Let all the tax cuts expire.

Is Romney an accountant? If not I imagine he would have a hard time showing us how to do them. Taxes are very very complicated and it takes someone who knows all of the laws and codes and so forth. I dont know to many people that do their own taxes.

oblamo will ruin the middle class with his tax increases for the 1% which will kill jobs

he is out to destroy this country!

Come on, at a 14% tax rate, Willard is way way way overtaxed. Also cutting taxes would help Willard's buddies at Bain continue their pioneering efforts to outsource jobs to China and India much more efficently.

Hey, pretender - name one person you know who ever got a job from the 1%.

Their money is shipped overseas - Cayman Islands, Belize, Switzerland.

It's not doing diddly-squat for this country.

100% of taxes stay in this country. Let's keep it local, folks.

Daily Kos:

It's Official. House Republicans Just Voted To Block Your Tax Cut To Protect The Rich

Yep, they did it. The House Republicans just voted to raise taxes on the middle class of America so they can give tax cuts to the rich.

By a vote of 170-257, Republicans rejected the Democrats' plan to extend tax cuts to the middle class because, of course, the Democrats' bill didn't also extend tax cuts to the top two percent on their income above $250,000.

Then, in a vote of 256-171, they voted on the Republicans' bill, H.R. 8, which they actually have the gall to call the "Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012." That one extends tax cuts to the rich on all of their income, because the current low tax rates for the wealthiest Americans has done so much to protect jobs and prevent recessions. They're kind of slow learners. How slow? They wasted time on this bill, knowing it will die in the Senate.

Another futile, insulting, useless, political bill in which they're working against the public will. Enough of this. Let's take the House back, and put Nancy Pelosi back in the speaker's chair.

_________________

Drip, drip drip, one day at a time our democracy is being stripped away because the rich in step with the GOP legislators who have been bought, including Romney, are spoiled rotten selfish greedy SOBs.

The aristocrats. Couldn't care less about hard working Americans.

Veto, let tem all expire.

Capital is only good when there is a market to capitalize. It does not create a consumer base.

This really is a simple compromise. Keep the rates the same for those making $250,000 or less. Let the tax rate revert back to pre-Bush tax cut era for those making more than $250,000 unless they can prove that they are: 1) creating US jobs. 2). Increasing employee wages more than the CPI.

The rich get richer, and the poor...well in Mitty's words..."they're doing fine."

If everyone was an extreme conservative our economy would shrivel up.

Mittens would like to lower taxes "all across the board"??? That's what Bush did and look where THAT got us. We're heavily in debt after funding a nonsense war for OIL which, maybe Bush thought would bring us money had he achieved his goal. BUT IT DIDN'T. And many American and innocent lives were lost.... We're in a deficit and Mittens wants to LOWER TAXES???!!!! Is he a complete dolt???? Wait, wait, yes he is.... He only cares about the rich. There would be no gov't if he comes in. No, it will be an oligarchy ruled by the 1%!!!!

such Bull Pucky: The current tax system is broken. 1% pay 30% of Fed taxes, 50% pay no taxes. Us 49% pay the rest. The system is beyond repair when rich individuals and corporations (GE) pay NO taxes by manipulating an already broken system.

How do you differentiate between a rich guy like Bill Gates and a person like Mitt Romney. Bill Gates act as an enabler, he created millions upon millions of jobs by helping enable an entire industry. Mr Romney, on the other hand, made a lot of his money by buying up companies, breaking them up, draining them of cash, and the laying people off.

One built, the other destroyed. How do you differentiate between the two?

A truly FAIR system doen not penalize hard work, nor do 50% of paricipants recieve more than they give. Like Ross Perot I call for a flat tax. 20% max, which everybody pays, no gimmics, no deductions, no accountants, no tricks, no political social engineering. Everybody would have "skin in the game", people would vote better.

This is not true. EVERYONE pays federal taxes. Everyone pays social security taxes, which are being looted to pay off government contractors and big banks, etc. Everyone has skin in the game.

cal20.
I call Bullsh-t on your statement "50% pay no taxes". Absolute rubbish and you damn well KNOW it! roughly 50% might pay little to no "Federal" income taxes because they are earning well below poverty level. But they ARE paying property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, license or registration and taxes, user fees, road tolls, bridge tolls, etc. Your rage is severely misguided and you really need to examine where you are getting your data.

It looks as if the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot with a silver spoon. Guess they should have voted to reform some of the guns laws first.

Yup! No surprise! Republicans vote to give the rich more than their share of tax breaks. They already pay on average 14% for those above $250,000 while I paid 27% for my much smaller income. Remember the corporations who paid nothing? It is called GREEDY folks and the republicans what to make it worse. I guess with 1% owning 42% of the wealth, up from 40% last year they want to create a new Romney republican aristocracy!

Everybody got a two year extension on the Bush tax cuts not just the rich (I do not know when $250,000 a year became rich).

Jerry, it might not be "romney-rich" but it's well-off enough not to need a hand-out, don't you think? The Republicans know at this point that they can't balance the budget without an increase in revenue, but their hands are tied due to the short-sited Norquist pledge. If the tax cuts are allowed to expire, new legislation can then be drafted that give a "cut" to everyone on the first $250,000 earned, and it can't be construed as "raising taxes" on anyone. That's the work around for those dumb enough to have pledged to Norquist instead of to their constituents.

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

-Thomas Jefferson-

Sounds like President Jefferson wouldn't have cared too much for Mitt and his ilk. I wonder how he would have felt about the Citizens United decision that gave corporate interests the right to buy the government? Regardless, Jefferson's still on the money two centuries later!

This really is a simple compromise. Keep the rates the same for those making $250,000 or less. Let the tax rate revert back to pre-Bush tax cut era for those making more than $250,000 unless they can prove that they are: 1) creating US jobs. 2). Increasing employee wages more than the CPI.

This is an OK compromise, except that they should meet both 1 and 2, and that the CPI used for the measure is the non-"core" CPI (the one that includes food and energy, for which workers need their wages in the first place!).

Right, Pedestrian.

Especially since "$250,000" is really "taxable income of $250,000" - after all deductions, exemptions and write-offs.

It doesn't mean their gross income was $250,000 - that's just the gravy.

Jerry,

That is because you never lived on $20,000 a year, many middle class families $40,000. Social Security is much less than either of those amounts.It is called greed!

This issue coupled with the Sequestration Act cuts, will force defense contractors to issue "pink slip" notifications to all potentially impacted employees no later than 60 days prior to the lay-off date. Since the cuts take affect on January 1, 2013, employers must notify potentially impacted employees no later than November 1, 2012. This is the law under the WARN Act.

People getting a pink slip a week prior to the election may be motivated to vote in a certain direction that may decide the outcome of the election. Yet, both parties are willing to play chicken with the economy.

In "an act of political theater setting up a contentious post-election fight ... the House shot down, 170 to 257, a Democratic bill to extend current tax rates past the end of this year only for households earning less than $250,000 per year and individuals earning less than $200,000 per year. This plan has the current backing of the president, and was approved last week by the Senate."

Ensuring that all the Bush tax cuts will expire, and then Democrats will immediately put forward a bill to cut taxes for the middle class only -- putting Teapublicans on record for blocking TAX CUTS if they don't support it. AND this bill may not extend tax cuts for everyone on their first $200,000-250,000 of income, so kiss my arse it is a holy place, GOP/TP try explaining that to your rich donors!

dave20121 -- Right, because cuts in defense spending will result in loss of jobs, but cuts in public services (teachers, cops, etc.) or infrastructure are different how? Republicans, hypocrisy is thy name.

Weepy and the other do-nothing Republicans just confirmed what we already knew… They're LIARS!!!

They don't give a SH!T about reducing the deficit, they don't care about middle class America and they don't care about JOBS!!!!

They are more than willing to add "TRILLIONS" to the debt just to give the upper 1% their entitlements, they're more than willing to add that debt to the back of every working family and that includes the backs of you Republicans in the middle class who vote for these liars and they are more than willing to do absolutely NOTHING to increase employment and strengthen the economy to TRY to win an election!!

The best day for America will be when half of these right wing scumbags are thrown out of office and Weepy, who is the WORST speaker this nation has ever seen, has to move out of his office and shelf his "Mighty gavel"for that LESSER role as MINORITY LEADER...bet he crys over that one!!!!!!!

Let's get EXTREMELY CLEAR here!

We are talking about taxing PERSONAL INCOME.

For the wealthiest among us, you have a choice... reinvest in your business OR, and this is an important "or", take money OUT OF YOUR BUSINESS as PERSONAL INCOME and send it to the Cayman Islands.

Low income tax and capital gains tax rates at the top ENCOURAGE higher personal income and LESS business reinvestment!

I know this personally and professionally! DO NOT listen to this BS that lowering taxes at the top will create jobs... IT HAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE affect! Low taxes discourages reinvestment in business including jobs, equipment, training, inventory, business expansions, etc., etc., etc.

The lies about this should make you sick. They are raping the middle class and half of us are voting for it.

Mitt Romney argues he would be a good president because of his experience at Bain Capital. However, evidence is piling up that he made millions at Bain by firing American workers, outsourcing jobs, and keeping his money overseas.

Romney could shed some light on this by releasing multiple years of his tax returns, as every major presidential candidate has done for decades. This practice was actually pioneered by Romney's father, George, who released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968.

WHAT IS MITT THE TWIT HIDING?

However, Mitt Romney has only released one year of his tax returns, increasing suspicion he got rich mainly by dismantling the American middle class.

WHY DOES MITT THE TWIT HAVE OFFSHORE BANK ACCOUNTS?

MITT SUCH A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN HE STEALS FROM THE USA WITH HIS OFF SHORE ACCOUNTS! HE IS A THIEF!

Money in the Cayman Islands represents nothing but money taken out of our economy... tucked away by the rich to hide it from further tax treatment.

Low income tax rates at the top encourages CEO's to both create rich paydays for themselves and their "buds" and to NOT reinvest in their businesses.

Low tax rates at the top incent the Romney venture capitalists of the world to dismantle, sell-off, and pocket a huge profit instead on reinvesting the money that would risk future higher rates.

There is very little good that comes from low rates at the top.

TruePatriot, Obama wants to extend the tax break for those making under $250,000/yr. The tax break still applies to the first $250,000 of those who make more than that. The top 1% have continually been making record profits during a time when the majority of Americans have been having the roughest time. How do you justify extending a tax break for those doing the best financially when 1) they aren't and never have been creating the jobs these breaks were theoretically supposed to spur, and 2) they're still enjoying the subsidies and tax loopholes that republicans are also opposed to ending.

Once again, the older republicans in the senate get the politics, and go with a half ass compromise that saves them politically, meanwhile house republicans play right into Obama's hand as defender of the middle class and against Romney's weakness as rich and out of touch. Obama's numbers will rise next week, thank you House republicans, and just to be nice I will give you a tip, you can't win a general election based on the small percentage of the population you are protecting. Next you will cry about the automatic defense cuts but you all voted for them, kind of boxed yourselves in right boys, you can't simultaneously complain about debt, spend outrageously on defense, and cut taxes. Politically this works better for Obama than if they would have accepted his plan, and poor little rich man Romney has to try and defend this crap from now until November. This is the second political gift for Obama by house republicans in one day.

So the message from Republicans is:

"The Democrats refuse to believe that tax cuts at the top will eventually trickle down" even though we've been waiting for 40 years for that to happen... and all we got was a net worth loss of 40% while the rich gained net worth throughout the recession.

I seem to remember that when the Bush tax cuts were first enacted it was called "temporary" tax cuts. Then they got extended again and again and again. Temporary means it comes to an end at some time. Maybe we can all agree with W and end them now.

Boston Pat -- I like your posts because they are a welcome relief from the onslaught of drivel from the sixth-grade republican wannabes. But geesh, did you have to bring Nancy Pelosi into it? If there is only one democrat I would like to see voted out it would be her. I get the feeling that she is as guilty of tax evasion and insider trading as Romney (well, maybe not that bad).

Oh, and did I mention that you may be the best writer on these comment boards? In my humble opinion.

Cal20 so of that 50% that pay no taxes 22% are on Social Security 5% are people that make over $250,000 a year and 15% get an eared income credit you know that thing Reagan came up with and the other 50% make under $27,000 a year and are families. So really how much are you going to be able to get from the these people that are barely making it. Also some are unemployed besides 42% of all the gains in income lately have been by the upper 2% of earners so they should be the ones paying the most.

Byron:: Are the federal taxes you say that everyone pays INCOME taxes? If so, aren't they taxes on income? What about people who have non-taxable income? Do you know any elderly people on Social Security?

The WEALTHY are the only one's making anything much today, have you not realized this? The poverty rate includes about 40% of this country now.

If those WITH the cash can't pay the tax increase of just a couple percent, who WILL?????

WHERE are those jobs those tax cuts were supposed to create?

Why do today what you can put off till tomorrow. Congress one upped that motto!!!!!! Why do today what you can put off till next year!!!!!!!!

Jerry.

In response. I too lived on hot dogs, beans,a macaroni and cheese, but when you say that $250,000 isn't rich you must have pulled yourself up a lot or screwed a lot of people? I have a Masters in History just to let you know, but I'm retired. Those incomes I mentioned sure don't come close to the $250,000 or higher that what, 12% have in the US.

Pat Boston MA. "It's Official. House Republicans Just Voted To Block Your Tax Cut To Protect The Rich"

And about a week ago it was "It's official. Senate Democrats Just Voted to Block Your Tax Cut To Soak The Rich".

Whoopdedoo. We all know that there will not REALLY be a tax increase on the middle class. The only question is "Will small business owners get hit with a tax increase or not".

My bet is no tax increase on anyone - every time this game of 'chicken' has been played before, Obama is the one that 'blinked' first.

Well, this answers the question about the circus that the House has become:

Q. How many clowns fit into that little bitty circus car?

A. In excess of 250.

as someone who not only owns their own business and also does his own taxes let me explain why those who support extending the Bush Tax Cuts is simply a fool. The bottom line is that to be in the $250,000 tax bracket- requires that you CLEAR a quarter of a million dollars and you pay the higher rate on the amount OVER the $250,000. Up to that level you pay the same as people under the level. You take off your investment losses- you deduct your charity donations- you deduct your childrens and family's health care- you deduct your mortgage(s) interest....and then you glean the free cash more with investment tax credits and any cash you set aside for your retirement- childrens education-business investments..... then when you have deducted every dime you can- you let the Feds take their taxes. The dirty little secret that Reagan knew as a Republican was that by raising taxes during his term by 200%+ was that it actually ENCOURAGES rich people to invest since that cash is TAX deductable. When you cut the taxes of the wealthy- they can afford to actually take the cash and deposit it in their pERSONAL accounts without the BIG penalty. DUH

Stop telling the truth Davey boy... you'll confuse some folks (no names mentioned, wink wink)

Roy,

You give Obama too much credit... the blinking occurs in Congress, you know that.

Well now the Republicans can claim that Obama and the democrats are holding the tax cuts for the middle class hostage!! Shoes on the other foot b*tches...

2 worst cases of wealth gap between rich and poor - both with horrible consequences:

1. right before the Great Depression after 8 years of GOP (1921-29)

2. right before the Great Recession after 8 years of Bush (2001-2009)

Some never learn. - why would these Republicans want to continue this failed GOP policies regardless of the overwhemling evidence of catastrophe. These GOP idiots think we are all idiots too. Idiocy is in the eyes of idiots.

Libsux, you clearly don't understand what freedom of speech means. I guess next you will spew some nonsense about the 2nd amendment too. You are such a right wing nut that your avatar is a picture that has clearly been debunked a long time ago! Open your eyes and stop watching Faux News all the time.

Shosyn

all taxes need to be lowered on everyone and every business...

YES!!! For sure on EVERY BUSINESS. Do everything we can to encourage business investment, reinvestment, expansion, improvement,... whatever!

BUT!!! When you provide a 15% tax rate at the top end this encourages the top brass to REMOVE money from the business and from this economy... and the 15% tax rate has been VERY successful at doing so!

We're all seeing many companies with great profits right now... operating in the margins with skeleton crews and choosing technology over labor. This is a GOOD thing. This is important to the beginnings of recovery. It's like a locomotive building up a head of steam!

But if you then provide an incentive to take these profits out of that business for personal use, then you've provided an incentive for EXACTLY the wrong thing. The incentive should be to reinvest and expand, not to encourage good ole profit taking! The 15% is so counterproductive and so misunderstood and so damn profitable for ONLY those that can make these reinvestment decisions, it is destroying any chance for recovery.

Why do you think the big guys have made hansome gains to their net worth DURING this recession while the middle class lost 40%? Profit taking. Removing money from the economy. Money needed to recover. And the 15% cheap payday causes it.

Make the top rate 40% and take capital gains to the same level and, after the smoke clears from the richest lobbyists, you'll at least see reinvestment instead of Cayman Island bank growth.

Odd that the CBO is not speaking about all the tax cut extentions would cost in jobs. Here is probably why. Earnst & Young, one of the Big Four Accounting firms has published that ending the Bush Era tax cuts would cost over 700,000 jobs. The left claiming that the tax cuts would create new jobs is so bogus you are not changing anything. To think that keeping the tax cuts would improve the current situation is simply not living in the real world.

sandy-1851937 Comment collapsed by the community

Romney wants to reform the tax code?

How about Romney show voters how he does his taxes.

Before we give him control of ours taxes.

Why in the hell was this collapsed?????

Who is the party of no now? I thought it was the democrats but it seems all but 19 voted no to keeping the government from raising taxes on the middle class. Where's the compromise? You want tax cuts for the middle and the poor, the compromise is to give it to the rich as well. Don't want to compromise? just turn into the new party of no and vote the bill down. Don't worry the senate will do that for us all. Enjoy higher taxes next year everyone all thanks to the democrats not wanting to compromise.

I keep hearing how trickledown economics doesn’t work. You poor blind people. Here’s how the Dem version of trickledown economics works –

I make $250,001K because I run a small business that sells widgets with a 5% profit margin. I am able to employ 10 people and I provide benefits (insurance, etc.). You raise my taxes and my profit margin goes down to 3%. My expenses are based on a 5% margin, so I have to institute cost containment measures to recoup what the government just took. My employees are good, but I can’t afford keep them all now, so I cut 2 jobs and ask the remaining 8 to do more with less. I freeze salaries and require employees to pay more of the cost of their insurance. I’ve regained about 1% of what I lost, but I still need to regain the other 1% so I raise the price of my widgets. My widgets are used to make X-brand and that company has to go up on x-brand to cover the additional cost of my widgets and to regain a portion of what the government took from them (the remaining cost will be made up from cuts to benefits and positions). Of course the store that sells x-brand is facing the same problem so they go up on the price they charge you in order to make up the extra taxes they are having to pay and the higher cost of x-brand (the remaining cost will be made up from cuts to benefits and positions). (This of course assumes that my cost containment measures work. Otherwise, more cuts will be necessary)

Now, here’s the kicker – the employees who were laid off had to go on government assistance. In order to support them, Obama had to find more revenue. If he raises the tax on the 1%s any more, it will become a viscous cycle with even fewer jobs and more people on government assistance, so he has to find the money someplace else. He’s not going to cut government spending, we already know that. The only place left is middle America. So now you’re paying the tax increase for the 1%s and the new increase that was directed at you. Your employer is in “cost containment” mode and you don’t sell anything so there’s nowhere to pass it on to.

Welcome to the Dem’s version of trickledown economics. See how well it works?!

Romney said Trickle Down is the Engine of our Economy "When Pigs Fly"

witchrunner

dogma: Do you really need to see Romney's tax returns?

Yes.

BTW, I was really just wondering what part of the post I quoted was so bad that it needed to be collapsed...which you avoided.

Another point: How is the president supposed to accomplish anything when the republicans made the very public decision from day one of Obama's 1st tour to say no to everything he tried to pass? There is no way that every thing an administration does is absolutely wrong. They did this in order to be able to say that nothing was accomplished during Obama's term. That's it.

Finally, considering the afore mentioned conspiracy of the GOP and the further damage it has caused, if I vote for them now I reward them for their horrible, juvinile and extremely dangerous behavior. Those who vote for them now encourage more dangerous, juvinile behavior in our politicians.

justicenonexistent

Welcome to the Dem's version of trickledown economics. See how well it works?!

Right...and how did we do so well before the bush tax cuts?? Give it a rest... I wish I had the tax problems of those who make over 250k. As it stands, I'm just the idiot who has remianed employed and been middle class all of my life.

I keep forgetting that I owe my life and everything I own to the 2% and up, to include my virgin daughters for their dalliances and my sons for thier illegal wars. Im supposed to be kissing their asses 24/7 and begging them for the scraps from their tables, oh mighty "creators" that they are now dubbed by republicans.

Obama has become quite the distortionist. The House passes a measure to extend "the Bush tax cuts" and Obama claims the Republicans want to raise taxes.

What we really have is dictator Obama saying "if you don't do things my way", I will let taxes increase on everyone ..... and blame it on the Republicans !!! He still wants to play the class warfare game when an increase on "the wealthy" would only fund the annual deficits for about 10 days. Our country has a serious spending problem and Obama doesn't have the ball$ to present a realistic budget proposal to even TRY to live within our income.

Obama's economic mind is unconcerned with $16 trillion in national debt which now consumes 40%+ of every tax dollar. Obamacare will only make things worse.

I wouldn't mind paying more into taxes IF there was some spending cuts. We can't continue to spend, spend, spend....

"Keep the taxes in place that we have," he told CNBC's Larry Kudlow last month. "And then I would like to reform our tax code by bringing the rates down across the board for everybody."

If we follow Romney and the rest of the republicans ideas..just how does this country pay down the huge debt that Bush handed Obama and this nation ? Of course..we can do away with medicare and medicaid and Social Security altogether..but..want to bet we would still have to pay social security taxes and medicare out of our pay checks.? I have to wonder just when folks will wake up to the fact that this nation was formed for us all..not the few. If the wealthy are so well off..what happens when whatever they are selling stops selling ? As for Romney ...I do not want him handling any changes to the tax laws until he releases his tax records...I want to see just how honest he is. I already know he places ads that are full of lies...I have to wonder just how far he is willing to go to get elected.

"Keep the taxes in place that we have," he told CNBC's Larry Kudlow last month. "And then I would like to reform our tax code by bringing the rates down across the board for everybody."

Are you @!$%#ing kidding me??? And this guy said he knows how to read a freaking balance sheet!!! Jesus Christ, how stupider can we get??? The Bush tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy center, will cost us another $3.8 trillion over the next decade. That is a little more than half of our cumulative deficits!!! Add in Romney's $3.4 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, and our deficit goes to around $10 trillion. I say let the fiscal cliff happen; deficits get reduced by around $5 trillion, the deficit hawks can shut their mouths, and we can finally focus on stimulus to fix the economy.

What we really have is dictator Obama saying "if you don't do things my way", I will let taxes increase on everyone ..... and blame it on the Republicans !!!

What comes around goes around. The Republicans played this @!$%# on Obama and the Democrats for the past 3.5 years; it's time for some payback.

He still wants to play the class warfare game when an increase on "the wealthy" would only fund the annual deficits for about 10 days. Our country has a serious spending problem and Obama doesn't have the ball$ to present a realistic budget proposal to even TRY to live within our income.

First of all, the top 1% of Americans control 21% of the nation's collective income, while the top 5% control roughly 37% of all income earned, or over one third. How the hell is that fair??? And the only reason we have a spending problem is because of the RECESSION, which cut into federal revenues (which were artificially increased by the housing bubble and thus were supposed to be lower thanks to Bush tax cuts) and increased spending thanks to unemployment. We need to reform entitlements and cut defense spending, I'll give you that, but unless you want to ax vital programs for our economy we need more revenues, and letting the bloody Bush tax cuts FOR EVERYONE would help.

Obama's economic mind is unconcerned with $16 trillion in national debt which now consumes 40%+ of every tax dollar. Obamacare will only make things worse.

First of all, Obama offered a $4 trillion grand bargain with 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases that was only rejected because Speaker Boehner couldn't muster enough votes from his uncompromising Tea Party caucus (and now HE has the balls to blame Obama for HIS screw-up). And Obamacare is expected to cut the deficit by $200 billion (according to the nonpartisan CBO), so technically it will make things better.

Reality is, even if you tax 100% of their earnings it barely makes a dent in the deficit. So this is all just distracting from the real issue, and that's if the feds don't get spending under control we'll all be suffering under a much higher tax burden in the not-too-distant future, even if we tax the top 1% back to the dark ages.

Alright then, let's assume that we are going to tax the top 1% at a 100% rate. That would total to around $3 trillion in 2012 alone, eliminating the entire deficit and leaving us with a $1.7 trillion surplus. We have to cut spending (that we can agree on), but we also need to raise revenues or else we will never make it to a more-or-less balanced budget. I say let the Bush tax cuts expire and the fiscal cliff come; that will do something for the debt.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

You may want to reconsider calling for tax hikes on the wealthy. It's only the first step in raising taxes on everyone. Tax hikes on the wealthy won't make a dent in the debt, you see. It's only Step No. 1. The Obama Administration and the Democrats will then say they need more revenue because they still don't have enough and will call for tax hikes on the rest of us. It's our patriotic duty to pay more taxes you know.

If you spend enough money, you can position yourself in such a way as to be supposedly "forced" to raise taxes.

I have a question for the friendly conservatives here...

The GWB tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 reduced the tax revenue of the US correct? The reason that was used to justify this was that it would create jobs and thereby increase tax revenue due to growth, correct? Can one of you please explain how this did not materialize and why the GRAND OLE PLUTOCRATS in the House are still trying to use this line of reasoning? In addition, 98% of Americans make less than 250,000/year so why do you repugnicans and blue d_ck democraps continue to fight for 2% of Americans to the detriment of 98% of Americans?

http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/deficit-commission-project/246-the-deficit-vs-the-bush-tax-cuts.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/

More vitriol from the ultra liberal lefties on this p poor blog site... pathetic losers all! Turning a House vote into a national disaster, for instance! Odumbo's moronic minions continue to shred any last bit of decency: continuing to spread the disingenuous BS spewing like diarhea mouth of the Liar-In-Chief; making up new potential disasters; spinning and twisting facts; deliberate misinterpretation of statements from opposion... and on and on...

ONE AND DONE!

The top end tax rate for those making over 288,000 per year is 35%, not 15% as many of you lying liberals like to push.

Facts:

1) We are in a recession

2) Businesses do not need any more uncertainty

All Republicans are saying is when an economy is flailing around like a fish on a hot deck the LAST thing you need is more uncertainty. Nobody is getting a tax "break". Nobody is getting a "deal". Simply tell businesses that your income taxes will not change and lock those in for, say, 3 years. Do that and this economy will explode with growth. Continue uncertainty and the economy will stay in the format that Obama has created - stagnant and confidence declining.

So keep this in mind - if your taxes go up it is Obama and the Democrats fault. They are willing to hold the lower and middle class hostage for the desire to penalize those that succeed. Sorry, Republicans want everyone's taxes to stay as they are but if the Democrats don't agree with keeping the current tax rates then EVERYBODY'S taxes will go up. Rich, middle-class, and poor. So it is in the Democrats court. Do the Democrats want everyone's taxes to go up or not?

BTW, don't fool yourself. This is EXACTLY what the Democrats want. They don't give a tiny rat's behind whether the rich, middle-class, AND poor pay more in taxes and is what they want. More tax revenue but can try to blame the Republicans AND get more tax dollars. Sorry, only the unintelligent and uninformed will fall for that.

So if your taxes go up remember that the Democrats did it. They can sign a bill right now making sure taxes don't go up and if the Democrat Senate votes it down remember it is the Democrats that caused your taxes to go up.

Notliborcon: Let's get a few facts straight.

1) After the Bush tax cuts the next three years saw INCREASING tax revenues. That is factual. It was only the housing collapse in 2007 that caused a decline in revenues due to the recession. But the tax cuts DID increase tax revenues.

2) Tax cuts had nothing to do with deficits. As stated above tax revenues actually INCREASED so how did deficits increase too? Because they spent MORE than the increased tax revenues. That is like a family that earns $50,000 a year but spend $60,000 a year (for a deficit of $10,000 a year). So the husband gets a raise and now the family earns $55,000 a year. That is good right? But if the family spending increases to $70,000 the annual deficit has STILL increased (to $15,000). The increased income had NOTHING to do with the increased deficit. When you make a "little" more but spend a "lot" more your deficit increases. That's what happened from 2005 to 2007. Tax revenues INCREASED but gvmt spending increased MORE!!

So it comes back to what we have been talking about. We have a spending problem. Not a tax revenue problem. Increasing taxes will DECREASE tax revenue. Already is doing that with the new ObamaCare taxes that are and will be taking place. When income taxes increase for EVERYBODY due to the Democrats allowing taxes for everyone to rise get ready for a more severe recession or even a depression. And only the DEMOCRATS can be blamed. They have the opportunity RIGHT NOW to insure taxes do not go up for anybody but they will punish the middle-class and poor JUST to be spiteful that they cannot punish those that succeed. So the Democrats will allow taxes to rise on everyone.

Probusiness... I see you didn't read the attached article so I will paraphrase it for you. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/
1) & 2) "total federal revenues declined in fiscal year 2001 for the first time since 1983, mainly because of the Bush tax cuts."
"Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures. In fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn't reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.

We pointed out these figures to the senator's spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession. But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts."

You are FLAT out wrong about tax revenues going up between 2000 and 2005. In fact, according to a Treasury department employee, Dan Viard, stated "...the recent three-year period also comes after three years of decreases, a drop Viard attributes to the 2001 tax cuts and the start of a recession that same year.".

Where do you think money to pay for government obligations comes from? Perhaps taxes? When there is not enough money to fund things (like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) then you must borrow money aka debt increase. Deficits can be reduced by ditching tax cuts, spending less on military programs that DO NOT help troops in urban environments (F-22 and F-35 which I worked on), eliminating subsidies to fossil fuel industry, etc.

Show me CREDIBLE evidence to verify your "After the Bush tax cuts the next three years saw INCREASING tax revenues. That is factual." is accurate. I am willing to listen.

Notliborcon: You are REALLY not going to dispute facts too - are you? I don't know where you get your info but your points 1) and 2) that says "total federal revenue declined in fiscal year 2001 for the first time since 1983, mainly because of the Bush tax cuts". I don't know where you got your info but one small problem - the Bush Tax Cuts were passed in 2003. There was a "stimulus" in 2001 in the form of tax "rebates" but the Bush Tax Cuts (with the tax rates that we are currently debating) didn't take effect until 2003. So your point is mute to begin with because it is an incorrect date.

Rather than "he said she said" it is easier to show you the Federal Tax Revenues by year from the White House OWN website. whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals and click on table 1.1. Here are the tax REVENUES for the following years:

2003: Tax Revenues of $1.782 Trillion

2004: Tax Revenues of $1.880 Trillion

2005: Tax Revenues of $2.153 Trillion

2006: Tax Revenues of $2.407 Trillion

2007: Tax Revenues of $2.568 Trillion

2008: Tax Revenues of $2.524 Trillion

So, as I said before AFTER the Bush Tax Cuts Tax Revenues increased year over year from 2003 (when the current tax rates were initiated) until 2007 we had INCREASING tax revenues. It wasn't until the housing collapse in 2008 that tax revenues declined and that was not a tax RATE issue - that was an economy issue. Fact of the matter is when the tax cuts were initiated we had 4 straight years of year over year tax revenue INCREASES. I don't know why liberals believe if they repeat lies enough somehow they come true. All of your "mumbo jumbo" means nothing. All of "the Bush Tax Cuts are responsible for our deficit" is a lie. We INCREASED tax revenues for 4 straight years DUE to the Bush Tax Cuts. The problem is we increased SPENDING more than the increased tax revenue.

Before you repeat nonsense I have a better idea - when someone says tax revenues increased for the 4 years following the tax cuts in 2003 rather than finding some liberal "talking points" why don't you go directly to the tax revenue figures supplied by the federal government and THEN tell me I am wrong? Maybe it is because I am not wrong. It is there supplied by the federal government for anybody with the IQ at least 10 points above a turnip can see. I suggest you actually TRY looking up actual federal supplied numbers rather than going to Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, or Bill Maher. They wouldn't know a "fact" if it slapped them on the backside.

Are you going to dispute my tax revenues now that I got them directly from the Federal government AND the White House website? Are you willing to listen now?

Notliborcon: And before you start disputing the "tax rates" by year here is a summary - ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

It took until 2003 for Bush to get the new TAX RATES approved through Congress. The above website confirms that the tax RATES did not change until 2003. Tax revenues increased year over year for the next 4 years.

maybe if the prez would stop spending at a record pace he wouldnt need to increase taxs. my ten year old knows if he has no money in the piggy bank he has no money to spend. cut off funding all the deadbeats and you will have a surplus. stop sending money to countrys that would like to chop or heads off

I guess i should have been more specific.... Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. This normalizes the numbers by comparing it to growth in GDP and federal tax receipts. This as MUCH more accurate measure of the effect of the Bush Tax Cuts.

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

Fhill.... part of the spending increases under Obama were due to the FACT that GWB did NOT put the cost for Iraq and Afghanistan on our tab.

Rick-312779

The top end tax rate for those making over 288,000 per year is 35%, not 15% as many of you lying liberals like to push.

Only if they get their incomes from wages, not capital gains.

ProBusiness

Facts:

1) We are in a recession

Not necessarily, but we can think of it like that.

2) Businesses do not need any more uncertainty

Neither do our social programs need more axing.

All Republicans are saying is when an economy is flailing around like a fish on a hot deck the LAST thing you need is more uncertainty. Nobody is getting a tax "break". Nobody is getting a "deal". Simply tell businesses that your income taxes will not change and lock those in for, say, 3 years. Do that and this economy will explode with growth. Continue uncertainty and the economy will stay in the format that Obama has created - stagnant and confidence declining.

No offense ProBusiness (as I consider you one of my few conservative friends on this vine), but if extending the Bush tax cuts would cause the economy to "explode with growth," how come that didn't happen during the Bush years??? The only reason (in my opinion, and I'm no economist) why we had any resemblance of significant growth is because of the housing bubble, which artificially boosted employment, GDP growth, etc. Tax cuts had their chance for 8 years, and they failed. In science (and in economics, which is technically science), a failed theory would be discarded the moment it was discovered to be flawed. Certainty is an important aspect of economics, but we cannot enslave ourselves to the concept of economic uncertainty. What would really help businesses (besides the continuation of a few thousand in tax returns) is higher demand, caused by a more coordinated spending program on rebuilding our infrastructure.

So keep this in mind - if your taxes go up it is Obama and the Democrats fault. They are willing to hold the lower and middle class hostage for the desire to penalize those that succeed. Sorry, Republicans want everyone's taxes to stay as they are but if the Democrats don't agree with keeping the current tax rates then EVERYBODY'S taxes will go up. Rich, middle-class, and poor. So it is in the Democrats court. Do the Democrats want everyone's taxes to go up or not?

This Democrat does, mainly because I think tax rates for everyone are too low and on the left side of the Laffer curve (yes, I do believe in the Laffer curve). And not all of the wealthiest Americans are what you can call, "successful"; many are just people who got chosen to be CEO by influential friends and get massive reimbursement packages. And technically, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is current law, according to the CBO. The Democratic plan to extend the Bush rates for the middle class is technically a tax cut.

BTW, don't fool yourself. This is EXACTLY what the Democrats want. They don't give a tiny rat's behind whether the rich, middle-class, AND poor pay more in taxes and is what they want. More tax revenue but can try to blame the Republicans AND get more tax dollars. Sorry, only the unintelligent and uninformed will fall for that.

Actually, I think they do. Because if everyone pays higher taxes, both the Democrats AND Republicans will be blamed; it'll be a contest just to see how much blame is given to who.

So if your taxes go up remember that the Democrats did it. They can sign a bill right now making sure taxes don't go up and if the Democrat Senate votes it down remember it is the Democrats that caused your taxes to go up.

Actually, both sides did it; Democrats finally found a backbone and drew a line in the sand; Republicans refused to compromise (for once).

ProBusiness

Notliborcon: Let's get a few facts straight.

1) After the Bush tax cuts the next three years saw INCREASING tax revenues. That is factual. It was only the housing collapse in 2007 that caused a decline in revenues due to the recession. But the tax cuts DID increase tax revenues.

Not necessarily; you are ignoring the effects of inflation and the housing bubble, both of which increased revenues. The tax cuts led to a long period of below-average revenues as a share of GDP (which accounts for inflation and GDP growth); only after 2006 (which conspicuously coincided with the peak of the housing bubble) were revenues above 18%; starting in 2008, when the financial crisis took center stage, revenues fell to 17.6% and continued to fall to the current estimated level of around 16.3%.

2) Tax cuts had nothing to do with deficits. As stated above tax revenues actually INCREASED so how did deficits increase too? Because they spent MORE than the increased tax revenues. That is like a family that earns $50,000 a year but spend $60,000 a year (for a deficit of $10,000 a year). So the husband gets a raise and now the family earns $55,000 a year. That is good right? But if the family spending increases to $70,000 the annual deficit has STILL increased (to $15,000). The increased income had NOTHING to do with the increased deficit. When you make a "little" more but spend a "lot" more your deficit increases. That's what happened from 2005 to 2007. Tax revenues INCREASED but gvmt spending increased MORE!!

That is only true if you say that revenues increased in dollar terms (which it did). But comparing revenues to GDP, revenues actually fell at the same time that spending began to increase (mostly on two wars and Medicare Part D). So in actuality, the deficit came from both lower revenues and increased spending.

So it comes back to what we have been talking about. We have a spending problem. Not a tax revenue problem. Increasing taxes will DECREASE tax revenue. Already is doing that with the new ObamaCare taxes that are and will be taking place.

Not really. Unless the taxes are raised during a recession (which will technically only reduce the increase, not negate it), revenues will usually increase after a tax hike; the results of ending the Bush tax cuts for everyone (which would raise revenues to 23% of GDP) shows that. I agree that we have a spending problem (mostly because of the recession and the Afghan war), but we also have a revenue problem (revenues are far below the 50 year 18% average).

When income taxes increase for EVERYBODY due to the Democrats allowing taxes for everyone to rise get ready for a more severe recession or even a depression. And only the DEMOCRATS can be blamed. They have the opportunity RIGHT NOW to insure taxes do not go up for anybody but they will punish the middle-class and poor JUST to be spiteful that they cannot punish those that succeed. So the Democrats will allow taxes to rise on everyone.

In actuality, the fiscal cliff is only expected to cause a recession (however unnecessary) for first 2 quarters of 2013. It is a heavy price to pay, but if it means reducing the deficit and shutting up deficit hawks, I'm all for it (plus I still think everyone's taxes are too low, even the poor). We have to blame both parties, but the Republicans mostly because they are refusing to compromise, even after Democrats did in 2010 and extended everyone's tax breaks. And the wealthiest Americans have received tax cuts for the past 30 years, and what has that led to?? Increased income inequality (which essentially waters down economic growth as most of it goes to the wealthy), stagnant wages, outsourcing, housing bubbles, and a recession (which can be theoretically blamed on tax cuts because the wealthy have become to focus on risky bets thanks to fatter salaries). As Einstein said: insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results.

ProBusiness

Notliborcon: You are REALLY not going to dispute facts too - are you? I don't know where you get your info but your points 1) and 2) that says "total federal revenue declined in fiscal year 2001 for the first time since 1983, mainly because of the Bush tax cuts". I don't know where you got your info but one small problem - the Bush Tax Cuts were passed in 2003. There was a "stimulus" in 2001 in the form of tax "rebates" but the Bush Tax Cuts (with the tax rates that we are currently debating) didn't take effect until 2003. So your point is mute to begin with because it is an incorrect date.

Technically, the Bush tax cuts include the 2001 tax cuts, which were never ended (hence their being called the Bush tax cuts). But I also have to state that the reasons revenue fell in 2001 was because of the recession.

Rather than "he said she said" it is easier to show you the Federal Tax Revenues by year from the White House OWN website. whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals and click on table 1.1. Here are the tax REVENUES for the following years:

2003: Tax Revenues of $1.782 Trillion

2004: Tax Revenues of $1.880 Trillion

2005: Tax Revenues of $2.153 Trillion

2006: Tax Revenues of $2.407 Trillion

2007: Tax Revenues of $2.568 Trillion

2008: Tax Revenues of $2.524 Trillion

These numbers don't actually paint the whole picture. You'd have to count GDP growth and inflation, which raises revenues all the time (except during a recession), essentially comparing revenues to GDP. And the record doesn't help your argument (see http://www.statista.com/statistics/217407/state-revenue-and-forecast-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/).

Are you going to dispute my tax revenues now that I got them directly from the Federal government AND the White House website? Are you willing to listen now?

Not gonna debate the revenues, but I will debate the cause of them.

Notliborcon: WHAT?!?!? What kind of explanation is that?? Liberals love to say that when tax cuts were initiated we LOST tax revenue and is the reason for the deficit and increased debt. We now see that is not true. The tax cuts gave the federal government MORE money. Liberals also love to say that tax cuts do NOT grow the economy and decreases tax revenue. Now I show that is NOT the case. The Bush Tax Cuts INCREASED economic growth (aka GDP) and INCREASED tax revenue to the federal government. Now when the numbers show otherwise there is some wild shift and trying to twist the data to STILL try to make the liberal talking points work? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Inflation was a non-issue (Bush ranged annually between 1.5% and 3.8% throughout his entire term - no different than the last three years) so we look at tax revenue growth and GDP growth. Both increased AFTER the Bush Tax Cuts.

BTW, Bush inherited a recession too from Bill Clinton AND we had an attack on our country (9/11) and within two years we were out of the recession and, thanks to the tax cuts, was growing GDP significantly through 2007 (while also increasing tax revenue). Now Obama inherits a recession and here we are three years later with a stagnant economy and STILL unemployment over 8%. Amazing how George Bush is often described as "failed policy" but the numbers show otherwise. Obama says the "private sector is doing fine" but the numbers show otherwise. I'll take George Bush economic policies over the failed policies of Barack Hussein Obama..................

Freshieee: I noticed your lengthy post so didn't read all of it but you did make a point that I will agree with (and although Notliborcon and I have been in a debate he will be surprised to read my next comment). Although GDP and tax revenues increased AFTER the Bush Tax Cuts I agree with you that the housing bubble was partially the cause. Secondly, Bush borrowed too much money. Not as much as Obama but when the government spends borrowed money it shows as increased GDP but is NOT sustainable GDP.

I teach college economics and I have often argued that when calculating GDP you SHOULD subtract out any money BORROWED. GDP = C(onsumption) + I(nvestment) + G(overnment Spending) + NX (Net Exports). But when the government BORROWS money and spends it although "G" increases it is NOT GDP. That is like a family that makes $30,000 a year but borrows $5,000 to buy a boat. Did that family make $35,000? No they didn't. They made $30,000 and BORROWED $5,000 that must be paid back from FUTURE earnings. So I will admit (and Notliborcon hopefully you see this as trying to have an honest debate) that some of the GDP during the mid 2000's was not sustainable GDP (just like much of the nominal GDP from last year is also not sustainable since it was with borrowed funds).

Did George Bush have a great economic policy? I admit that is not the case and I personally was yelling and screaming to my representatives at the time we CANNOT sustain borrowing $300 - $400 Billion a year. Of course I would take that in a heartbeat over $1.5 Trillion borrowed a year now but with a pro-business policy of George Bush we still had economic growth and increased employment. What we need is responsible and reduced government, reduced spending, and let the private sector do what it has done so well over the last 75 years.

We will not be able to correct economic pay inequality. It is a product of both political parties policies for the last 30 years. As mentioned when taxes are higher companies are forced to invest any profits back into the company. That is fine if there is an actual reason to increase in size. As we can see now you do reach a saturation point where there is no further payoff in expanding. The truth is a lot of our larger stores have put many family businesses out of business. A larger store can live on a smaller profit margin, there for they are almost always going to have a better price. We are to blame for that just as much as the politicians. The other truth that we all have to realize is that there are quite a few regulations and EPA standards that force processes to be done in other countries. We are cleaner at the cost of polluting other countries land and water. At some point they will enact standards to protect their environment as well. This should level the playing field quite a bit. We also have to understand that we are just too efficient at producing what we buy to go back to the way it used to be. The underlying costs have totally changed over the years. It used to be the products or parts had the most cost. Now it is the labor and advertising. Also now are are talking of millions of units per quarter instead of millions per year. There is no gradual build up in demand, it is actually the other way around, greater demand when if first comes out and a tapering of demand over time. How do you plan for that? A lot of companies do contract MFG, which means that a lot of jobs that used to be semi permanent are temporary.

We need to cut spending, we as citizens need to take more responsibility for our own welfare. We want everything now instead of saving or making any plans for how to pay for it.

Credit is another factor in a false economy, just like government spending.

How much should a CEO make when an athlete is making 20 million dollars a year?

I love how Probusiness is just spouting random fox news talking points. I appreciate subnormal's actual logical statements.

It's not just taxes, and its not just a us vs. them. This economy is digging itself into a pit where only the rich get richer and the middle class gets gutted. Giant corporations (who are now apparently "people), tax code designed to enrich the wealthy, the quest to cut costs and raise profits no matter what (I like subnormal's statement we are cleaner at the cost of polluting other countries land and water). If we found ways to encourage Inter-American spending and resourcing... like... oh I don't know, Buy American clauses in all public works contracts, letting all the bush-era tax cuts expire, higher import taxes, and taxing gasoline at a much higher rate (making transportation costs a major issue), this might actually scratch the surface.

But again, as Mitty would say, the problem is cultural. This culture wants everything, right now, and the cheapest price humanly possible.

If we accepted higher costs of groceries, goods, and services, that are all locally sourced, it would be tougher, yes. You may have to wait a few months before buying that big screen. You might have to pay an extra $0.50 at McDonalds. However, it would actually improve the economy, eventually, increase jobs and GDP.

Unfortunately the tax-raising (by letting temporary cuts expire...), fuel cost increasing (pissing off morons in middle America), import taxing (pissing off China and the rich who outsource), Buy American Only (which seems logical, but no one wants to support it... letting you know where their interests really are) platform would be laughed out immediately from a government bought and paid for by rich and foreign interests.

Sorry guys, rant and rave on the petty all you want, no one is going to be able to solve this. This bell can't be unrung.

Hooray, Globalization!

Why is Romney's tax records so important to the left while we've still not seen...

1, Obama’s original vault copy of a long form birth certificate, if one exists. Not released.

2, Obama’s certificate of live birth (short form-COLB), a proven forgery released.

3, In 1961 no computers then to photo-shop or produce Obama’s fraudulent COLB document, in fact the font (type) is computer created, no typewriter had that capability in 1961, fact.

4, This is Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate dated Aug. 4, 1961= (in question) http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

5, Dunham-Obama marriage license. Not released.

6, Dunham-Soetoro marriage license. Not released.

7, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama adoption records. Not released.

8, Obama’s aka Soetoro’s Besuki School application obtained. (proven) http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13056.htm

9, Obama’s aka Soetoro’s Punahou School records. Not released.

10, Selective Service Registration – a proven forgery released and a criminal act. (forgery) http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/004431print.html.

11, Obama’s Occidental College records. Not released.

12, Obama’s passport from Indonesia, he had to have one to attend school in Indonesia. Not released.

13, Obama’s U.S. Passport, if one exists. Not released.

14, Obama entered Pakistan on what countries passport. Not released.

15, Obama’s Columbia University records, a foreign exchange student? Not released.

16, Obama’s Columbia University thesis. Not released.

17, Not one name of any student who knows Obama attendant Columbia released or known.

18, Obama’s Harvard Law School records, a foreign exchange student? Not released.

19, Obama’s Harvard Law Review articles, none released.

20, Obama’s Baptism certificate, if one exists? None released.

21, Obama’s Medical records, not released (a one-page statement Obama is healthy).

22, Obama’s Illinois State Senate records. Not released.

23, Obama’s Illinois State Senate schedule. Not released (alleged to have been lost).

24, Obama’s Law practices client list and billing records. Not released.

26, Obama’s University of Chicago scholarly articles, none released or exist?

27, The reason Obama lost his license to practice law in Illinois. Not released.

28, Obama’s campaign donor analysis. Not released.

29, Obama’s list of campaign workers who are lobbyists. Not released.

30, Obama’s list of countries he visited outside the United States before 2008. Not released.

31, Obama never repatriated to the U.S. from his Indonesia citizenship, if documented. Not released.

32, The U.S. Constitution states you CAN NOT be president if you change your U.S. citizenship and are repatriated and you have to be just to become a U.S. citizen again.

33, On January 21, 2009, his first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489, denying any release of anything about him.

Did George Bush have a great economic policy? I admit that is not the case and I personally was yelling and screaming to my representatives at the time we CANNOT sustain borrowing $300 - $400 Billion a year. Of course I would take that in a heartbeat over $1.5 Trillion borrowed a year now but with a pro-business policy of George Bush we still had economic growth and increased employment. What we need is responsible and reduced government, reduced spending, and let the private sector do what it has done so well over the last 75 years.

Unfortunately, Bush did not have a pro-business policy. Cutting regulations in the financial sector (while some think it as pro-growth) is actually anti-business; this leads to an unstable financial market that can fall when one bank (which would be too big to fail) fails and also leads to an increase in private debt (along with social norms that lead to people avoiding saving in favor of debt and the stagnation of middle class wages). When the debt bubble pops, a "Great Recession" occurs, leading to a lackluster recovery. Deregulation, when done responsibly, can be good over the long-term, but when it is done recklessly it is merely a short-term bandage that will blow up in the long-term. And to be accurate, the only reason why we have a trillion deficit is because the fiscal results of the recession (normally leading to deficits) were placed on top of the Bush deficits. They will gradually decrease until the late teens, when the Baby Boomers start retiring.

Steve, all I have to say is,

HOLY CRAP

I can imagine a no greater waste of the gift of life than the way that you choose to spend your time. Useless baffoon.

Oh well. Let's take it off the cliff.

Hi Rolla, money that Willard gives to his cult does not count as "charity" in my book. As for those poor JCINO's (job creators in name only) don't want their taxes to go up, then I would suggest they get off their asses and create some jobs! As for the Red Sux Drool challenge, look at the employment numbers during the 1990's after the Clinton tax hikes. You make this too easy!

High rolla - I'm glad you're such a big supporter of the Mormon church, since that's where 95% of Mitt's "donations" went.

And don't forget - he got a 100% writeoff on his taxes for that, too. Not too "charitable" when you get it all back.

Don't forget the money Willard wrote off for his donation to the U.S. Equestrian Team, which took his wife's horse to the Olympics.

I'm sure we all benefited from that more than the taxes he would have paid.

Hey RedSox,

Payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) make up 46% of all federal revenues.

How much did you and your boy Mitt pay last year? All working people paid 7.65%.

Romney paid 0%. How about you?

RedSox,

I think people should have to take a literacy test to vote, but we're not in the Confederate South. Every citizen over the age of 18 has the RIGHT to vote. Though I think yours should be taken away since you're clearly unfit to make an intelligent comment.

"I think you should have to pay some taxes to vote."

Poll taxes were repealed as the Jim Crow era ended. Those laws were struck down about the same time segregated rest rooms and drinking fountains were abolished. This country will not return to those hateful days no matter how attractive the notion may be to Red Sox Sux and his degenerate ilk.

This country was at it's most prosperous when the top 1% paid a 90% rate in taxes. So much for "job creators" needing even more tax breaks.

Feisty is right. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and was not only able to create about 23 million jobs, but a budget surplus as well. Can we now juxtapose that with Bush who cut taxes and only created about 4 million jobs. I guess real history no longer matters for some of us.

The mormons must be different than christians because at the church I give money to we use it to do soup kitchens help people who are sick etc etc. I honestly didnt know Moromons didnt help people like that. What do they do with the money?

"Thanks, you do continue to amuse me."

Glad to hear it! Please be assured the sounds of hilarity you hear is the rest of us laughing at, not with, you!

So, uh, Red Sox -- would you like a history lesson?

When was the US economy stronger -- in fact, world dominant: from 2000 to present, or during the '50s/60s?

What were the tax rates then?

Did jobs dry up?

Read.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000.

This was nearly the highest tax rate for top earners in the century, just under the 94 percent rate for income over $200,000 instated during World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency.

In 1954, the 92 percent marginal rate decreased to 91 percent under Eisenhower. The maximum tax on long-term capital gains was 25 percent -- a rate that remained in place for a decade.

Too bad so many conservatives expend so much energy hating gay people that they can't find time to fix the economy.

No mention of Mormon charities, High Rolla? Just church construction and other projects that promotes their cult? It looks like Feisty was right.

Wow! It seems some still think "Politifact" is still a reputable source of information. They often say one opinion in their story, but then rate it differently than they opined. Seen it too many times already. They are almost as bad as "The Drudge Report". Sorry, you'll have to do better than a Politifact article, to prove my statement wrong. I'll be looking for that next link for rebuttal.

High rolla:: Yes, Mutt does give to his favorite charities. Let's see-- five sons and a slew of grandkids. He goes by that old saying that charity begins at home. Oh I forgot-- he has a wife and a horse.

Sure Benny! Let's take a look at a Washington Post analysis of the source of the debt:

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

Doesn't look good for you teatards, does it?

Well, this answers the question about the circus that the House has become:

Q. How many clowns fit into that little bitty circus car?

A. In excess of 250.

Fiesty wasn't first post. Losing your touch. What, had to finally get a job there Fiesty? Benes dry up?

Hey hirolla the money he gave to charity he deducts from his taxes and if you notice he doesn't incur any income that is not a capital gain. In other words the money from his book that is taxed as income at about 33-35% he gave to the Mormon Church which serves no body except other cultists. He didn't give it out of the goodness of his heart he gave it to avoid taxes at the normal rate because he was robbing the American taxpayer blind behind the curtain by putting $100 million in an IRA that can only accrue %5,000 a year and claiming capital gains from other peoples' investments that he should have been paying the normal rate for income because it was not his investment and he didn't pay income tax on the "charitable" deduction to a cult and he got to deduct that additional amount off of his already wink and a nod deal on the capital gains from Bain as a charitable donation which is the same as giving to any cult by any other fanatic. He has been audited numerous times because of all of his shady dealings.He also didn't take income as governor because he would have to pay income taxes on it. Instead Bain structured it where he gets to claim he doesn't work there but he still receives 100s of millions from other peoples' investments and other people's money that gets invested yet he claims that income as capital gains even today when in effect it is investment fees which are not capital gains. The bottom line: Everybody knew Romney was /is a habitual liar and is spineless when it comes to core values and now we all know ROMNEY IS A CROOK too. I didn't like the failed policies of W. Bush that wrecked the economy and darn near bankrupted the Nation but at least with Bush and his daddy we all knew they were not crooks. Romney wants to go back to the same exact failed policies and HE IS A CROOK TOO. Romney has taken so many tax deductions related to Bain that he would have a hard time explaining to the IRS how he "retroactively retired in 1999." Romney has been ripping off the US Taxpayer by writing off his costs for his private jet, his lavish meals, his limo services and the five star hotel stays while working at Bain and attending board meetings and wining and dining clients. He is such a crook it is hard to believe that the collective memory of the GOP is so short that you guys, and I do mean exclusively guys with your war on women and all, actually nominated another crook so soon after Nixon resigned in disgrace as the crook he was. I figured it would be at least another generation before the GOP nominated another crook but I was wrong you guys nominated Romney.

The Mormon church does a lot of charity, but they are not a charitable organization in the sense of the United Way, for example. And this is no different from most other religious organizations, and why tax deductions for charity should be very specific. If Mormons pay tithing to support the operations of the church, building temples, etc. they are welcome to do that, but it shouldn't be tax deductible.

Now about the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes, here is a news discussion between host Ezra Klein and ROBERT GREENSTEIN, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES:

KLEIN: So, one argument Republicans make on some of these tax credits
and benefits … is that they go to people who aren`t
paying federal income taxes at all, people who due to the deductions in the
code and they`re very low incomes, they`re actually just getting a rebate
from the government. If you take that away from them, that is not a tax
increase, it`s a reduction in a kind of spending.

Do they have a point there?

GREENSTEIN: Well, but we need to understand -- excuse me -- that
these tax credits are in part to offset the payroll tax. It doesn`t work
administratively, physically, to do the relief within the payroll tax
itself, so we use these credits in the income tax to offset the payroll
tax, excise tax, in addition --

KLEIN: Wait. And just we should quickly say, so the federal income
tax is one that a lot of folks don`t pay because their incomes aren`t high
enough. But pretty much everybody with a job pays a payroll tax.

GREENSTEIN: Everybody with a job pays payroll tax.

KLEIN: And that`s not included in these numbers like 50 percent of
people don`t pay income taxes.

GREENSTEIN: The 50 percent, and in a normal year like 40 percent, are
people who don`t pay income tax, but only about 15 percent in a normal
economic year don`t pay income or payroll tax, and they`re not people who
get these credits, either. They`re like -- you only get these credits if
you`re working. And they help offset your payroll tax, often gasoline,
excise taxes.

But there`s another function they have -- we in this country have let
the minimum wage and wages in general for people at the bottom of the
income scale erode badly. The minimum wage is 20 percent lower in
purchasing power today than in the late `60s. The deal policymakers
basically made is they let the minimum wage erode, but they said we`ll make
up for part of that by supplementing wages through the earned income tax
credit. That`s part of what it does.

Some of the very Republicans who were saying let this expire,
attacking it now, in past years, when there was a big move to raise the
minimum wage, all of a sudden, they opposed the minimum wage and they
wanted increases in the earned income credit as a way to beat the minimum
income increase.

So, now, we let wages erode, and we`re talking about pulling the rug
out on the credits as well.

KLEIN: So, let me ask you a broad question about this whole debate.
I see where the rich are being asked to sacrifice, because we talked a lot
about shared sacrifice. So, I see what the Democrats, where the rich are
being asked to contribute. I see in both the Democratic and Republican
plans, although more so on the Republican plans, where the poor are being
asked to sacrifice in terms of programs they rely on like Medicaid and food
stamps being deeply cut.

One thing I actually don`t see is the people in the vast middle, the
upper middle class or middle class really having much of a role in this
budget conversation. And because you have spent so much time on this, I
want to ask you if I`m wrong, if I`m missing something. It seems that
shared sacrifices come to mean the very poor and very rich, and sort of the
broad middle gets held blameless.

GREENSTEIN: Well, that`s certainly the way the tax proposals are laid
out. But, you know, if you look at the people in the top, the point you
made, Ezra, is exactly right. People who are millionaires under the Obama
proposal, they still get large tax cuts because they get all of the Bush
tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their income.

So, for example, for people who make between half a million and a
million dollars a year, their average tax cut under Obama is $10,500 a
year. Under the Republican proposals, it`s eventually over $100,000 a
year.

Meanwhile, we got a mother working full time at the minimum wage,
raising two kids. And under the Republican proposal, she would lose $1,500
of her child credit. It would be cut from about $1,700 to just $250.

So you know, the idea that the Obama proposal is upside down because
it lets her keep the $1,500 and the people at the top keep $10,000 instead
of $100,000, it`s not exactly soaking the rich.

IMO it would be preferable to index the minimum wage to inflation and end tax credits that are deserved how so? You deserve a break for having a kid that tax payers will hep support with public education, health care, etc.? Or for paying a mortgage instead of rent though taxes are passed to both? It is better to pay people properly and then have low rates instead of deductions.

But it is a lie that the working poor pay no taxes, and sales taxes are harder on the poor than the rich. This is the "race to the bottom" world Teapublicans and plutocrats like Romney envision.

Income redistribution (a.k.a. spreading the wealth upwards), a definition.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%.

During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%.

From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.

In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.

During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%.

In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

The Republicans have to pay off the bribes to the rich for their support. Everyone knows that. Why is this news?

"blame and call names

that's what liberals do."

LOL like a conservative has never called anyone a name or blamed Obama for everything! Too Funny!

I wish more people would realize that the wealthy and super-wealthy do not have this interest in creating jobs. They will create jobs when they absolutely need to. And they will pay the minimum they can get away with. They don't realize that the middle class is the engine that buys all the garbage from their businesses.

All those tax breaks for the wealthy do not go into creating more jobs. They merely take that money out of the economy and put it elsewhere...something like $30+ trillion in offshore accounts I recently heard. Marketplace on NPR mentioned a little investigation they did into this "small companies will be affected by Obama's tax change" nonsense. They found less than 10% of small businesses would be affected.

"dave20121

Too bad our democrat president expends so much energy golfing and campaigning that he can't find time to meet with his own job counsel to help fix the economy."

LOL!

Perhaps you can point us to some stat that show Obama spend s too much time golfing so we don't think you're just making up BS?

And I'm pretty sure a lot of GOP president have golfed plenty. And are you of the mind set that no GOP President ever campaigned during an election year? SURPRISE! They ALL did!

Or maybe you're just a full of, you know what, hypocrite?

in the middle-2260511:
While it's not my job to be anyone's apologist, I believe her "credentials" would be found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it, that hallowed document that the right wrong wing tries to pervert and usurp when it's inconvenient to their agenda, but wrap themselves in when it serves their purpose. Why, it even protects your hate speech on this vine.

@BP-2252891: Well, we know that he has met with his jobs council only once. So, to make the statement isn't a stretch. Also, I'm not the one who said that I was laser focused on creating jobs.

Finally, I was only responding to a stupid comment made by another poster.

High rolla...Since Romney has not posted real tax info( uncompleted and estimated only)..Question is, How much Romney should have paid? Since he refuses to answer, ( actually anything asked of him) he proves he is hiding his info for a good reason, something is illegal.

Once again, Romney and the repubs hold nation hostage to give the rich more money. The Ryan plan gives even more tax breaks for the rich and makes the middle class and poor pay for them. Nothing but greed by the repubs.

Plain and simple, repubs took the pledge to their office, then went back on that pledge to the nation when they pledged to the government of Grover Norquist not to raise any more taxes, because the rich have them at all time low.

Repubs who took the Norquist pledge now pledge against the United States. They should all be removed from office because they pledged to someone they now recognize as their leader. Norquist was put above the constitution. As Bush Senior just said, "who the hell is Norquist anyway?"

I think the main thing Romney doesn't want exposed is that he was for a number of years part of the 48% who paid no taxes. If the best he could show on the returns he wanted to look good for release was 14.5% you can bet in years he turned his tax avoidance attorneys loose he paid zero.

I'll admit I haven't done any research on who paid how much in taxes over the past decade. But here is my problem...

I don't feel its right for some peope to pay a lower percentage than anyone else!Are they better americans than I am? I mean really ,unless you are in the armed services I don't see how( NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU MAKE) you can feel you shouldn't pay the same rate as anyone else! I made 19,000 in 2011 and payed 1,050 in federal taxes. I recieved around 800 of it back,so I really ony payed 350 in fed tax.

I have a friend on my street who got back more than TWICE what he paid! TWICE what he paid because he has kids!!! His girlfriend got back almost 4 times what she paid!!!

I want to run for president here are the major items that would be "on my ticket"

1. Tax reform in many ways..

a.You can't get back more than you paid

b.Everybody pays the same percentage

c. Every tax law change must be voted on by John Q Public (NOT BY SOME REPRESENTATIVE WHOSE ONY INTEREST IS PROTECTING HIS $$)

2. Child support reform.

a. child support should be a percentage of the childs expenses,NOT a percentage of the absent parents income! If you have too many kids to support them all then SNIP,SNIP!

b. Both parents should be able to claim a chid they are supporting,even if you can only claim 1/2 a child.

3. Legaize Marijuana, sell it in liqour stores under the same laws as alchohol,tax the hell out of it.

4. Restructure the law enforcement/judicial system to make common sense prevail.

5. Ammend the constitution so that its IMPOSSIBLE for law makers to make or enhance a law without putting it to a public vote.

6. Finally separate church from state. Religion should not be forced on anyone. Wether the problem is gay marraige or which holidays are celebrated.

7. I would make clean energy research a jackpot that woud be big enough to attract real investment.

8. I would make recieving foriegn aid contingient on cooperation with us.(NO MORE $$ FOR PAKISTAN) or any other terrorist nation.

9. Pubic debate on major issues woud be an all the time thing,not just durring an election year!

I just don't have the $$ for a campaign.

It doesn't really matter. Mitt can't win, anyway. There is a section of the republican party that he considers his 'base', the Christian hard far right representing 10 - 15% of the republican party, who just won't vote for him, a Mormon. They may be saying they will and really considering doing it, but once in that voting booth and faced with checking that box or pulling that lever or punching that chad or pushing that button to vote for a non-Christian cultist for President of the United States-----they won't be able to go through with it. Without THOSE votes, he doesn't have a chance.

conservative denotes that the republicans should jump at the chance to cut our deficit by letting the tax breaks on the uber wealthy expire instead of BORROWING more money to make sure the rich get richer...

keeping the middle class alive and thriving is the only way to get this economy back to full tilt, for without the middle class the economy is toast...and without that the uber rich will definately feel it....

what astounds me is how the republicans and their uber rich benefactors and friends don't already know this................their greed is so absolute...even to the demise of our great nation....

oh, yeah, and of course we all realize that each and every one of these republicans that votes to screw the 98% in order to get the HUGE, unaffordable and unsustainable tax breaks for the uber rich, are THEMSELVES in that 1% who see their tax breaks going the way of the wind.

Seems a conflict of interest for the rich to be deciding this......

I think this and other such decisions should be made on a nationwide vote.....one man (and their are 98% of us versus 1% of them) one vote.........bet I can guess how that would turn out....

would finally take the power to self perpetuate their own wealth and put the real power back into the hands of the folks who pay the bills and salaries of our political "leaders" and level that playing field..

I personally am tired if rich folks stacking the deck...........the 98% are the ones who vote and foot the bill and we should have absolute say in matters such as this.......

and the idea that those in Washington vote their own benefits packages and wages is INSANE!!!!...that needs to stop..........talk about transparent theft!

Enough already............democrats vote for the 98% and the republicans ALWAYS vote against them...so get rid of the republicans and lets all make this country better....lies, scare tactics and encouraged rage are worthless in improving our lives and our economy and in 2012 we should be too smart to allow such crap from those we elect to office and pay salaries to.

If a large enough share of that 10 - 15% of republicans who just can't and won't cast a Presidential ballot for a Mormon, non-Christian cultist decide to just pass on this election and not vote, republicans will be booted out of the U. S. Congress and State legislatures all over the country.

"You have the credibility of a thumb-tack but unfortunately are not nearly as sharp!"

The quote is from Feisty @ 2.28. Hypocrisy at its best. Wonder where she wrote that one?

Feisty: If you look like a duck - don't throw rocks at glass houses - it only makes you look like a "dumb duck".

Gil, You make me ashamed we share the same first name. As a former Yr I'm glad I was sharp enough to start thinking for myself and will never vote republican again!

High rolla

The mormons must be different than christians because at the church I give money to we use it to do soup kitchens help people who are sick etc etc. I honestly didnt know Moromons didnt help people like that. What do they do with the money?

One thing Mormons have done with their money was spend nearly $20 million to defeat gay marriage in California. I don't consider that helping anyone.

Romney is part of that.

Stand your ground, Mr. President! We the people will not subsidize welfare for the wealthy in the form of tax breaks, loopholes, and offshore accounts.

sandy-1851937 Comment collapsed by the community

Romney wants to reform the tax code?

How about Romney show voters how he does his taxes.

Before we give him control of ours taxes.

Why in the hell was this collapsed?????

Feisty

Say you only have enough money to buy 14 bottles of cheapest diet soda at 50 cents a bottle each week. The government says any carbonated product must be taxed at 1 cent a can to mitigate the release of carbon to the environment. The Store owner is not going to pay that, so he adds it to the price of the soda. Just one penny more or than means that you are not going to be able to buy 1 can.

That rolls back to everyone who produced the soda. Including the Store owner who purchases less because everyone is buying less from the Wholesaler who is purchasing less from the Manufacturer. Everywhere down the line is getting less revenue so the Store owner cuts hours, the Wholesaler cuts warehouse employes, closes unneeded storage space or distribution centers and the Manuafacurer cuts production meaning people get less hours or get laid off.

Now, put yourself in their place. Their revenues are down, and in the meantime the EPA assigns a carbon tax on energy these people are using to supply the soda. Each now has to increase what they pay to keep their employees insured, they have to register and pay fees to multiple government agencies to do business, and on top of it all, the government wants to add nearly 4 percentage points to the owner's tax bill. It's no wonder they have the brakes on expansion.

This is how you collapse a fragile economy girl, but then, for a person who gets a government check, they get that government check because they cannot grasp the simplicity of business. The only thing important to them is to get that monthly check from the government, no matter where that funding comes from.

Romney brought disgrace upon himself, the GOP is talking about dumping Romney at the Convention !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John J Bow

I wish more people would realize that the wealthy and super-wealthy do not have this interest in creating jobs.

Thank you for pointing out what capitalism is all about: the creation of wealth by making something of greater value from things of lesser value. making lumber from trees, making glass from sand, making houses from lumber with windows from glass.

More wealth is created by keeping costs down. One of those costs is labor, and any savvy business will find ways to keep labor costs down to generate more profit, or wealth.

Job creation is the result of increased demand, that is, more spending by more people with more money. The private sector creates jobs only when increased demand forces jobs to be created.

The public sector generates demand for the private sector to create jobs by seeding investments for private sector growth, that stuff called infastructure that the public pays private companies to do.

Let the wealth creators stick to creating wealth and let demand create jobs. That's what self-interest is all about. It is a perversion and a violation of self-interest to assign job creation to business. We'd still be mining coal with picks and shovels if job creation was the job of coal mine owners.

I keep hearing how trickledown economics doesn’t work. You poor blind people. Here’s how the Dem version of trickledown economics works –

I make $250,001K because I run a small business that sells widgets with a 5% profit margin. I am able to employ 10 people and I provide benefits (insurance, etc.). You raise my taxes and my profit margin goes down to 3%. My expenses are based on a 5% margin, so I have to institute cost containment measures to recoup what the government just took. My employees are good, but I can’t afford keep them all now, so I cut 2 jobs and ask the remaining 8 to do more with less. I freeze salaries and require employees to pay more of the cost of their insurance. I’ve regained about 1% of what I lost, but I still need to regain the other 1% so I raise the price of my widgets. My widgets are used to make X-brand and that company has to go up on x-brand to cover the additional cost of my widgets and to regain a portion of what the government took from them (the remaining cost will be made up from cuts to benefits and positions). Of course the store that sells x-brand is facing the same problem so they go up on the price they charge you in order to make up the extra taxes they are having to pay and the higher cost of x-brand (the remaining cost will be made up from cuts to benefits and positions). (This of course assumes that my cost containment measures work. Otherwise, more cuts will be necessary)

Now, here’s the kicker – the employees who were laid off had to go on government assistance. In order to support them, Obama had to find more revenue. If he raises the tax on the 1%s any more, it will become a viscous cycle with even fewer jobs and more people on government assistance, so he has to find the money someplace else. He’s not going to cut government spending, we already know that. The only place left is middle America. So now you’re paying the tax increase for the 1%s and the new increase that was directed at you. Your employer is in “cost containment” mode and you don’t sell anything so there’s nowhere to pass it on to.

Welcome to the Dem’s version of trickledown economics. See how well it works?!

DB-Akron,

The government says any carbonated product must be taxed at 1 cent a can to mitigate the release of carbon to the environment.

Your economics lesson takes real liberties with actual conditions.

First you completely ignore the results of the reduction of carbon into the environment.

Second, your example of reducing pure carbon is a straw man. It is carbon dioxide that is the target of gas emission reductions.

Perhaps you'd like to discuss how the economic value of longer life spans that result from EPA rules to reduce polluted air from shortening life spans, or maybe value of not having less clean water supplies that EPA rules provide.

Just what is the economic value of just one additional day, or one additional hour, of human life to everybody on the planet - or maybe the added value of six months life for just you (and a few million friends)?

Say you only have enough money to buy 14 bottles of cheapest diet soda at 50 cents a bottle each week.

Poor example, DB. It is unnecessary for anyone to manufacture a chemical-laden drink that harms human health and is one of the major contributors to obesity in America. Yes, even DIET soda contributes to obesity, as well as to osteoporosis, kidney disease and the erosion of tooth enamel.

A person who is watching his or her pennies at the grocery store would do well to avoid soda entirely, thereby putting Coca Cola, Pepsi, etc. out of business. No great loss.

Nice try, though.

As for your explanation of trickle-down economics, justicenonexistent, you have conveniently omitted some key points:

Obama wants to provide tax incentives to small businesses which hire workers.

Trickle-down theory presupposes that it is extra cash in the hands of a small businessman that spurs hiring, when it fact it is increased DEMAND for the business's goods or services, driven by middle class consumerism, that leads to hiring more workers.

kaybeetoys

I didn't conveniently forget anything. They weren’t mentioned because the points you are trying to make are irrelevant.

Incentives only work when there is money to spend. If they have none to hire with, the incentives will be left on the table.

As to demand –People only have x-dollars to spend, when the prices go up, DEMAND goes down because people have to concentrate on the basics.

As to demand –People only have x-dollars to spend, when the prices go up, DEMAND goes down because people have to concentrate on the basics.

Let me try this way:

Giving tax breaks to the middle class= putting more cash into the pockets of the majority of consumers.

Having more disposable income on hand= having the ability to purchase more goods and services.

Purchasing more goods and services= increased demand. It follows that supply will then increase to meet demand.

A supply increase= an increase in hiring to produce goods and services that are in demand.

In this economy tax breaks do not lead to disposable income, but increased savings - to pay for the necessities for when the handouts stop

RedSoxRule

RealUnAmerican, do you know how charitable contributions work as a tax deduction? Clearly not. I guess you must be one of the 49% that don't pay any taxes.

Actually, only 18.1% don't pay taxes. And even at that, 6.9% are at or below the poverty level, 10.3% are elderly seniors, and 0.9% can pay taxes but don't. And I think that 47% number is for the INCOME TAX, not all federal taxes (like payroll or gas).

I think you should have to pay some taxes to vote. At least then you have a real stake in what is happening in the country.

Or we could just disenfranchise the entire bottom 20% of American society (which would be much easier).

NH_Shellback

In this economy tax breaks do not lead to disposable income, but increased savings - to pay for the necessities for when the handouts stop

CORRECTION: In this economy tax breaks do not lead to disposable income, but increased savings - to pay for the necessities for when the wages stagnate.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshiee,

Employes don't pay "payroll" taxes. The 47% that don't pay income taxes pay FICA and Medicare, which are withheld from their checks and then refunded to them later in life. Any income tax that is withheld is refunded at tax time, as well as the earned income credit, which is probably more than the FICA and Medicare, anyway.

They don't pay gasoline taxes because none of them drive since they don't have ability to provide IDs in order to vote. Keep up with the talking points!

DB - Thanks for your lesson. I'm sure all of the dummy's on here appreciate your desire to spread your wisdom. One thing I would like to clue you in on boy, don't call a woman "girl". Feisty may not say anything to you but it is insulting. Once we start our periods, we cease to be girls. Got that?

Colorado-Man

Freshiee,

Employes don't pay "payroll" taxes. The 47% that don't pay income taxes pay FICA and Medicare, which are withheld from their checks and then refunded to them later in life. Any income tax that is withheld is refunded at tax time, as well as the earned income credit, which is probably more than the FICA and Medicare, anyway.

FICA is the payroll tax, and it is sent to both employers AND employees. And technically, the money spent on SS is not refunded; the money they pay goes to current retirees.

They don't pay gasoline taxes because none of them drive since they don't have ability to provide IDs in order to vote. Keep up with the talking points!

Oh don't give me that bull@!$%#. Most people in the U.S. drive; and since when do we need voter IDs to vote??? There is virtually NO voter fraud in the country; ask the Bush investigators. The only reason why they are doing it is to scam the election, just like they did in Florida in 2000.

And by the way, you keep up with the talking points; I'll keep up refuting them with facts..

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshiee - Once again, some training is in order for a liberal who doesn't understand the US taxation system. Payroll taxes are paid by the employer, not the employee. They are withheld from the employees' checks, and for the 47% that pay no income tax, all the money withheld (or more, see earlier comment about "earned income credits") will be refunded, either when the income tax return is filed or when FICA and Medicare are returned. Many states have correctly instituted voter ID laws. It's the whiners who want to allow voter fraud that want them overturned. Come up to speed.

?To: RedSoxRule

Here is your IQ/History test to vote. Who was the first president of the Unites States?

Colorado-Man

Many states have correctly instituted voter ID laws. It's the whiners who want to allow voter fraud that want them overturned. Come up to speed.

Why not do it after the election, so the states don't seem as if they are disenfranchising voters in front of the election in order to influence the results??? And Bush only found 80-some cases of voter fraud over several years. Hardly a need for voter ID laws. And if they institute voter ID laws, they should at least work to ensure that everyone gets an ID; in Texas (where voter ID laws have been put into effect), one third of all counties DON'T have a facility where IDs can be issued. How the @!$%# is that fair???? Check the evidence of voter fraud, my friend; it is virtually non-existent.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

RedSoxRule

Haven't seen your answer yet. Didn't you study US History in school?

RedSoxRule

Haven't seen your answer yet. Didn't you study US History in school?

Sorry for double post. Connection went down and was resent.

What disenfranchisement? How much time do they need to get an ID? If they wait until after the election, the fraud will have occurred and the whiners will still have the same excuses about the inability to get IDs, which is bunk. Proving fraud is different than fraud occurring. It was rampant in Colorado in 2008 because of MoveOn and its minions. Why are you afraid to prove that you are an eligible voter? Is it because productive citizens do have ID, while leeches don't?

The only way it will change is to vote third party.

In "an act of political theater setting up a contentious post-election fight ... the House shot down, 170 to 257, a Democratic bill to extend current tax rates past the end of this year only for households earning less than $250,000 per year and individuals earning less than $200,000 per year. This plan has the current backing of the president, and was approved last week by the Senate."

Ensuring that all the Bush tax cuts will expire, and then Democrats will immediately put forward a bill to cut taxes for the middle class only -- putting Teapublicans on record for blocking TAX CUTS if they don't support it. AND this bill may not extend tax cuts for everyone on their first $200,000-250,000 of income, so kiss my arse it is a holy place, GOP/TP try explaining that to your rich donors!

EVERYBODY gets a tax cut on the first $250,000 under both bills to extend the tax cuts. So the highest income in the country still gets a tax cut under either bill - vs letting the cuts expire.

The tax on income on $249,000 and $250,001 would differ by a few cents under either bill.

So let's be clear: Extending the Bush tax cuts for the lowest incremental rates extends the Bush tax cuts for EVERY tax payer.

The democratic version of the tax extension simply allows the tax rate on the increment of income above $250,000 to return to its value under President Clinton.

The highest incremental tax rate under President Eisenhower, the time when prosperity was being spread across all incomes, was 91%. It didn't seem to keep the returning GI's from buying houses, cars and boats with one-income families.

As tax rates on the upper brackets have dropped over the years, the prosperity of the middle class has declined.

Repubs and their King Norquist commented on By Bush Sr.

Huffington Post 7/13/12

The president whose legacy is partly defined by three words -- "no new taxes" -- seems to care little about the ubiquitous pledge that touts the same phrase.

In an interview with Parade magazine to be published Sunday, former President George H.W. Bush pans the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, the Grover Norquist-backed anti-tax oath that politicians sign to promise they will never vote for a tax increase.

In the 112th Congress, 238 representatives and 41 senators -- all but three of them Republicans -- have taken the pledge.

"The rigidity of those pledges is something I don’t like," Bush said. "The circumstances change and you can’t be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist. It’s -- who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?"

His wife, former First Lady Barbara Bush, did not mince her words either when it came to the anti-tax crusader.

"I think he ought to go back to Alaska," she said, referring to previous comments she made about Sarah Palin in a 2010 interview. "Don't quote me!"

President Bush's remarks echo a similar sentiment shared by House Speaker John Boehner last year. The Ohio Republican told reporters that it is "not often I'm asked about some random person in America" when pressed whether Norquist was a positive or negative force for the House GOP conference.

Norquist told "The Daily Show" in February that he came up with the idea for the pledge when he was 12 years old, about the same time that Bush served in the House of Representatives.

Pragmatic-3918582

The only way it will change is to vote third party.

Oh no, that would just be a wasted vote /sarcasm

In a separate vote, the House shot down, 170 to 257, a Democratic bill to extend current tax rates past the end of this year only for households earning less than $250,000 per year and individuals earning less than $200,000 per year.

At the expense of the middle class and the poor, the GOP is funding tax cuts for the wealthy.

Absurdly, most of the folks that voted for these GOP officials, probably make significantly less than $250,000!

America, where are "our heads" to put our caps on?

You can thank Congress for all our Problems !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ensuring that all the Bush tax cuts will expire, and then Democrats will immediately put forward a bill to cut taxes for the middle class only -- putting Teapublicans on record for blocking TAX CUTS if they don't support it. AND this bill may not extend tax cuts for everyone on their first $200,000-250,000 of income, so kiss my arse it is a holy place, GOP/TP try explaining that to your rich donors!

Clever move! Force the Tea Party to the edge of the cliff! Our President is a very smart man.

I doubt Mittens has the stones to play checkers with him. ;)

Stay under cover. Any positive economic news in the next three months could mean lots of GOP white males jumping from office windows. They desperately need that double dip recession.

Matthew...you missed the biggest part...it will take a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the American citizens...but that's ok I guess...more food stamps for everyone!

This is the Worst Congress in History, the TeaReTards are Americas #1 Enemy !!!!!!!!!

But if you say "libtard" on this website you will be banned for a day .... or more !

"Patriotic", please let us know when you have something relevant to say.

LoyalTexan, I wouldn't worry too much about any positive economic news with Hussein and Harry at the helm.

jpeg

Matthew...you missed the biggest part...it will take a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the American citizens...but that's ok I guess...more food stamps for everyone!

Actually, it will take out around $400 billion, but at least it will finally shut you deficit hawks up. Plus the Ryan budget takes trillions from programs that benefit the middle class and the poor and gives it to the wealthy in a "pro-growth" tax cut.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

I'm okay with removing the tax cut.....

If you make $50k per year, your tax cut - $1.100.00

If you make $5,000,000 per year, your tax cut is $250,000.00

I don't see many jobs created and the wealthy are already sitting on plenty of cash.

Balancing the budget requires increased revenue as well as decreased spending. One or the other alone won't cut it.

and you get increased revenue by increasing jobs.

increasing the taxes on the 1% will kill investment in factories and small business

you libs see only the taking part

increasing the taxes on the 1% will give diddly to the federal coffers

on november 7th the liberal democraps will be on the endangered species list

greatpretender, The 1% has no interest in creating jobs if there's no one to buy their stuff. Businesses expand when demand increases. Me thinks you pretend to understand something but really have no clue.

@Youraloser: You are absolutely correct. It is an Economy of scale that plays into the redistribution of wealth from the US to poorer economies where products can be made for less after factoring in shipping costs. The free trade agreements started the ball rolling and just like Ross Perot said, the giant sucking sound was jobs leaving the US. It's been going on for three decades. Middle class wages have remained stagnant relative to inflation.

Job creators will invest their money in whatever country or investment vehicle they can which provides them the greatest return at the lowest risk. It probably won't be in the US though.

pretender - No jobs are created when no one buys. Assembly lines stop. People who used to have jobs are fired when the assembly lines stop.

What part of the VERY basic demand curves did you forget from Economics 101? Supply curves definately fail when there is no demand for the product. Now, demand may fail when there is no supply. Why only may fail? Because if there is a required product and there is no supply, something else will be substituted. People "adapt and overcome" (thank you Clint Eastwood).

Example - people using chickory when coffee isn't available.

Dave and youra - which is precisely why the "Bring Jobs Home Act" would have helped. It removed some of the US tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. The American taxpayer, through business tax breaks, has been and is effectively subsidizing foreign expansions for US businesses.

Further, the Bring Jobs Home Act provided a tax break up to 20% for all insourcing expenses as a result of closing outsource locations and bringing jobs back to the US.

(source: http ://www .govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3364 )

Now note that it was filibustered (failed cloture vote) July 19,2012 due to Republicans.

Matthew,

I'd be up for raising taxes on everyone if the government would committ to reduce spending by 1%. Not the GROWTH rate of spending, but actual spending. Until they prove they can be responsible with OUR money, then I see zero sense in giving them one incremental nickel.

Unfortunately they choose not to reduce spending....like kids in a candy story-- they think there is a money tree. You would think by now everyone would understand that it is almost irrelevent how much money anybody is taxed. The fact of the matter is that the irresponsible bozos in Washington will spend more than they take in. Think I am wrong? I have $16 trillion reasons that prove I am right.

The rich and poor should not pay one more dime to the clueless ones (led by our POTUS, by the way) until they get serious about cutting the debt and deficit. The only one leading on this is Paul Ryan regardless of how you feel. The POTUS plan to let the tax cuts exipire for the "millionaires and billionaires" er....I mean the $250thousandaires is a drop in the bucket and will have no material ECONOMIC impact whatsoever. And we get the hot air class warfare crap out of our POTUS. What an embarrassment and failure of leadership.

Time for a change and time to bring adults into the Oval Office. Geeze....

Victor - interesting you say you would be in favor of increased taxes if the government would commit to reducing spending . . .

You remember the "grand bargain" offered by President Obama in order to raise the debt ceiling to allow the US to meet current obligations? 3 dollars spending cuts for every 1 dollar in tax increase for a total of 4 trillion dollars cut from the deficit over a 10 year time period? You remember how the bulk of the cuts were to come from social net programs? You remember how the Republican Party refused to go along with it because they objected to any tax increase of any kind?

You remember how (during the primaries) Republican candidates ALL said they would reject an offer of $10 in reduced spending for every $1 dollar in increased taxes?

Respectfully Victor, I'd suggest that the adult is already in the oval office.

Matthew,

What makes you think I am a Republican? I said the "Bozos in Washington" led by our POTUS. You have just displayed the problem of thick thinking people. I don't care what side of the aisle said what. Washington needs to demonstrate they can cut spending first before they ask me for another dime. All I am asking for is a one year demonstration of that. Cuts first. Re-store Washington fiscal credibility second. Cut again third. If neccessary, raise taxes on everybody fourth. It is fundamental math.

Given your naive reply, and your clear slam on one party, I'd like to thank you for proving my point that we need an adult in the Oval office. People like you just don't get it.

Actually Victor, I never said or implied you were a Republican. That was immaterial to my point. I was simply pointing out who refused what with respect to reducing the deficit and how it occurred.

However, you did specifically refer to "bringing adults into the oval office" which is a direct slam at the current President. Your sentence re: "the clueless ones (led by our POTUS, by the way)" seemingly focused on Democrats.

For that matter I agree that there are "Bozos in Washington" in both parties.

Romney is hiding tax cheating. LOL

Romneys company took a 44 million dollar bailout. LOL

Romney owns an aborted fetus disposal company..no LOL

Romney wants to tax all but the 1 percent..What a slimeball. LOL

Victor: Recent House votes

Reject Senate initiatives to reduce farm subsidies

Reject Senate initiatives to reform Postal Service

Perpetuates production of M1A1 tank which the Pentagon is trying to mothball.

Where did you get the silly idea that Potus controls spending.

Cutting spending means somebody will get less. Politicians get re-elected by giving people more.

LoyalTexan,

The point is the POTUS is not leading on any of this. He is pitting one American against another with his silly class warfare philosophy. As I said earlier, his let the taxes expire on the millionaires and billionaires (note he never throws in the $250kers in his stump speech) will make ZERO impact on the economy. NONE. I want them to get stuff done and all he does is blow hot air on taking money from the financially successful. If he was a real leader he would actually work with the Congress to make something happen ala Bill Clinton (very good president, slimeball as a person). If it was up to me I would have voted "yes' on all of the above (though I would let the Post office fail). BTW, our POTUS also delivered a huge new entitlement in the form of ObamaCare that virtually no one knows what the cost is going to be....and no, it is not going to reduce the deficit. LOL

Matt, yes, I did directly slam Obama. He has been a failure in regard to his policys. Worse, he is inherently dishonest and a flat out liar. He has demonstrated this over and over. Liars are the worst. They are juvenile. Hence, time to bring back some integrity and adults to the Oval office. Please tell me you do not want four more years of the crap he has put this country through. By all measures the last four years have sucked--and it is under his watch. He is so divisive. And no, I am not buying that it could have been worse. If he would have done nothing it would have been BETTER.

If he is reelected it will be four more years of empty rhetoric. The good news though is the rest of the world will think we are "cool". LOLOL.

Think about it fellas....

Victor - I have to disagree with you. The POTUS has been and still is trying to get this economy back on track. The fact that you believe that he is imposing class warfare is baseless. Matthew gave you all the info you needed (comment 6.9) to prove you claim baseless. He has worked with congress more than once and even leaned more to the republicans to his own party displeasure in order to get things done and it has done nothing but blow up in his face. I will agree the President is weak in this regard as he should have stuck to his guns(like Clinton did but remember with Clinton the republicans shot themselves in the foot by letting the government shut down, therefore they had no choice but to work with him and they eventually paid for it the next election) and maybe, MAYBE he would have gotten more or even had the grand bargain approved we would have seen the debt being paid down as well as businesses bringing back jobs from overseas to take advantage of the tax incentives they would have gotten.

And to correct you regarding the AHCA, according to the CBO, it will reduce the deficit and we know how the conservatives love the CBO.

As for the Post Office failing, let me educate you that on. Before the republicans raided the coffers of the Post Office, it was a self sustaining SEPARATE entity of the government. In other words, it took no money from the government to operate as the patrons(you, me and everyone else that uses the post office) paid their salaries. When congress saw how much money the Post Office was raking in, they decided to incorporate them into the folds of the government and their argument was simply they didn't have the knowledge to "manage" themselves (just like they did with Social Security and Medicare in the 70's). Now that they've taken that money(used to pay for the unjust war on Iraq as well as other pet projects) they have no intention in paying that money back and are reluctant to give(pay) them any money at all because NOW they say they have to "manage" their own shortcomings. How do I know all this? Because I worked for the Post Office for 2 years and EVERY pay stub I received said plainly on the back of it "From our customers".

As for liars. News flash, EVERY POLITICIAN LIES, especially those in congress. Bush lied, Clinton lied, Reagan lied, the list goes on and on. that argument about bringing integrity back to the White House holds no water and to be honest the only one in my opinion that has come close was Kennedy and we know what happen to him.

I have thought long and hard about both candidates and in my opinion I would rather stick with Obama than Romney as Romney has no clear vision where he wants to take the country other than bring back the same policies as Bush and again we all know how those worked out. So if that's what you want then by all means go right ahead but let me give you a heads up, Romney's lying too.

Something for you to think about.

Common sense...maybe you should get some up to date stats from the CBO....the "reduce the deficit" part of the AHCA was gone years ago.

jpeg - Forbes magazine 27 Jul 12. It doesn't say a lot of good things but it does say it reduces the deficit.......eventually.

You are truly quite gullible if you beleive that ! Remember, the U.S. government will "subsidize" those who cannot "afford" to buy health insurance. Translation: Another government-run entitlement program to be run like a welfare program. The working class get to help pay for the freeloaders.

Common Sense,

I would like to remind you that Bush is no longer the POTUS, nor is he running so enough of the it is Bush/Republican fault garbage (again with the juvenile thinking).

In terms of the US Post office the reality is they can no longer compete with UPS and FedEx (i.e, the private sector).

Please stop with the Kool-aid talking points ala "ObamaCare will reduce the deficit"....LOLOLOLOL. It is insulting to those of us that have critical thinking skills.

victorkingdom

Common Sense,

I would like to remind you that Bush is no longer the POTUS, nor is he running so enough of the it is Bush/Republican fault garbage (again with the juvenile thinking).

Bush helped cause the damn problem; ergo we get to keep talking about him (especially since many of you Republicans keep comparing this president to Carter and this anemic economic recovery to Reagan's Morning in America, even though he increased spending and had the Fed to help him out). If you don't like it, you can just leave the country. But since you don't want that, you can just grow a pair and accept it.

In terms of the US Post office the reality is they can no longer compete with UPS and FedEx (i.e, the private sector).

Actually, most of the fiscal imbalance is caused by the unreasonable 2006 law that required the Postal Office to put money into a fund to pay off 75 years worth of retirement expenses and fully fund that in ten years; no private company would do that. Not to mention the increasing reliance on emails....

Please stop with the Kool-aid talking points ala "ObamaCare will reduce the deficit"....LOLOLOLOL. It is insulting to those of us that have critical thinking skills.

Unfortunately, if you had any critical thinking skills, you would realize that it is the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) that said that the Affordable Care Act (a first step to "socialized medicine," which I have been advocating for) will reduce the deficit. Stop relying on the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks/media organizations.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshie,

Lot's of bridges to sell you. I mean, if the CBO says that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit, then it must be so. LOLOLOL. After all, the politicians that input those numbers to the CBO are certain to follow exactly what they say will happen in the CBO numbers. Gee, maybe we should run everything through the CBO. Maybe if we did, then we would not be $17 trillion in debt.

Thank you for proving my point relative to the Kool Aid you drink as well as your lack of insightful thinking. We would not be in this mess if the POTUS would have simply done nothing. He is so far in over his head it would be funny if not so sad. Hell, I'd vote for Hillary if she ran. Seriously, are you up for four more years of this crap. Time to bring in the adults and get rid of the juveniles in the White House.

You just don't get it. Hopefully you mature a bit more so that you can actually have the clarity to hold those responsible accountable for their actions. The last four years have been a mess and it is on Obama's watch. Accountability matters.

Victorkingdom - I normally don't respond to those that have to resort to name calling and senseless rants without any proof or based facts but sense you brought the "critical thinking" bit, maybe I can help you with your critical thinking skills.

First - I never mentioned or even stated Bush in my comment other than the fact that he lies just like every politician out there. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was blaming anything on Bush in my comment. So much for the juvenile comment.

Second - I can tell by your "intelligent" response to my Post Office comment, you have no idea how it works or what happen to the post office in the first place. Maybe if you do a lil research like Freshiee, you will see and understand exactly what happen and why then maybe you wouldn't make that type of comment. Actually if you take a chance to visit a post office you will see some UPS and Fedex boxes on site. Have any idea why they are there and why UPS and Fedex are paying for them to be there? Here's where your "critical thinking" will come into play.

Third - The CBO is comprised mostly of Republicans and we know how much they dislike the President. I would think that being you love the republicans (as they can do no wrong) so much you would concede but your dislike for the president and the AHCA is showing so no matter what good the program does, you will disagree no matter what and I can respect that.

Lastly - As far as Kool-aid talking points, I'm not sure whose kool-aid you are drinking but I'm not going to stoop to the level of name calling as you have. I'm fairly confident that you are that type that doesn't take kindly to those that not only correct you but provide proof and facts which contradicts your "critical thinking". I would suggest in the future that either you provide some sort of facts to lay claim to your rhetoric, just admit that you hate the president for whatever reason it is(I will have more respect for you in that regard) or stand aside and let the grown ups converse as I mean seriously (lololololol) that is so childish.

Common Sense,

Some of what you say are fair points...did not mean to step on your toes. My fundamental issue anytime someone brings Bush into the discussion is that it is irrelevent. He is done. Gone. Out of office. Irrelevent to this election cycle. If Barack is not up to the task of fixing the problems then he should step down. I am so over the blame game and innuendo garbage (the Romney tax thing is a joke. Who cares how much he paid in taxes as long as it was all legal. Ditto for Obamas college grades. Who cares? Irrelevent) that comes out of the Oval Office. This is Obamas watch. He should take accountability and he refuses to do so.

My problem with ObamaCare is that he flat out lied to the American people to get it passed. Specifically, he sold it as not being a tax, then actually had his Solicitor General argue in front of the SCOTUS that it WAS a tax. A flat, bald faced lie. You may look the other way with stuff like that but I don't. He deliberately lied to us---you should be PO'd too. You want four more years of limited growth and more loss of individual freedom then have at it. I believe in accountability. I have concluded that our POTUS does not when it comes to him only.

BTW, I hope the Post Office survives....only way it does is if they change their cost structure or revenue model. We'll see if the wunderkids in Washington can figure it out.

Victorkingdom -

I understand your fundamental issue when someone brings up Bush and to a certain point you are right but you can agree that in order to fix the issue, you must first identify the problem, why it happen, what must be done to make sure it doesn't happen again and most importantly, you must have some kind of support AND compromise on both sides.

We already covered the lying part in my initial response so let's not revisit that as we both can agree that all politicians lie. I won't even touch Bush's many lies that has cost the lives of thousands of those that I had the pleasure of serving with in the Armed Forces.

As far as Romney goes, I for one agree with you. Doesn't matter how much he paid in taxes if it was within the legal guide lines of the law. I could care less that he's rich and acknowledge he has be successful in his life. What disturbs me is how he tends to "hide" behind his money and in my opinion is an "empty suit" as he says what he is told and doesn't offer anything of "substance".

What really ticks me off is the assertion that no one on the right wants to acknowledge the stiff resistance of the republican party when they boldly came out and stated that their main objective is to make Obama a one term president shortly after he was elected, NOT help reduce the deficit, NOT fix the economy and most certainly NOT help create jobs. That to me was a major issue as they just basically said we are putting party before country. Now if that doesn't disturb you, I don't know what else will. Now we can go on and on about all the bills the house passed and how Reid is sitting on them in the Senate and vice versa but if you took a close look at some of the things that are in those bills with an open mind, you would be disturbed and dare I say outraged.

Now that's not to say that the Dems on the other hand are not putting out some "whoppers" of their own as they also have an agenda and I am disturbed with some of the stuff that they have proposed as some of them don't make sense.

Bottom line, Both candidates have some major work to do if they intend to win my vote. I don't feel Obama is "strong" enough to deal with the "do nothing" congress as for all the good(though minor) he has not stood up against the "resistance". I have said many a time if he would have stood firm and did what he felt was right for the country instead of caving in to the republicans time and time again, I KNOW we would be in a much better state economy wise. He does need to own his achievements as well as failures and when he does decide to do that. I feel he will have no problem being re-elected. If not, In my opinion, we will all be deep trouble. I PRAY however that won't be the case.

forward!

Worked for a former German...guess it should for obama also...so by all means... FORWARD!

FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cutting spending would be a great start! Seems most here would be happy to pay more taxes so the government will just spend more.

Controlling government spending does not start with raising taxes.

Yet reducing the deficit will be impossible without tax increases, unless you want to do away with food stamps, unemployment insurance, and perhaps the majority of the social safety net that millions rely on...

yes, there is gridlock..

but..

there is a fork in the road..

if you like a large government, entitlement programs, cradle to grave support, no reward incentives, or like living on a plantation, vote democrat

if you like freedom, less government, opportunities to better yourself and your life, take initiatives to improve your quality of life, support our constitution, vote republican or libertarian

like yogi berra said..

"when you see a fork in the road, take it"

no name calling, no blaming, just do it!

greatpretender - You mean those large government entitlement programs like farm aid?

I guess your red-state farmers want their "freedom, less government, opportunities to better yourself and your life, take initiatives to improve your quality of life, support our constitution" enough to not take those government handouts?

Wanna bet what fork in the road they take?

i know what fork you're taking

and i respect that

if that's what you want!

Mitt Romney argues he would be a good president because of his experience at Bain Capital. However, evidence is piling up that he made millions at Bain by firing American workers, outsourcing jobs, and keeping his money overseas.

Romney could shed some light on this by releasing multiple years of his tax returns, as every major presidential candidate has done for decades. This practice was actually pioneered by Romney's father, George, who released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968.

WHAT IS MITT THE TWIT HIDING?

However, Mitt Romney has only released one year of his tax returns, increasing suspicion he got rich mainly by dismantling the American middle class.

WHY DOES MITT THE TWIT HAVE OFFSHORE BANK ACCOUNTS?

MITT SUCH A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN HE STEALS FROM THE USA WITH HIS OFF SHORE ACCOUNTS! HE IS A THIEF!

Witchking,

Blah, blah, blah. Jealousy is a bad trait. He is rich. Who cares. Get over it. Drink less Kool-Aid.

youraloser

I loved Farm Aide, Willie was great and John Cougar Mellencamp rocked! Ummmm real what do you think you will eat, if not for them. I know people who dont even know how to grow weeds.

lol best post of the day.

He's rich and he wants to get richer. And now he owes all those Superpac donor Corporations. That means another large wave of layoffs for us and a bigger Recession for us. But they are raking in record profits:no recession for them. More outsourcing, more offshoring and Multinationals don't even think of themselves as American. They are BigBusiness Multinationals and they want more, more. They will never help the Public of America. Koch wants us third World, the quicker the better. Make us submit to low wages, no safety, long hours, no rights, no nothing. just yes sir Boss. Koch has worked too much in places like China. He even sold nuc instruments to Iran through Germany and companies in France. Multinationals. These are not just innocent rich people.

JULEA, so your solution is to tax them more and having them leave this country completely?

victorkingdom, greatpretender and youraloser are all the same person.

Julea, you mean he really wants to get richer??? Shame, shame! What nerve the man has!

Wanting to be richer must seem like a sin to you. Do you work at all? If so, do you not want to be richer?

Was your welfare check late this month? Unemployment run out? Your Whine-O-Meter is maxing out.

I don't care if Romney wants to be richer, but if he wants to be president of this country he needs to show that his loyalties are to the U.S. in terms of jobs and taxes. I cannot vote for someone who is afraid to show his record in terms of jobs that he has actually created and jobs he has sent elsewhere. How many good companies did Bain put into bankruptcy just to make a dime? Did he hide money so that he didn't have to pay tax on it? If he is afraid that producing his taxes would cause fodder for democrats, then he must be hiding something. If the numbers prove otherwise then he has nothing to hide and this would not be an issue. His record should tell us the real facts, sadly he is too afraid to let the country know who he really is.

jpeg

JULEA, so your solution is to tax them more and having them leave this country completely?

Enough with the "corporations will leave this country completely" crap. They cannot; they'd lose out on the biggest market in the world (China has a long way to go before it beats us in consumption).

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

And to those who believe tax increases are the answer....give me a call..I have cheap property in Iran to sell.

Very good Bruce!

Thanks zee! I do try to make these blogs more fun for everyone! Glad you appreciate it even if few others do.

You're an effing idiot...

Why not ask Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of G.E....

Obama's Advisor....

G.E. paid ZERO corporate taxes last year...

Over 50% of their employees are outside the US...

I can't figure out if you liberals are just plain stupid, or hypocrites...

Or, BOTH....

I do try to make these blogs more fun for everyone! Glad you appreciate it even if few others do.

you're being modest, bruce!

I vote BOTH!!

GE paid zero, so they need more of a tax break to create more jobs, right? Why don't we let all corporations pay zero, or better yet, we pay them for allowing us the pleasure of their presence in our country.

Jon,

"Evill" corporations employ millions of people. Not sure that our POTUS understands this fundamental economic element. Put more cost on them, they pass the cost on to the consumer, reduce head count, or both. One thing I do know, corporations will "make their number" regardless of what obstacles are put in front of them.

They exist to put the interest of their shareholders first and foremost. That is the law. Don't like it? Then change the law. I never knew that corporations or financially successful people were evil until Obama became POTUS. LOLOL.

I will also say this: If any CEO lied to those he is accountable to as much as Obama has lied to the American people, they would be out on their butt in LESS than four years.

Face it: Obama is no leader. He is a divider and has proven to be juvenile.

@Mike

As if paying in zero for G.E. wasn't bad enough, they received back approx. $157 million in refund that the American taxpayer paid in. FRIGIN BOYCOTT G.E. and Obummer start packing we want our country back.

victorkingdom

For a very long time small business employed 85% of workers in the US and corporations employed 15%.

Now, between corporate welfare, tax breaks for corporations, priority government contracting, legal loopholes for executives and corporate income sheltering laws, trade agreements that only benefit large global corps, the assets held by small business owners have gone down everyday in America for 15 years. EVERY DAY.

The successful people that you talk about are the ones that are being robbed and beaten. It's not poor against rich. The Romneys of the world don't care about the poor. It is the ultra rich (Romney) versus the small property holder (small business owners). And the Romneys of the world are winning.

Stop all corporate welfare, put fair trade laws in place and stop giving large corporations all of the advantages.

By the way, Bruce - very nice post.

A woman out in Washington state married a corporation last month to prove a point. Took out marriage license, had minister administer, etc. pretty funny. Blows the hell out of one man one woman marriage christian right rants.

That's awesome starsailing lol wish I had read about that (I'm much too lazy to Google tonight)

Hey Mike...how large of a bonus did the execs give themselves for this? How much did they take away from their workers in the past year making their jobs more difficult just to save a buck so they could take $10?

Think about it. Do you really want to vote for a guy this election who's only plan is to support the wealthy and big business?

Get ahold of yourselves people.

What an excitingly unique post, Bruce! Gosh, you are really a brain.

Get a job.

me thinks..

the tea baggers will eat your lunch on nov 6

they love bagged chick-fil-a

I'm not paying for those losers' lunches. I already foot the bill for their medicare and social security.

I say we need more parties like Green Peace, Tea Party, etc... Breakup the monopoly of the old money.

No, these are our elected officals. Even 12 Democrats voted in favor of killing this thing. We just need to become a productive Nation again. Then all will be forgotten and we can back to buying stuff we really can't afford.

Republicans don't vote their conscience they vote to fulfill their pledge to a corporate lobbyist. Hopefully if Romney is elected he'll use vasoline to ease the pain when dealing with rank and file republicans who still think he represents their concerns instead of Grover Norquist.

You do not know what you are talking about. The median income in America is $26,000 and the poverty line for a family of 4 is $22,000. Half of Americans are close to or under the poverty line and that is why we pay little in income taxes. We have little income.

But we do pay payroll taxes and payroll taxes make up 40% of the federal government's income. Plus we pay state, county, and city taxes. The fact is we poor are paying more than our fair share of taxes while the aristocracy is getting off easy.

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

And an income of 22,000 makes a global 1%.

Are you serious? When I was 16 and working as a dishwasher making minimum wage, I paid 40% in taxes, not including sales taxes, etc. In 20 years of working, I have never not paid taxes and for at least six of those I was under the poverty line.

Everyone in America pays taxes. Local, State and Federal Income taxes, sales taxes, use taxes....This whole idea that not enough people pay taxes is ridiculous. I've never had a hand out in my life, never borrowed money for my education and I've worked in the financial sector and seen millionaires income taxes and seen them deduct all but 20,000 and pay less in taxes than kids working the register at McDonalds.

This is ridiculous! For 100 years the middle class has been asked to work harder for longer and for less just to survive while the wealthiest people get trillion dollar bailouts on a whim.

I own my business and started it from the ground up and I still pay insane taxes - so who are the ones getting the cuts? People who make more than I do working as executives in large corporations where they never created or built anything.

Small business is in decline while corporations get more welfare every year and then when it comes time to pay taxes, they want a break.

Go to the CBO and get the facts:

1. Workers pay 3 times the amount of taxes that corporations do. Corporations are tax collectors and nothing more. That's why they get the bailout - while small businesses get the shaft.

2. Social security tax is capped at 110K. So if you make more than 110K, you pay less in social security taxes, but you'll still claim the highest bracket when you retire (if it even exists then).

So all that money from corporations under citizens united, making them("people" )who don't pay taxes because of the tax breaks they bought, should take back any money spent in super pacs , donations to candidaites etc. The rich who do not pay taxes lse their right to vote.

So Tommie, under your plan, the rich who only pay taxes vote. You are in the wrong country buddy, get a clue!

The past 8 years I made between 25 and 45k a year I have a wife and one child. I paid payroll taxes but with the EIC I got more back than I paid in. Now people like Mitt Romney for instance paid 3 million in taxes in 2010and he wasnt even working. In fact only 52 % of americans actualy pay income taxes.

Exactly. They're still peddling "trickle down" by promoting coddling the "job creators." What utter bull@!$%#.

You do realize that after WWII the US had the ONLY untouched manufacturing base in the World. Now where do you expect the rest of the World got their goods??? That and that fact only is the reason we prospered in the 50's and 60's.

Well there wasn't a Twitt Romney selling us out to China then, now was there?

youraloser,

He didn't state who paid for the reconstruction. He said we had a manufactoring base before we transitioned into an intellectual base. Now we have a bunch of smart artist without jobs, spending their spare time blogging!

Rotten peaches and sour cream

How about the stimulus money going to Finland...good job Obummer. Don't want to talk about that one, how about Solyndra?

How about "you didn't build it" or may how about, they took my words out of context...what I said was "we need to get behind them"

Sharrie....you need to do search on Romney at 2002 olympics and his you didn't get here by yourself speeches. Looks kinda foolish because there are numerous U tube videos with Romney saying the exact same thing, Same words, community, Infrastructure......same thing Obama said, except Romney lied about what Obama said and is now looking quite foolish like your above statement.

peaches... I took the start of your Gilligan's Island theme from the other blog, and came up with this. What do you think?

MITTigans Smile! (to the tune of Gilligan's Isle)

• Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
• A tale of a fateful trip
• That started from the U S A
• With a guy who's name is Mitt.

• Ol' Mitt was-a mighty silly man,
• Both pompous and cocksure.
• In England on his very-first-day
• He proved he was a boor.

• When he was asked a question,
• of the Brits Olympiad,
• He couldn't keep his mouth shut
• So he said that they'd done bad.

• Mitt ran aground on the shore of this greatest British isle
• With goofy gaffes
• and slip-ups too,
• The millionaire and his wife,
• were walking back
• his dumb remarks,
• All with his plastic fake smile!

God job! I wanted to do the whole song but I ran out of time last night. Twitt reminds me of Thurston Howell, which made me think of the song ;)

Glad you like it. You inspired it. Thanks! (BTW, Feel free to copy and paste it anywhere you like if you wish.)

mcpaddywhacker, when you get done whacking, see the comment below, #23.2.

Still taking credit for something you didn't create I see Bruce. Why don't you give the Daily Kos the credit? That is where you COPY/PASTE that little ditty.

Here I'll post the link for you.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/26/1113927/-The-Tale-of-Willard-Mitt-s-Pile-TTTO-Gilligan-s-Isle

When will you come up with an ORIGINAL IDEA???

Ha ha ha - looks like we're not the only ones who see the resemblance. Mitt's a twit. Only another twit would be blind to that.

slodon, IF YOU WOULD ACTUALLY GO TO THE KOS and read theirs, and read mine you would realize two things.

1. You owe me an apology.

2. You are an idiot with no integrity

Here slodon, this is the KOS version: