spending problem that trying increasing revenue by increasing taxes will only make matters worse. We have to find ways to keep the benefit levels at the same level while cutting costs. This can be done. And we better do it, because those of us getting closer to retirement age will have no retirement to retire to.

Soley trusting Democrats is not going to work. They don't see the programs as a spending problem, they see the deficits as a revenue problem. Over-Taxing is a burden that weakens the very people who are supplying until they give up producing. Our only way out is to encourage production, not take more of the profits.

DB, what happened in 2011 then? Democrats wanted 4 to 1 cuts to revenue. Boner wanted the deal because it dealt with reforming entitlements, defense, and discretionary spending. It was a good plan.. what happened???
Seems like you understand why we cant cut spending now at the levels republicans want. It will lower our gdp, even Romney has said this will happen.
Do you really want the Ryan plan to go through? because let me tell you it will destroy SS and Medicare. I think we all agree that they need to be reformed.

Obama wanted 4 dollars in cuts with one dollar in revenue. I think Obama and democrats understands what you said in your last paragraph. In the 1950 and 1960 taxes for the super rich were 90% above a certain amount. Because of that in the 1950s and 1960s we had the biggest middle class in the history of the world. And it worked. Now they are around 30% and look at our deficit? And even at 30% people like Romney pay less than 14% with loopholes and deductions.
Also you have to remember that revenue went down not because of tax cuts but because the economy slowed down. In 2009 alone 600 billion was lost in tax revenue. Subtract that from the 1.42 trillion deficit and you have a 800 billion deficit. Subtract the wars??

Lets say we cut discretionary spending in half... that wont even bring our deficit in half. On top of all that you will destroy all the things that make this country the best in the world.

What we need is to reform entitlements, cut some defense spending, and discretionary spending. And get revenues back to Clinton levels. Now i know there's people that say that if we get taxes back to Clinton levels that we should cut spending to Clinton levels too. that does not work because in the 1990s there was 250 million people in America. we have 310 million now.

When the tax cuts expire in December taxes will back to those levels and then maybe we can get some kind of deal before the lame duck session is over to cut spending in some areas.

Hopefully republicans wont add the pipeline bill in there again and derail the whole thing again.

Lies? Who mentioned Lies? Lying to oneself is Bad... too bad it's the accuser that is doing it.

There has been NO BUDGET since Obama was elected.

How do you sign something that does not exist?

Obam Cultist Fake Liberals (like Alex) like to blame the 09 spending on Bush.

Often they cite articles detailing what was in the 09 budget that Bush presented to congress.

I have explained this, personally, to Alex on prior threads.

Alex, even while he pretends, knows what I am about to say is the truth.

THE 2009 BUSH BUDGET NEVER PASSED!!!!

See, Obama was on his way in, and the dems had the House and the Senate. They wanted to wait for Obama, then all do a budget together.

Sad Fail.

We're still waitng, 3+ years later.

For all you sad fail low info voters... The Budget CANNOT BE FILIBUSTERED, so spare me your arguments about the mean republicans.

So, the DEMOCRATS passed a continuing resolution to fund the govt thru March 6th 2009.

Face it. The 2009 spending is all on Obama. Spin away, but the truth still sticks.

Here is a link to the 09 CRA that proves the truth of my words.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.02638:

Heads Up Alex!

Obama has NEVER signed a Budget.

Ok alil... explain how Obama would have passed 5 budgets in hes first term then?

The 09 budget is a Bush budget... he requested 3.1 trillion in spending. Democrats added the War spending in there and it came to more than 3.3 trillion dollars, all ObamA added was the spending for ARRA AND THATS IT... Spin it all you want its the truth man.

Even if congress does not pass a budget it doesn't mean the money doesn't get spent it stills gets spent.

Bush submitted hes budget to congress in oct 1st 2008 for fiscal year 2009 which ended in oct 1st 2009.

The reason democrats waited for Obama is because Bush was trying to hide the war costs and revenue losses for 2008 (he vetoed the budget) which totaled about 600 billion dollars. In the end we end up with a 1.42 trillion deficit.

Tell us then if you are sure its an Obama budget in 2009 what kind of spending Obama added in there???

One thing we agree is that Bush requested 3.1 trillion RIGHT???

Go back to pass budgets and tell me when was the last time a president requested a certain amount and got that amount or lower than what he requested??? It has never happened..... Its always been higher. So you are telling me that Bush requested 3.1 trillion and that's what he got?

Also Look at what was requested and how much total revenue Bush budget had predicted it will take in?

IT HAD 2.7 TRILLION REQUESTED IN REVENUES, BUT THE TOTAL FOR THAT BUDGET WAS 2.1 TRILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A 600 BILLION LOSS BECAUSE OF THE 2008 ECONOMIC DOWNTURN...

LEARN HOW TO DO SOME MATH MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And last but not least the 2009 budget was sent to congress in February 4 2008. SO TELL ME AGAIN HOW IS THAT NOT A BUSH BUDGET??

JAJAJAJAJA!!! OBAMA WITH 5 BUDGETS JUST BECAUSE YOU GUYS SAY SO.

187 billion is all Obama added to the 09 budget.

Tax cuts and wars how did Bush not pay for those in the 09 year budget? Do they magically become Obama's spending???

The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.

After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

When Obama came into office he made sure along with Democrats that all the Bush spending was added into there, including the revenue losses for 2008 and 2009. Thats why when Bush sent hes budget he had a 500 billion deficit ONLY. Obama comes in and makes sure that real numbers are added into there. And we end up with a 1.42 trillion deficit.

You lie my friend.

but dont worry Obama will make sure the people know this in the debates. he has already hinted that he will mention some of this hes doing it the campaign.

Obama with 5 budgets????jajajajajajaja!!!!!

Alil Common Sense

Heads Up Alex!

Obama has NEVER signed a Budget.

You think the founding fathers didn't think this will happen where the 2 sides could not agree on the budget?? Just because one side doesn't want a budget it doesn't mean one doesn't get passed.

republicans wanted to only agree with a budget with the president if they added a balanced budget amendment in there.... YEAH RIGHT!!!! that would have destroyed the economy. austerity does not work.

I cant believe people in here they are changing the constitution just to make a failed point.

Obama with 5 budgets... yeah right..

GEM

You are 100% correct. They can't handle it.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

“Since my time running for office, I made it clear that my administration would be unrivaled in our aggressive support for the development of renewable sources of energy in New Jersey,” Christie said in a statement. “Renewable energy not only helps meet our goals of increasing sustainability and protecting the environment, but can be an engine for economic growth and the creation of good-paying jobs for the people of our state.”

“The bill I am signing today furthers these goals and will help us remain a national leader in the solar energy industry as we continue to promote innovative approaches to solar development, like developing landfills and other unusable lands and transforming them into sources of usable clean energy, all while holding down costs for families and businesses,” he added.

So I guess it's OK for Christie, a Republican, to endorse alternative energies, primarily solar, but if Democrats do it, they are wasting money?

Keep in mind if an agreement is not met the tax rates for EVERYBODY go up. So Democrats have one of two choices: Pass the House Bill that says all tax rates stay the same for 12 more months - or not..........

Simple really: If tax rates go up it is the Democrats fault. They have the ability to extend the CURRENT tax rates or the ability to NOT extend the CURRENT tax rates which will raise taxes on everybody including the lower and middle classes.

Always amazes me how Democrats say they are FOR the lower and middle class but will punish the lower and middle classes just to make sure they punish the wealthy too. Republicans want to make sure the lower and middle class DON'T get their taxes raised and it is the Democrats that are BLOCKING that and want to make sure everybody's taxes go UP?? Go figure..........

This is nothing but political posturing. Why are the "rich" now defined as households with incomes over $250K, why is the tax "cut" only extended for one year and not made permanent? The answer is simple the governments insatiable appetite for money will not be fed by raising taxes on the "rich" or even confiscating the assets of the "rich" it will become the responsibility of everyone else to pay the bill that is coming due sooner than later. The scary thing is now could be the "good old days" in the future if we keep up our irresponsible spending. I hope not.

ProBusiness

Keep in mind if an agreement is not met the tax rates for EVERYBODY go up. So Democrats have one of two choices: Pass the House Bill that says all tax rates stay the same for 12 more months - or not..........

Simple really: If tax rates go up it is the Democrats fault. They have the ability to extend the CURRENT tax rates or the ability to NOT extend the CURRENT tax rates which will raise taxes on everybody including the lower and middle classes.

Always amazes me how Democrats say they are FOR the lower and middle class but will punish the lower and middle classes just to make sure they punish the wealthy too. Republicans want to make sure the lower and middle class DON'T get their taxes raised and it is the Democrats that are BLOCKING that and want to make sure everybody's taxes go UP?? Go figure..........

I think you have all this wrong. Taxes will expire at the end of the year no matter who wins... remember that hey were made to expire without congress help.

That same day they expire Democrats will introduce a bill in which tax rates for the middle class are lowered. Tell me how in the $@$# are Republicans going to block that? It will destroy them.

What the president is doing today is to show the American people what the Republicans will do to protect their rich donors.

remember that polls are 75 to 25 in raising the taxes on the more fortunate.

Obama ran hes 2008 campaign with the idea of taxes going up for people making over 250,000. And he still won by more almost 70,000,000 votes 11,000,000 more than MaCain.

Carlos Toadvine

This is nothing but political posturing. Why are the "rich" now defined as households with incomes over $250K, why is the tax "cut" only extended for one year and not made permanent? The answer is simple the governments insatiable appetite for money will not be fed by raising taxes on the "rich" or even confiscating the assets of the "rich" it will become the responsibility of everyone else to pay the bill that is coming due sooner than later. The scary thing is now could be the "good old days" in the future if we keep up our irresponsible spending. I hope not.

When Bush took over in 2000 spending levels were at 1.9 trillion a year.

When Bush left in January 2009 spending levels were at 3.5 trillion dollars.

1.6 trillion increase.

When Obama took over spending at 3.5 trillion The 2013 budget calls for 3.8 trillion in spending. Most economist agree that low spending by Obama is the reason the economy is slowly recovering. You know that right??

Obama has kept spending at the lowest levels since Clinton and beyond. Now its time for revenues to go back up.

People ARRA did not get spent fully in 2009........

A lot of you seem to think that the reason we have such a huge deficit is because Obama spent the full 800 billion stimulus in 2009????

WRONG!!!!!

All that money will be spent between 2009 and 2019.

On top of all that 288 billion were tax cuts for all Americans.... on top of the Bush tax cuts. The lowest tax rates in 50+ years.

Clearly Obama spending all that money is not the problem, its a revenue problem.

• Elkhart Indiana resident Scott Ferguson asked, "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy."
• Response: "First of all, he's right. Normally you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we've instead cut taxes. So I guess what I'd say to Scott is - his economics are right. You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession."

President Barack Obama, August 2009

Mark-390433

• Elkhart Indiana resident Scott Ferguson asked, "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy."
• Response: "First of all, he's right. Normally you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we've instead cut taxes. So I guess what I'd say to Scott is - his economics are right. You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession."

President Barack Obama, August 2009

taxes were supposed to expire in December 2010 and didn't... Your comment proves that Obama meant what he said. We are not in a recession anymore.

alex cali -

You should tell the 8% + unemployed folks out there that we're not in a recession anymore. I think they'd disagree.

Hey alex, I think it is absolutely amazing that the in 2007 Democrats knew that Barack Obama would be President . . . at least according to Alil 's post about HR 2638 where he said " See, Obama was on his way in, and the dems had the House and the Senate. They wanted to wait for Obama, then all do a budget together."

Even more amazing since it was passed into law and signed in August of 2008. You wouldn't think that a Republican President would give in like that knowing "that Obama was on his way in."

Check the "congressional action dates on his link

No more taxes! For increased revenue try a FAIR flat tax, everybody pays, everybodt has skin in the game, no tricks nor gimmics.

Even Nancy Pelosi would be required to pay her "fair " share, including all her offshore accounts and companies taking away US jobs. Funny how they pick on Mitt and give Nancy a pass. remenber, she made alot of her money on "inside information". can we see nancy's tax returns?

Here we go again. Inflammatory speech instead of actual work. Hey Mr President, why not go talk to the Congress, sit down and talk, rather than publicly inflame the issue?

Seems to me the party holding hostages is the Democrat party, with dozens of bills Prince Harry refuses to bring to a vote, and a President that has spent more time golfing than working on our economy.

This President has not a clue as to what real leadership is, or how to lead people with values.

Here's the message all you on the left - we don't trust DC to ever reign in spending, and we have a 60 year history to stand on. We don't trust Republicans. we don't trust Democrats, we don't trust bureaucrats.

How about the federal government actually cut 10% in real actual spending across every department, from defense to welfare. 10% - I've been forced to cut 64% from my budget due to job losses and a substantially lower income and these criminals refuse to cut a dime in ACTUAL SPENDING.

So this is why we oppose the liar in the White House and all the liars in Congress. They lie, they enrich themselves, and then they lie some more.

Obama is playing politics with the tax increases. He has turned into such a politician, completely different than the candidate I voted for in 2008.

Romney isn't my first choice, but Obama doesn't seem to be getting anywhere with this economy. A good President with some leadership skills would have had us well on the road to recovery by now.

90% of what Obama has done means little to me. I need a better economy, and Obama has shown he isn't the guy to do it. I'm voting for a change in November.

Where is obummer and uncle joe's budget? Uncle Harry and the dems in the senate haven't produced a budget to be voted on in three years and all of a sudden barack is concerned about the potential for being unseated because of the state of the economy.

He isn't worried about his budget being passed but he is worried about the taxing of his constituents. Maybe a tax increase would benefit him. There would be more money to spend. We know he won't use the revenue to pay down debt.

Alex Cali, we are not technically in a recession but ask Americans how they feel about the economy and except for the bean counters sure feels like a recession. No jobs, foreclosures, massive debt, stagnant economy.....yeah, no recession. Obama just playing with words.

Why is it that when we can't live within our means we simply try and raise more revenue (taxes). Here is a simple idea......stop spending so much damn money. Isn't that what Amercians households do when they run out of money.

Liars don't figure, and republicans lie. See, things were so crappy under Shrub Jr. and try as the right may they can't escape the turd they laid. The budget was not increased by Obama in 09 and the Feds budget for the NEXT YEAR so indeed 09 belongs to the GOP. In addition they didn't include the wars in the budget, so Obama added them instead of supplemental appropriations. You all remember that war that was going to paid for by Iraqi oil. Now the economy takes a major dump and in addition to 600 billion in lost revenue (even at Bush tax rates), add the systemic deficits from the continuing Bush tax cuts, and increased spending (which had McCain been elected he couldn't have done anything about) for all the displaced workers in UUI and the deficit increased. So one more time, the deficit went up, not because of some new policy put in place by Obama, but by policies pre-dating his term. The only new spending was in the stimulus, 1/3 of which was tax cuts(you all love to pass that over), 1/3 of which went to red and blue states alike to keep schools, fire stations and police departments , and provide medical care for those thrown away by the near depression the right hoisted on the rest of us. Most reasonable economists say the stimulus did what it was supposed to do which was to end the downward spiral. This downward spiral is what caused the last Republican administered depression in 29.

Finally, kiss my A.. you lying sacks, if you were concerned about spending and deficits you wouldn't have re-elected Shrub Jr. Faux concern from Faux news.

CubsFan2012

Obama misrepresented things in his quotations as well. You don't 'spend' money by giving the rich tax cuts. That's merely lowering your revenue (in principle. Keep reading, though.) You cut spending by lowering the amount of money going out. Lowering the amount of money coming IN is not cutting spending. But even if it were, lowering taxes on the rich is NOT equivalent to lowering the amount of money coming in. Bush lowered taxes on everyone. In 2006, the top 1% of Americans were paying over $100 billion MORE than they were paying before the tax cuts.

How can this be? It's simple. When the tax rates on income are lower, millionaires are more likely to invest. They invest more and they end up paying MORE net taxes than they would have under higher rates. Think about it this way. Let's say you run a gas station and you're selling gas for 3.50 a gallon. What happens if you raise your price to 30 bucks a gallon? You're charging more, but are you going to make more or less? You'll make nothing, because no one will spend that much when there's other options.

The rich did invest the money that the got in the tax cuts; but their income was already rising by a substantial amount; the tax break was just an extra bonus. They spent more money because the current government policy of cutting taxes and regulations has fostered a massive expansion of the 1%'s ownership of wealth and income in America. And you fail to mention that 2006 was the peak of the HOUSING BUBBLE, which artificially expanded the economy and increased federal revenues. This artificial increase created an artificial deficit reduction that collapsed thanks to the housing bubble.

In like manner, raising taxes on the rich only makes them more likely to hoard their money and keep it out of commission, which is the LAST thing you want when you're trying to create jobs.

Oh bull@!$%#; that is what they are doing right now. Corporations are hoarding $2 trillion every year in offshore tax havens just to avoid federal taxes, even though the effective corporate tax rate is far lower than the 35% marginal rate, thanks to loopholes. And how the hell do we know that they will return their money if we lower taxes???? They already pay a lot lower than the 35% statutory rate...

Tax cuts for the rich mean more jobs and more money in our economy. It's that simple, and the numbers prove it.

FALSE: tax cuts for the rich equals more financial investments to create wealth and more income inequality, NOT more economic investments that create jobs and less income inequality. The rich do not create jobs; the consumer (i.e. the middle class) create jobs. Demand creates jobs by requiring higher production capacity, which often requires more employees. Supply only creates jobs as long as investors can afford to; if I create 100,000 Mac computers and hire 40 people to manage them, I will have to fire them if the demand for Macs falls significantly. Only demand can create permanent jobs; supply does not.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

CubsFan2012

And going back to the Clinton tax levels would be fine and dandy IF you went back to the Clinton levels of SPENDING.

Actually, going back to the Clinton tax levels would be fine and dandy even with current spending levels, as $4 trillion would flood into Treasury coffers. That would essentially remove half of the deficits over the next decade and, along with the sequester cuts, would lower debt to GDP levels. I believe you are leaving out inflation and economic growth in your equation....

Don't you understand that taxes are not the answer to the debt problem? If you confiscated all the wealth of anyone in the country with over a million bucks, you'd only have enough money to run the government for eleven days. If you gave anyone making over 250K an income tax rate of 100%, you couldn't even pay the interest on the debt for a single year.

Actually, assuming that you are talking about the top 0.1% of Americans, the money raised by enacting a 100% effective tax rate on them eliminate the 2012 federal budget deficit entirely and even raise a $250 billion surplus. As for the $250k mark, I'll move it up to $368k to give you some help; but if we took all of their income, we would raise approximately $2.8 trillion a year in higher revenues; roughly equal to current levels and effectively doubling total revenues.

The top 50% of our country pays 96% of our taxes. The top 25% pays 83%. The top 10% pays 71%. And the top 1%? They pay over 40%. You can only take so much money from folks, Alex, before they RUN OUT. And the rich will run out LONG before you even make a DENT in the debt.

Actually, the top 20% of Americans pay only 62% of the taxes in the United States, so the tax rates for the top 10% and the top 1% would be much lower. And they pay more only because they own more of the wealth AND income than the rest of us; this is what happens when you cut taxes for the wealthy and deregulate the financial sector.

The answer is to lower spending. Period. And that's what the Republicans feel should be done.

You do realize that even if we cut the federal budget by 10% (or about $380 billion in 2012 and gradually less over the next decade) over the next 10 years, we would only eliminate half of the deficit; we'd need to ax 20% to balance the budget. Now, if you followed a more balanced approach, say repealing the Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE and allowing the sequester cuts to happen, we would achieve roughly $5 trillion, and reduce the deficit to about $2 trillion. Mathematically, the only way to reduce the deficit without touching defense or the tax code, you'd have to cut the non-defense discretionary budget in half and make severe cuts in entitlements. Now, if you put taxes into the equation, you wouldn't have to make such draconian cuts. And that's what Democrats feel we should do.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

If one is going to play the blame game then both parties are to blame. If the President is really serious about not raising taxes on the middle class then he should push for repeal of the health care law.

I want to know how the President is going to perform the economic magic that he promised. Without conditions to include any act of congress, the President promised that the 2012 federal deficit would not exceed 229.27 billion dollars yet his own White House is predicting that the 2012 federal deficit will exceed 1.3 trillion dollars. I estimate that this additional trillion dollars plus will end up costing the tax payers more than 9 trillion dollars to repay it in 170 years. I want the President to explain how he is going to keep his promise to the American people.

The President needs to be reminded of some words of wisdom that were spoken back in March of 2006. The words were as true then as they are today.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Alex in Cali - WTF you talking about? Please explain to me where you think I said Obama signed 5 budgets. As I clearly stated, Obama has never signed a budget. How can we control our spending if they don't even have ANY PLAN???? And as you know, the budget cannot be filibustered.

And

Matthew, as you can clearly see from my link, a CRA was indeed passed. Clearly, the PROPOSED Bush budget did NOT pass.

All of 2009 spending is on the democrats!

Spin all you want, but it changes nothing.

The dems had enough votes to overide a veto, and everyone knew that the dems were going to win - it was just a matter of Hilary or Obama.

You guys need to read more about this man you support. I warn you though... once you wander off the approved Obama propoganda sites, you might come face to face with some unpleasant truths...

Naw. You'll just ignore them, lols.

In the constitution of the United States it states:

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Such a bill originating in the Senate is definitely not constitutional so it should not even be considered.

alex cali "The 09 budget is a Bush budget... he requested 3.1 trillion in spending. Democrats added the War spending in there and it came to more than 3.3 trillion dollars, all ObamA added was the spending for ARRA AND THATS IT... Spin it all you want its the truth man."

Absolutely false. The Democratic Congress (Reid & Pelosi) refused to pass a 2009 fiscal Budget, hoping Obama would win and they could pass a Budget without spending restrictions, so Bush only signed a 'Continuing Resolution' on September 30, 2008 to fund government operations that merely authorized spending for fiscal 2009 at the same level as for 2008 for most operations. Virtually all of the huge spending increase for 2009 was from the big spending programs passed by Obama and his Democratic Congress shortly after Obama took office. Here's a link to prove what I say is true;

https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/washhigh/highlights2008/159056/president_signs_spending_bill.html

Obama finally signed a 'Budget' for 2009 in early March 2009 - AFTER he passed the 'Stimulus' and 'Porkulus' bills. Trying to 'blame Bush' for the huge increase in the 2009 Deficit is just one more example of Obama & Company trying to shift the blame for their failures.

More bad news for Obama;

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting 49% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%."

This is among 'Likely Voters', which is far more accurate than polls of 'Registered Voters'. Rasmussen was perhaps the most accurate pollster for the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections, with an average error of only about 1%.

Roy the funniest part was when they tried to blame 09 on Bush, then compare Obama's spending to 09 as a % of GDP to prove that..... Obama spent less than Bush! Lols for days!

GermanGem!

J'etador Ma Biche!

Gotta keep those secret accounts secret........

Republicans want to "broaden the base" code for raising taxes on the middle class and the poor.

Vote Obama/Biden 2012

Yes fellas, lets BANKRUPT the country by re-electing a FAILURE.

The liberal agenda is DESTROYING America- LOOK AT CALIFORNIA!

Prop 13 (another conservative tax oriented disaster) started the problems in California. Both sides to blame, no simple answers. Complexity doesn't fit in with Fox News vitriolic shouting, but there it is.

California is a liberal cesspool.

California has economic issues due to Proposition 13 which "fixed" property taxes so that they could only increase by a maximum of 2% per year. Unfortunately this 2% didn't even keep up with inflation rates, nor did it take into consideration increased fuel costs, health care, educational costs, extension of infrastructure, operational expenses, maintenance, etc.

It is a case of where revenue coming into the state was incapable of sustaining levels of service even equivalent to what was going on in 1978 much less what is mandated by California state code.

Prop 13 was not a liberal agenda, it was started by Howard Jarvis who is very conservative and predated Grover Norquist with his anti-tax rhetoric. As of 2010, he was still active in California politics.

Thank you Mathew for your insightful information, I lived in California at the time. What a disaster Prop 13 has been. Thank you German for your well thought out contribution as well, but you may want to be careful with the picture, your comments, and dumb blonde jokes....just sayin....

Yeah, over spending on public union jobs and pensions has nothing to do with it.

Hey, phoneyGerman: I am looking at California, where the Republican Shwartengenththgeringshapes left the state on the canvas.

When you say cesspool, are talking about your abode?

Brown and Pelosi are the King and Queen of California. Arnold was married to a Kennedy. Do the math.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate-passed bills to cut farm subsidies and food stamps and overhaul the financially teetering Postal Service have been put on hold by House Republican leaders wary of igniting internal party fights or risking voters' ire three months before the election.

Here is where the rubber meets the road. We are treated to a steady drum beat about the big spending Democrats the Teapublicans need to rein in. When faced with a needed overhaul of farm subsidies, they blink.

Is the farm belt red?

Do you really think the Teapublicans are seriously interested in reducing he federal budget?

Uhhh reference dumb blondes as per above, Pelosi has nothing to do with running California any more than does Mickey and Minnie.

Das "Germ" you are really a good lock-step trooper, hate everybody that doesn't agree with you, racist and a bigot. Stop feeding on the elephants patoots its toxic. Ignorant stooge.

California created about 1/3 of the jobs in the US last month. California leads the nation in creativity. California has the best climate, the most diversity, the most millionaires.

LOYALTEXAN -- And in order to pay for the HUGE agriculture subsidies, Teapublicans cut food stamps for poor children.

Matthew

Just to clarify your comment on CA Prop 13. The taxable value, subject to 2% annual appreciation is fixed until the property is sold when it is reset to the sales price. The large landowners (oil co, railroads, farms and ranches and industrial enterprises) rarely sell land so they are the major beneficiaries.

The wealthy (Buffet, Romney? etc.) also tend to hold on the their beachfront.

Gotta believe that most of the middle class houses have changed hands over the last 35 years.

The large landowners (oil co, railroads, farms and ranches and industrial enterprises) rarely sell land so they are the major beneficiaries.

Imagine that.

to Gem and Cubsfan - Keep up the good work! Way to stay on point and not resort to their level of name calling. They may never listen but no can say they weren't warned.

What a mess.

And WHO is holding WHO hostage??? The House has already passed a bill that extends the current tax rates. Simply saying let's not change anything right now since we are in a recession. But Harry Reid won't even allow a vote on it? Don't you think the people deserve the Senate to at least say YAY or NAY on the bill?

No, because the Democrats actually want ALL tax rates to increase. They want more tax revenue to spend so they tell the uninformed Republicans are trying to help rich people. No, sorry - Republicans are trying to help ALL people. Sign the bill and everybody's tax rates stay the same. DON'T sign the bill and everybody's tax rates go up.

So Democrats it is up to you. Do you want everybody's tax rates to go up or not? If taxes on the lower and middle class go up (which is their goal anyway) you have ONLY the Democrats to blame. They can sign a bill RIGHT NOW that protects the middle and lower class and are deciding not to. So who is actually holding who hostage? The Democrats. Who is actually trying to help the lower and middle class? The Republicans. Anybody with the IQ at least 10 points above a turnip knows THAT!!

The way I see it is that all of the Bush tax cuts should expire. That being said letting them expire will be an incentive for the republicans to come to the table and negotiate which up till now they have steadfastly refused to do.

Liberals are simply too stupid to be allowed vote. As if this latest attempt at class warfare or painting the Republicans into another corner is going to anything to stop the nations hemorrhaging. There is no where near enough tax money in this meaningless battle to even rate as a news worthy item.

The facts are simple and the math irrefutable. This country is going under. Not if, but when. When you add up the unfunded liabilities with the borrowing there is simply no way out. The annual deficits and massive debt have this country on a path to financial collapse plain and simple.

All Washington is doing is trying to buy time. Push this imminent disaster farther down the road, but they are doing nothing to stop it. It really doesn't take a teaspoon full of brains to understand we are on an unsustainable path, we have made too many promises, and we have in no way saved for a rainy day. Neither party cares, as they don't plan to be around when it happens, so they keep the spending party going full tilt.

I think it's republicans that shouldn't be allowed to vote. They really ARE stupid. Thickheaded, irrational, low information, close minded, holier than thou, radical, racist bigots. Oh, and I forgot mean. They are just plain mean.

Rick:

You are so correct. Just about all Democrats (and, quite frankly, many Republicans) don't have any idea how much money we are borrowing or what an unfunded liability is.

I teach college Economics and I make it a special point on the second day of class to talk briefly about the national debt then do a quick exercise on what "$1 Trillion" is. Virtually all are stunned...... I ask them if we counted to "1 Trillion" with each second being a unit of one (in other words after 10 seconds we have counted to 10) how long would it take to count to 1 Trillion. I get all kinds of guesses from 1 month, 1 year, or even 10 years. Then I tell them the answer: 31,710 years!!! Their mouths drop open.

But yet so many in this country do not grasp the concept of what borrowing 1.5 Trillion a year is doing to this country. So now we owe almost $16 Trillion. Ironically I tell the class this is a HUGE amount to pay back, and will require severe cuts over the next 30 to 40 years, but this number is NOT impossible. As stated it will require great sacrifice. Maybe some roads don't get replaced as quickly. Maybe we stop giving so much money we don't have to other countries. Maybe we have to significantly cut unnecessary government agencies. But we CAN pay off 16 Trillion over the next 30 or 40 years.

But there is ANOTHER train coming our way that you mentioned: Unfunded Liabilities. For those people who don't know what that is it is PROMISED benefits that have not been paid yet. This is things like Social Security, Medicare, etc. where we have been telling people for 40 years keep paying your SS/Medicare taxes so when YOU need it then it will be there. But the problem is there is NO MONEY!! But it has been PROMISED!! Meaning we will have to borrow that WHEN it is needed. That is currently projected at nearly $120 TRILLION!!!

End result is this country is bankrupt. If we could STOP borrowing as of tomorrow morning then what we currently owe we could pay back over 30 to 40 years. But these unfunded liabilities we CANNOT afford even if we taxed EVERYONE 100%. Again, we are bankrupt. Unless SIGNIFICANT cuts (and I mean SIGNIFICANT cuts) are done and done now we will be like Greece and Spain within 5 years. Mathematically impossible without SIGNIFICANT cuts. And I am not talking about we'll just freeze Social Security benefits for 3 years or freeze government budgets for 3 years. That makes no difference. We are talking DRASTIC cuts of 30% to 40% across the board MINIMUM in order to divert bankruptcy.

Sad part was about 10 years ago we could have fixed this with just marginal changes but since George W Bush took office until today we have added about $10 Trillion ($4 Trillion under Bush and so far about $6 Trillion for Obama) with no signs of slowing down. 10 years ago we could have fixed it and most would have barely noticed.

But now we all will feel it and it won't be nice. Ever been in a decent car accident and the next day you hurt all over? Eventually you feel better (after a couple days) but those first couple days everything hurts and all you want to do is feel better? That will be our country in about 5 years when drastic cuts are required to survive. EVERYONE will hurt and hurt all over. Not for a few days but for a few years (as much as 5 to 10 years). In the long run we will feel much better (and be much stronger) but those first years will hurt very very badly.

Mota: Nice stats on calif but the problem is that we have alot of business failures here because of overregulation, high taxes and litigation. calif is the classic example of a Union State: highest taxes with nothing to show for it. The public employee unions and lawyers run the show. The Gov wants to build a train to nowhere, wants even more taxes while increasing pay for worthless beurocrats. Cally is an example of European progressives bankrupting society.

Let all of the Bush tax cuts expire. The rates for the wealthy and the middle class worked well for everyone in the 1990's. After all, the Bush tax cuts only benefited the wealthy, so it shouldn't have any effect on the poor or the middle class, should it? Or have the Democrats been telling me wrong?

@Gem

Yes fellas, lets BANKRUPT the country by re-electing a FAILURE.

There's no "lets" going on here. You don't count. You left. You have lost your right to pollute the voter pool. Funny, we don't even miss you.

By the way, how is that socialized medicine in Germany working for you? Single payer too.

Rick-3416939

Liberals are simply too stupid to be allowed vote. As if this latest attempt at class warfare or painting the Republicans into another corner is going to anything to stop the nations hemorrhaging. There is no where near enough tax money in this meaningless battle to even rate as a news worthy item.

The facts are simple and the math irrefutable. This country is going under. Not if, but when. When you add up the unfunded liabilities with the borrowing there is simply no way out. The annual deficits and massive debt have this country on a path to financial collapse plain and simple.

All Washington is doing is trying to buy time. Push this imminent disaster farther down the road, but they are doing nothing to stop it. It really doesn't take a teaspoon full of brains to understand we are on an unsustainable path, we have made too many promises, and we have in no way saved for a rainy day. Neither party cares, as they don't plan to be around when it happens, so they keep the spending party going full tilt.

Why would you vote for Romney then? He plans to make things worse by using the Ryan plan as a way to get the debt down. Yeah right lower taxes for the rich and then reform entitlements?

the plan they had to reduce the debt by 4 trillion over the next 10 years was good plan until the tea party in the house killed it. They held boner like a hostage. It dealt with reforming entitlements and raising revenue.

ProBusiness

Unless SIGNIFICANT cuts (and I mean SIGNIFICANT cuts)

Does that include defense spending or just entitlement reform and discretionary spending.

You start your post with Democrats being the problem and yet you say that the 1 trillion deficit is the problem and i know very well that you know that Bush left 1.2 trillion deficit. So you teach a class and then come here in contradict yourself in the same post.

True that out of that 1.2 trillion deficit half is revenue problem in 2008.

The National Debt as of 09/28/2001 = $5,807,463,412,200.06 ... as of his last budget year 09/30/2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75 ... thats a little better than doubling it, or increasing by $6.1 Trillion

But you teach a college class so i know you know how our budgets work in this country and yet you choose to blame Democrats.

Or don't tell me that the guy who teaches classes doesn't really know to who the 2009 budget belongs to?

Bluecat 55 "Prop 13 (another conservative tax oriented disaster) started the problems in California."

Before Prop 13, the Democrats could write themselves a tax increase every year - all they had to do was pass a big spending increase, and then with a simple majority, pass a tax increase. At the local level, all they had to do was pass a big spending increase, and then increase the property taxes to cover the increase.

There was no fiscal responsibility, and it was driving up the cost of property taxes so much that parents were forced to sell their houses and move out of state and away from their children and grandchildren.

Prop 13 still gave government a 2% per year increase in property tax revenue (plus automatic increases from sales of property), and just required that any state income tax increases would require 2/3 approval in the legislature or vote. Without Prop 13, taxes would be so high that nobody would want to live in California.

alex cali "ProBusiness But you teach a college class so i know you know how our budgets work in this country and yet you choose to blame Democrats."

Still trying to peddle that old 'Blame Bush' nonsense?

The only thing that Bush signed for fiscal 2009 was a Continuing Resolution authorizing spending for 2009 at the same level as for 2008. Obama signed the big increase in spending for fiscal 2009 in March 2009 - after he passed the 'Stimulus' and 'Porkulus' bills. The big increase for 2009 was Obama and his Democratic Congress. Either you are not willing to accept the truth or you are deliberately trying to mislead. Here's the link to prove what I say is true;

https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/washhigh/highlights2008/159056/president_signs_spending_bill.html

So the Obama administration is trying to save the Bush tax cuts...well part of them anyway...strange but I thought there was never anything in those tax cuts that helped the rest of us enough to be worth saving!

Repost from collapsed thread #1, If the first comment....in the first thread...is critical of the administration it will be collapsed...without fail...and often without reason....except that it is critical.

The collapsed comment was, "Divide and conquer...Barrack Obama...FAILED LEADERSHIP...ONE AND GONE

Do I agree with it...No...does it deserve to be collapsed...no...that smacks of the kind of censorship that existed in Germany prior to and during World War II.

If you disagree with me, please let me know exactly which Newsvine rule was broken!

Obama SQUANDERED upwards of $6,000,000,000,000.00 in 3.5 years. OBAMA is destroying America!

The 1%ers are NOT the problem, our corrupt PRESIDENT is the problem.

German you are either a Fox News associate or a fool. Oops, same thing.

Anyone who still believes in Obama is a fool.

Bluecat 55 - I thought Bush was a spendthrift until I saw Mr. Obama spent more money in 3.5 years than Dubya spent in 8. Not Faux News associate or foolish, but mathematics.

Captain, basic economics 101, you spend money in recessions to stop the spiral downwards and prop up the public sector so the private sector has time to recover. If the Bush tax cuts had not taken place the deficits would not have been near as large. Two sides to the equation, tax revenues and expenditures. Don't get me wrong, we do need to address long term structural spending issues like social security and medicare. But seriously, every economist I have read agrees with both the financial bailouts and the stimulus as absolutely necessary to right the ship. Obama inherited both of those issues. Pretending that we could have just ignored those issues is a nice Fox News partisan talking point, but it does not deal with historical reality.

Obama inherited both of those issues.

Just look at the mess President Obama will inherit if he gets elected again. Yikes.

Captain Quark -- Either your data or your math skills are off. Growth in government spending under President Obama has been slower than Bush or Reagan.

Bluecat...and don't forget the war spending that Bush left as well. You see...I know the facts. I was one of the 750,000 people that were laid off in Dec 2008. You know...during Bush's term. I was worried about finding a job because we lost another 750,000 jobs in Jan of 2009. You know...Bush's last month in office. But because my skills are in high demand, I was working again on Feb 1 2009. I'm not one of those lazy conservatives who stay on unemployment for years just because they can. And don;t tell me I'm wrong about conservatives. In my state, the unemployment rate in the liberal areas is about 8% and the unemployment rate in the conservative areas is about 11%.

Hey dizzy, good post. Haven't forgotten the wars, see my post 2.10.

Quark, spending for Bogus War, Contractors, Medicare Drug, Tarp, Tax cuts nothing paid for. The only people making any money was the war machine, Haliburton, Enron folded, Katrina mismanagement, Duke Cunningham thievery, Madoff, Abromoff influence peddling. All the joys and glory of the bush years. I do not want to go back to those good old days. You need to get out of the fox hole, its bad for your soul. Ignorant elephant.

Turner, as I stated above, Obama granted a no-bid contract of over $500 million dollars to Halliburton.

That's the same Halliburton he was talking about when he said "The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton and the like will be over when I'm in the White House!"

He did the same favor for C&C and SIGA Technologies, Inc., but the Halliburton contract strikes me as particularly hypocritical.

Don't you agree?

German

Picture yourself bleeding out on the hospital gurney with the ER medic calling for a blood transfusion. Turns out you didn't plan ahead and bank your blood. Tough luck, no deficit spending at your local blood bank.

Your post of the 6 with a bunch of zeros makes about the same amount of sense.

@Turner#1 - get over the Bush PTSD dude, he's gone and can't hurt you now. Obama has been in office over 3 years and right or wrong, he has to take responsibility for it.

Candice-

Just look at the mess President Obama will inherit if he gets elected again. Yikes.

Particularly, Candice, if we don't vote Democratic local, state, and federal in November to get rid of the GOP JOB ( Job Obstructionist Party).

The Tea Party and the JOB ( Job Obstructionist Party) must go in order for US to save American.

Loyal texan your post is specious and deceptive. We already have laws that say the hospital cannot let you just "bleed out".

Nice try though.

Way to "whip up the crowd"

Particularly, Candice, if we don't vote Democratic local, state, and federal in November to get rid of the GOP JOB ( Job Obstructionist Party).

Beverly you live in Illinois how do you feel about the cracker jack job your party is doing in our state? Our income tax went up 66% for all of us and it hasn't made a dent in our budget shortfall from what I understand. All the glorious spending plans are being cut and our economy isn't booming. I am thinking you don't get out much. We have done exactly what you asked for for quite some time now and your prediction about the success of your party haven't materialized. I think both party's suck and I really question your ability to sort fact from political bilge.

In 2008 you may have voted for Obama to prove you weren't a racist. But in 2012 you need to vote AGAINST Obama to prove you aren't an idiot.

I didn't vote for President Obama because I wanted "to prove" I'm not a "racist". I voted for him because I decided that I would never again, as long as I live, vote for another Republican. Not after what George W. Bush and his failed administration did to our country and our economy. And then there was also that Palin thing.....

Obama/Biden 2012 - if that makes me and "idiot", so be it

Diane: If you didn't vote for Obama to prove you were not a racist then I believe you. I don't think everybody did but you have to admit many did. Those that voted for Obama because he was black need to rethink their choice.

But if you voted for Obama because you believed in the Hope and Change and thought he could do a better job then the Republicans then clearly you can't still agree with that.

1) Unemployment has gone UP since Obama took office and has not dropped below 8% in three years.

2) Economic growth is stagnant. We got a "bump" from spending nearly $1 Trillion in the economy but that wasn't stimulus. It didn't stimulate a thing. What Obama did is like the following: Say we have a small candy store that does $500 a day. You give your child $100 and tell them to enjoy the candy store. The store sales grow to $600 that day. But tomorrow it will go back to $500 because NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! That is not stimulus. That is wasteful spending.

3) We now have 1 in 7 on Food Stamps - highest since the program started.

4) We have a % on welfare highest in over 50 years (not seen since the 60's)

5) Lowest labor participation rates since the 60's.

6) Highest % of unemployed 6 months or more since the Great Depression.

And I can go on and on. Obama has been a complete failure by any measurement and it is proven by the current campaign. If Obama had accomplished ANYTHING that would be the beginning of every ad seen. But think about it: every ad Obama has out there now is to try and discredit Romney. Not ONE thing Obama has done in the last 3+ years is worth telling the american people? Obama's campaign is simply "I suck as a president but Romney will suck more"? THAT is Obama's campaign? And THAT is the person you want to vote for again in 2012?

I am sorry you hate Republicans but I really wish you would not "hate" us but rather just try to think about and understand why we have the belief we do. I don't "hate" Democrats - I just simply think they are uninformed. Their logic goes totally against what economic theory states and every time liberal policies are initiated economies decline. Examples: California, Chicago, Detroit, and so on.

All I ask you to do is just do some research. Don't take what you are being told as fact - most of it is not. But don't take my word for it. Be smart enough to say to yourself "let me see if I can find some evidence to support or dispute what I have been told". And that is from EITHER side. Don't automatically accept a liberal comment and dispute a conservative comment. All I ask for you to be smart enough to think for yourself.

Thank you, but I don't trust Republicans. I can't. I hope you heed your advice, "do some research" and "don't take what you are being told as fact". I do read and I do pay attention to politics and I do look for "facts" and the truth from many sources.

Democrats aren't anything like Republicans. And I'm sure you will find out during the debates what President Obama has accomplished. He doesn't need to put it in an "ad". President Obama has more humility than that.

I don't want to get into a "back and forth". I will not change your opinion and you will not change mine. But did you say Obama has more humility?? Humility?? Really? In EVERY speech just count how many times he says "I". Not Congress. Not the people. Not the military. But "I". That is not humility. I ASSURE you if he has accomplished ANYTHING it would be printed on the side of Air Force One so every media picture would have it listed. He would have every ad start out with it. He would have a presidential speech every week speaking about it. The problem is he can't. There is NOTHING that he has done that has been a success. I would like to know if anybody can give me ONE example of something that was a success that he initiated. Just one?

Gem

Butt out. You quit and left. You don't have a dog in this fight. You're at troll status now.

ProBusiness

But if you voted for Obama because you believed in the Hope and Change and thought he could do a better job then the Republicans then clearly you can't still agree with that.

Well, considering that the Republican plan is exactly the same plan that led us into the recession, I think that we can still agree with that.

1) Unemployment has gone UP since Obama took office and has not dropped below 8% in three years.

Well of course unemployment went up since Obama took office; the economy was in the worst possible state at around the time he entered office; it only stabilized a few months after the stimulus took effect.

2) Economic growth is stagnant. We got a "bump" from spending nearly $1 Trillion in the economy but that wasn't stimulus. It didn't stimulate a thing. What Obama did is like the following: Say we have a small candy store that does $500 a day. You give your child $100 and tell them to enjoy the candy store. The store sales grow to $600 that day. But tomorrow it will go back to $500 because NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! That is not stimulus. That is wasteful spending.

Technically, the stimulus did succeed in lifting us out of the recession; problem was, it was misdirected and too small (yes, I dare say it was too small). The stimulus did not focus on long-term economic strengthening; it may have had flaws due to uncertainty about the depth of the economic crisis. Now, had it been larger and stretched out over a longer period of time

3) We now have 1 in 7 on Food Stamps - highest since the program started.

4) We have a % on welfare highest in over 50 years (not seen since the 60's)

5) Lowest labor participation rates since the 60's.

6) Highest % of unemployed 6 months or more since the Great Depression.

Not to be offensive or anything, but what the @!$%# did you expect??? This was the biggest recession (or depression) since the Great Depression of the 1930s. You ought to think back to the days of 25% unemployment, farm plots being sold at pennies an acre, and people jumping off of skyscrapers all over the country and be glad that that didn't happen. This is EXACTLY what our social safety net is designed to do; keep people from falling into the sucking vortex that is poverty. You should have EXPECTED this; everyone should have, including myself. Then again, as you guessed, I am a bit too young and naive (even now) to be fully conscious like a grown person like you.

And I can go on and on. Obama has been a complete failure by any measurement and it is proven by the current campaign. If Obama had accomplished ANYTHING that would be the beginning of every ad seen. But think about it: every ad Obama has out there now is to try and discredit Romney. Not ONE thing Obama has done in the last 3+ years is worth telling the american people? Obama's campaign is simply "I suck as a president but Romney will suck more"? THAT is Obama's campaign? And THAT is the person you want to vote for again in 2012?

Frankly, yes. I am willing to vote for a guy who is presiding over the current situation; you know why??? Because I know that this was the best he could do; I wish he could have done more, but considering the political roadblocks he faced (the 15 Republicans who single-handedly caused the partisan gridlock in Congress), this is as good as we can hope for. You may bitch and whine about how he had 2 years with a Democratic Congress, but I will call you up by saying that he only had a supermajority in the Senate for a few months, and I severely doubt that you can craft a massive, long-term economic, fiscal, and domestic plan in a matter of months. It might have been possible, but the odds are extremely against it.

I am sorry you hate Republicans but I really wish you would not "hate" us but rather just try to think about and understand why we have the belief we do. I don't "hate" Democrats - I just simply think they are uninformed. Their logic goes totally against what economic theory states and every time liberal policies are initiated economies decline. Examples: California, Chicago, Detroit, and so on.

And I am sorry that the leaders of your party can't grow a pair and actually come to the table on anything with the Democrats without demanding preconditions that give them 98% of what they want. I hate Republicans, thought not you, as I have grown to admire and respect you. I hate most Republicans because of how they have betrayed their old values, the values that they adhered to when they realized that the New Deal was a success both economically and politically. And especially how they caved to the demands of the elite. If they had a sense of decency, or more importantly, a small but well-known faction of moderates trying to take the party back from the Tea Party extremists, the neocons, and the entire movement conservative movement that has risen to power over the past 30 years, I could maybe grow to respect them. But that hasn't happened, has it??

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

...and Romney's tax plans adds an additional 5 trillion to the deficit in tax cuts for the wealthy.

Wrong Eric. Stop making things up!

Nope German, the man got it right, in fact this week Romney made it worse, he wants to keep increasing defense spending while giving even more tax breaks to his buddies with multiple Cadillacs and offshore savings accounts.

Wrong. Romney said to stop defense CUTS, not INCREASE.

Obama is the KING of cronyism. Oprah bought him the presidency and lo and behold Oprah's on again off again boyfriend Eric Holder is sitting pretty now.

It was only 3 trillion per Forbes in February of 2012. That might be outdated by now.

These right wing lunatics prefer to forget that the two wars created by those war criminals Bush/Cheney was not in the books, as well as the Prescription Drug for Medicare, worth trillions. So when Obama put them in the books the amount increased by trillions, and then the successful rescue of the auto industry cost us another few billions.

But what are these facts compared to the hate and ignorance of the rabid GOP/TP nuts who keep spouting the same crap 24/7? They are irrelevant!

PHONEYGERMAN: When you say that Oprah bought Obama's presidency you have lost all credibility, if you ever had one. My dog is better informed than you are.

You lie Herr Gem. You lie and distort.

Obama/Biden 2012!

Dangerfield "Gem," or who ever you are, which one is it? The president is a "crony capitalist" or the president is a "socialist?" See what happens when you parrot Romney's flip-flop talking points? You can't have it both ways, and neither can he.

Der "Germ" hates everybody, the poor, sick, homeless, old and of course liberals are her favorite target. She's been feeding at the elephants trough to long. A good lock-step soldier our "Germ".

Obama 2012

TruePatriot and Turner,

Actually, it's far more difficult to stay consistent when you have to follow Obama's talking points. You see, he accuses Romney of being a vulture capitalist who worked his tail off making money off of people, but he also accuses him of having no work experience and never actually working for any of his money. Seems like a contradiction.

Kind of like how Obama says he's against drilling when he's in front of the Dem's and then holds a photo-op in front of the Keystone pipeline when he needs to appeal to Republicans.

But I suppose that was just an "evolving opinion," right? I mean, that's what he called his opinion on gay marriage. In 2008: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." In 2012: "I believe gay couples should be allowed to marry."

Make up your mind, Mr. President!

Or what about the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act? He said he never voted against it, but then he admitted he did. Then he said he only voted against it IN COMMITTEE. Then he admitted he voted against it on the floor and tried to say he only did so because the bill was redundant and the infants were already covered. But he knew full well that Patrick O'Leary only WROTE the bill after hearing from the AG of Illinois that infants were NOT currently covered. Spin the spinner and see what his answer is, folks!

German/Eric

Three billion in tax cuts Plus two billion defense spending equals $5 billion

Gotta go with Eric. Romney does reference some unspecified spending cuts. Don't believe it till I see it.

Hey! I Know!

Let's talk about how bad the things are that Romney MIGHT do!

Let's talk about some OTHER president, and what HE did!

That way we can avoid the subject of our current President.

Ps - Jeffrey Zeint from EVIL BAIN was appointed by Obama to run the OMB*..... BAM!

*Office of Management and Budget... I know! Who knew Obama even had such a thing! I'm as suprised as you!

I say, "Let them ALL expire!" We couldn't afford them in the first place. It was wrong-headed neocon thinking that screwed our economy into the ground. Let all the tax rates go back up. Let all the loopholes evaporate. It wont cause an economic meltdown. The government needs the revenue to pay its bills. If you want to cut and trim spending start with Homeland Security and the DoD. Those are the departments that have grown like topsy under the neocons. Unplug from Afghanistan and tell the world that our response to future attacks will be massive retaliation against their civilian population centers--byebye Kabul.

I said the Bush tax cuts were a mistake at the time. The Clinton surplus should have been used to pay down the debt. There should have been no tax cuts till the debt was completely paid off, a rainy day fund established and then any tax cut should have been for the next year only based on the current years surplus.

We also should have listened to President Carter with respect to our addiction to foreign oil. Had we begun to take steps then we would not be in the position we are in now.

Bluecat, that's not true! I think you know this, because you're aware of it and the corporate owned mainstream media didn't really find it "newsworthy"...

By bringing it up you display knowledge of the vote.

The evil republicans brought a CLEAN bill to extend the "Bush"/Obama tax cuts by one year for EVERYBODY.

Harry Reid REFUSED TO LET IT COME TO A VOTE.

The second vote was for Obamas plan to let them expire for anyone making over 250K, and no exclusions for the one year that you sell your house, and no pad for the buying of the new house, it's all tax on income, no shelter for the reinvestment.....

It also would have HAMMERED small business owners for thier income without any offset for thier outlays. The President's plan would have been absolutely devestating, and anyone who read it would clearly see that. It was buried for good reason.

It was a Bat$4It crazy a$$ plan.

It makes you wonder if our fearless leader has a clue.

Anyways... Not even the DEMOCRATS would support the president's plan.

Again, it was Harry Reid that stopped the senate from voting on the president's plan. THE DEMOCRATS.

make the wealthy pay already!

how many yachts can the wealthy buy?

the wealthy are not creating jobs, they are just hoarding cash

we need to change the laws to stop all the wealthy thieves from running away from the U.s. like Denise Rich did.

Was this before or after America's fornication by President Shrub, Cheney, and the rest of the cohorts?

Go on NATIONAL TV and get us in needless wars, which WERE NEVER on the taxpayer books, but the GOP cries foul now.

This country didn't go into the toilet after 2008. It was happening way before, but nobody gave a rat's ass as everyone was enjoying the "good life" provided by Wall Street. Illegal as hell, but a good life.

Glad I didn't get pulled into the bank mess by refinancing, or the rest of the @!$%# that went south.

Obama's problem???? Think again !

I hope you are wrong about that. I would rather see all the tax cuts expire than see the wealthy continue to get tax cuts that they don't need and should not have been given with the country in two wars. It was wrong then and it is wrong now with the deficit a concern the GOP has no solution for other than taking it out on the elderly, the children and the poor. Republicans have hated every social program for the middle class for years and will have them abolished if given a chance.

This thread is too intelligent to be here, and lacks the nastiness that we have all come to expect.

Props to Nathan and Vicki

Sadly, they have become unusual.

and don't forget Vickie that we Republicans and Conservatives really hate clean water and clean air....

and, how's that War on Poverty and social programs for the middle class going?...really making a difference huh?

Right now, I'm more in the Paul Krugman camp. The economy is still in a depression, and we aren't likely to see a full recovery until things turn around in Europe. If you agree that's a bigger problem, short term, than the deficit, then there's a decent case to be made for extending all of the tax cuts another year or two (Bush tax cuts for all brackets as well as Obama's tax stimulus like the payroll tax cuts which Republicans would like to end). In that context, there's also a case to be made for postponing the sequestration spending cuts (for both defense and social programs).

Which is not to say that the deficit isn't a big problem we need to eventually deal with. However, when we do, it's going to take a lot more than just letting tax cuts on the top two percent expire. Nearly all of the Bush tax cuts and stimulus tax spending measures need to expire, combined with a corporate tax overhaul to address the deficit effectively. Also, defense spending needs to be cut, as well as the cost of health care, or those two things alone will bankrupt us regardless of the revenue situation.

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

Paul Krugman, 2000

Lol at Kenyesians.

Paul Krugman shouldn't even have a job.

Tax the rich? I'd just be happy if people Romney paid the same tax rate I do. I pay about 22%...and Romney pays less than 14%.

Captain, the highest marginal tax rate is currently lower than at any time since WWII. "Tax the rich" my arse.

Quark, no class warfare, fair share warfare, you silly elephant.

Obama 2012

turner#1 - So why is paying 35% of your earned income not paying enough of your share, but paying 15, 28% or no income tax is ? I don't get your math. And don't give me the low dividend tax excuse either dude, you know it's a double tax that is paid first by the corporation at its rate, then taxed again at the recipient's 15% rate. The gov't takes a BIG slice of dividend payouts, but the "fair share" people only recognize the second tax paid by individuals and get steamed about it.

Want a "fair share" earned income tax? Make it equal for everyone - whack everyone for the same percent, no loopholes for the wealthy to hide behind, no credits, just take a portion off the top and everyone has skin in the game. How's that for fair?

Your argument would have more effect if you actually and factually quoted President Obama. President Obama has over and over tried to present a balanced approach to the deficit problem. The problem with republicans is that "everything on the table" or "across the board cuts" mean everything except defense, tax loopholes or programs favoring the rich.

Captain, if you aren't in the top 1% then why do you care? Oh, I get it. It's so you can say "class warfare". I agree with turner#1.

The president's recent "you didn't build that" remark has also stoked accusations that Obama is giving too much credit to government and relying too much on government to revive the economy.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help," Obama said earlier this month. "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
The president claims his remarks have been taken out of context and that he was just referring to the fact that businesses didn't build roads and bridges.

Great book, I'm looking at it on my shelf right now.

Very cliche but those who don't learn from history are going to repeat it.

Yup, 1944 memorable time for the 20th century and the world. Vulture capitalism is what it is--get all you can when you can and then run and leave the bones. Romney and his minions are good at that. Perfect Fox howler troopers.

Obama 2012

..or just create them in lower-tax business friendly countries. Either way we're hosed.

No...Romney already admitted he pays a lower rate than the middle class. The reason he won't release them is to hide the fines and such he paid to settle tax evasion charges.

Don't you recall a year or so ago...UBS finally turned over the names of some 30,000 US citizens who they had been helping evade taxes?

Where was Romney's Swiss bank account again?

@dizzykat - I'm guessing his Swiss bank account was in Switzerland...

Romney's Swiss bank account is in the same place as Nancy Pelosi's Swiss bank account and Debbie Wasserman-Shutlz's Swiss bank account.

Did you know Pelosi made five million bucks last year on offshore investments in Switzerland and Belize?

I would like to see 12 years of Pelosi's returns, as well as all the crooks in congress. I am sure I wouldnt mind them looking over mine. If they are doing nothing wrong then what is the issue. The issue is Romney paid a smaller percent in income tax than many in the middle class and he wants to be president so he and his bankster buddies can get more breaks.

Cubs fan....You say Pelosi made 5 million on overseas accounts last year so surly you agree that Romney needs to come clean also.

Guy,

You will never see Pelosi's tax returns. Click on my avatar and access the article about how she reacted when asked for hers.

Cubs fan...I saw her change of heart and believe her to be a crook also, but you said she made 5 million last year ,on overseas accounts. Where did you get that figure?

And surely you agree that Romney needs to come clean as have all presidential candidates in my memory have. He is filthy rich, not special.

Romney may not have paid any taxes for years with him making $75,000 from his investments a day. There are many reasons why he doesn't want to produce his tax returns and none of them are good ones. Even republicans are demanding he get them out there for everyone to see and yet he refuses. What is he hiding?

Slice it up however you want, the bottom line is our national taxpayer debt has increased almost $6,000,000,000,000.00 in 3. 5 years and our economy still sucks. Quite making excuses for a FAILED president. He is BANKRUPTING America.

get a life.

You lie Herr Gem. You lie and distort.

Obama/Biden 2012!

PhoneyGerman, my dog has just told me you are lying, and as I said before, he is better informed that you will ever be.

And he is not a very intelligent dog, just average.

And the debt still climbs can anyone dispute that? No excuses, no blame, no rehtoric I just want one person to show me the debt is not getting larger.

Der "Germ" go home you are truly tiresome in your hate.

Obama 2012

She's tiresome in her 'hate'? LOL! Dude, scroll up and count how many names she's called you and your crew. I think the number is somewhere around zero. Compare that with the slams and things you all have hurled. Once again, the hypocrisy of the Left shines through. You claim to be the tolerant ones even during your intolerance. You're the kind that complains about the 'violent' rhetoric of the Right while ignoring Montel Williams telling Michelle Bachmann to cut her throat and Ed Shultz fantasizing about ripping Dick Cheney's heart out of his chest. Keep trying, pal.

#13, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 13.6, Five posts, Five Comments of nothing but name calling and personal insults/attacks so typical anymore.

When you speak the truth the Dems call it hate.

What a useless political party.

kr

Support your millionaire Democratic Congressperson, whose party proposed a 45% estate tax; making sure the little guy's success doesn't make it to the next generation. Have to keep the base big....

Mjl...what do you mean "little guy"? The threshold was $7 million for a couple. I guess "Walmart" is your idea of a "mom and pop business" too, right?

Lower threshold proposed.... possibly $1,000,000

If you're for any estate tax, good for you.

Estate tax is a barrier to generational wealth creation.

kr-2875346

republicans mean the opposite of what they say. trickle down has proven it was really trickle up. wake up america and put your thinking caps on.

The only thing that "trickles down" is the upper crust pi***ng on our collective heads. Reagenonmics didn't work then and won't work now.

Reganomics didn't work? look at the prosperity when he was in charge: sorry if you weren't big enough to notice. And look at today's "prosperity" under Owebama.

ABO 2012

You are right about Romney having negotiationg skills, with offshore banks.

At least Romney knows how to run a business, and the Olympics. I'll take my chances with someone that knows which end of the balance sheet is up.

and don't give a flying rat's fanny how many dancing horses he has, as long as he names one of them Pelosi.

Of course you know that the Olympics he saved he did it with taxpayer's money, don't you?

Over a billion dollars in taxpayer money and then the records just happened to disappear........oh yes......right "after Romney left"

That seems to be the one constant theme in Romney's carrier. "Can't blame me I wasn't there at the time"

Joh the Methodist

The GOP who gave everyone cuts! The same cuts that President Obama claims drove the economy into the ditch. And yet, President Obama has cut taxes further... Is it no wonder the economy has its wheels spinning.

Jon, you are a victim of leftist propaganda. Sad.

You don't understand, if we give more tax breaks for the ubber rich then they will begin to create jobs, pouring billions upon billions into the economy, just as they did when Reagan was prez.

Then Reagan left us with a huge surplus, a healthy economy and no wars, but these liberals want us to believe that Clinton was the one who did that, when in reality he squandered it all by invading Afghanistan and Irak, adding trillions to the deficit.

Good thing that Bush saved us from that situation.

Rasputin - I want to hear more about your talking dog, is he electable? Because I think a talking dog will be far better than the weasels we have in Congress.

Rasputin,I think you now drunk,when you feels better,we have conversation.

Captain, I think you are right, my dog could replace anybody in Congress, provided he or she is from the GOP.

Jack, better drunk that stupid, like PhoneyGem.

Jack335

President Obama, in the spirit of bipartisanship, called for a commission. Simpson-Bowles was successful in reaching a bipartisan solution.

President Obama has walked away from it. Check, another promise broken.

President Obama had an agreement with the weeper of the house to a 4 trillion dollar program of spending cuts and revenue increases. It was that Jackass Cantor that threw a wrench into the works

AD

The GOP wants to extend all of the Bush tax cuts. The Democrats want to extend cuts to everyone but those at $250K and up.

There are also tax cuts for the middle class coming up for extension next year. They have nothing to do with the Bush cuts, they were put into a stimulus bill.

You might want to take note of the Democrats proposed 45% estate tax. A barrier to families attaining generational wealth. If you were the first to succeed, almost have of your life's earnings would go to the government. How's that for strengthening the middle class?

Don't talk too much sense. It won't fly here. Too many partisans supporting a failed presidency.

And now folks comes a host of excuses and lets play the blame game.

If there ever was a time to consider less federal government...

Roc, my dog had nothing to do with the national debt! He told me so, in French.

Did he get a government grant to go to school to learn French?

Rasputin - I KNEW it..your dog is a french speaking poodle. He would do better on the democratic ticket. Republicans only vote for hounds, german shepherds or dobermans!

It's the universe of dividends and long-term capital gains, brother. I can see taxing those gains at a lower rate to reward people for risking their after-tax income and putting it in companies to help them grow; in exchange for less tax deduction if they lose money - make it an even trade.

What I still don't agree with is how the hedge fund boys get this enoromous tax break on multi-millions in carried interest. That loophole isn't fair at all. If it were you or me - we get whacked at much higher earned income rates.

If someone knows something different - fill me in.

I understand risking one's money to invest in companies, but at the same time, I end up paying an effective tax rate of something like 26%, while Mitt pays 14%. How is that still not somehow upside down?

There needs to a better way to treat things. I also support a much larger "inheritance" tax. There currently stands that five or so heirs will inherit more money than the bottom 40% of the entire population. It's not so much a level playing field when one can perpetuate wealth transfer within a very small number of hands.

Was there a fact in there (as opposed to an opinion)? Nope, didn't think so.

Yes - there's a fact in there. It does suck to be you. You guys remind us with every bitter venomous whining utterance you make. Sore losers since 2008, but this time you're just going to have to put your big boy panties on and suck it up.

Currently I am long time Registered Republican. I don't buy into picking the lessor of two evils thought process nor do I support who the RNC selects. In 2008 they choose the more popular war monger McCain and this year another very bad selection has been made. In 2008 and for the first time I did not go out to vote. This year Ron Paul is the better pick but the GOP has managed to stir trouble across the country for him. That may force me to cross party line should he not fare well at the Republican Convention. Oddly how badly the Romney crowd treated the Ron Paul folks at the state conventions across the country. As a Delegate, I witnessed first hand the fake ballots (slates) they passed out,the name calling the screaming out of orders. All so they could incite a negative response. Candidate Romney does not have the required delegates to win and badly needs the Ron Paul folks. Most decent Republicans I know would never vote for Willard. I prefer 4 more years of Obama then a possible 8 years of being raked through the coals. The Affordable Care Act will put a stop to the discriminating practices of healthcare insurance companies charging women more for the same coverage as men. Romney wants to stop this from happening. Because I have a pre-exsisting condition called Hypothyroidism which 80% of women have I will save on what I pay out. The Frank-Dodd bill made banks responsible and eliminated bad practices such as outrageous fees for loans and credit cards. It eliminated the irresponsibilty with bad loans. It stops banks from making bad risks that put forced everyone with an Retirement account to take huge losses in 2007. Willard Romney wants to put an end to the torment his banking buddies on Wall Street are going through by being held accountable by the FEDS. Who in their right mind would waste a vote on Romney unless they were crazy?