What I find strange about this whole Harry Reid brouhaha is, the only person who has reviewed 23 years of Willard’s tax returns is John McCain and he HAS NOT called Harry a liar…

Any idea why that might be?

Remember, Johnny-Boy also picked Palin after looking at Willard’s financial white hot mess…

But... but... but... It's OUR turn - Willard & Annie Romney

Would you Trust a Liar?

Evidently the conservatives do. Bat-crap-crazy Tea Party senatorial candidate from Indiana, Richard Mourdock trusts Romney. This past weekend they were campaigning in Evansville Indiana, telling Hoosiers, "I don't compromise" and "I have paid taxes every year". Romney was trying to sell "Romney Hood (Robin Hood in reverse—take from the poor and give to the rich). Most conservatives think they can control Romney. Conservatives tell him the positions to take regarding women, immigration, and healthcare. Recently the Texas Republican candidate for the Senate, Ted Cruz, wanted to push Romney even further to the Right. Willard Romney is a tool of the conservatives.

The Newsweek magazine cover called Romney a wimp, but I prefer to describe him as a liar. Newsweek was asking if Romney was just too INSECURE to be President. They cited his many flip-flops on abortion rights, Planned Parenthood, gun rights, gay rights and healthcare. But a primary reason Romney was called a wimp is that he cannot stand up to the conservative right. Newsweek also recognized that Willard will do whatever the conservatives tell him to do: Case in point—Romney didn't condemn Bachmann's Islamophobic witch hunt.

But what if Romney wins and he is no longer beholden to the conservative base? What if Romney reverts back to how he ran Bain Capital, caring for no one but himself? Smart conservatives know that Romney has no soul and he will flip-flop on any issue that comes his way. Conservatives know that Romney is not a "real" conservative. Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum know this to be true. The best conservatives can do is rationalize that Romney is better than Obama. But with President Obama you know he has convictions and stands for something; with Romney you haven't a clue.

Playing with Willard is like playing with fire: If you are not careful you will get burned and smart conservatives know that. When Willard says, "Trust me", you better be careful.

"Asked last week whether there had been years when he paid less than 13.9 percent, Romney said he would be “happy to go back and look” at his records. So far, however, the campaign has declined to provide an answer. Romney must still be looking.

What strikes you as more improbable: That Harry Reid has a mysterious source with intimate knowledge of Romney’s finances? Or that a man who made a quarter of a billion dollars from his skill at reading balance sheets has no clue of how much he’s been paying in taxes?

Neither, on its face, sounds terribly likely. But Reid isn’t running for president-..." (Eugene Robinson)

Joe in Albany -- You write:

Labor secretary Broom-hilda Solis has tried to swoop in for the save. Just like she had leaned on the BLS to cook up some better than expected July jobs numbers

Can you back this up? Where did you get this information?

Why would Harry Reid engage in the McCarthyite tactic of smearing someone without offering a shred of proof to back up his scandalous charges?

Perhaps you should be asking Congresswoman Bachmann that question.

Great point Da Noid,

Ms. Bachmann should be held accountable for ramping up the paranoia. There is no place for what she did in Congress - or anywhere else in public life.

And she is on the taxpayer dollar....folks from all religions pay taxes.

Senator Reid set the standard? LIKE HELL! He's got a long way to go to touch Orly Taitz and THE Donald!

How is it possible that Mitt Romney cannot understand the impact of his refusal to release his taxes? He cannot expect us to take his word. We already know he has lied on his returns in the past. He hasn't earned a free ride.

Oh, just go to his web site, he says. You'll find his filing statements and his tax return. He will be vindicated. Hogwash. There's probably not a whole lot of folks who have ever seen a filing statement. These statements tell you virtually nothing, they don't address taxes, and the accuracy of the statement is based on the integrity of the filer. The only 1040 Romney has released is not complete. Romney doesn't get a pass on this.

He says he is qualified to lead this nation. How do you place your trust in someone who will make decisions on your behalf, yet is unable to recognize the consequences, ramifications, and repercussions of his personal decisions?

Refusing to open his returns, as virtually all Presidential candidates have done since Romney's father initiated the practice, leads to speculation. That includes some very realistic possibilities. First, Senator Reid is dead right and Romney hasn't paid taxes for ten years. Another is that he has not been sending his tithes to the Mormon establishment as he says he has. The filthy rich are worried that if we see his returns, experts will descend like vultures. They will pick them apart showing Americans the tax treatment available only to those who can afford to buy their own Congressman. There is also the possibility that Romney has moved from the realm of tax avoidance to outright tax evasion. That is a crime.

None of those scenarios is over-the-top crazy. They are possibilities that don't require any stretch of imagination. But there is one possibility that is even worse and it involves the Mormon Church as either a co-conspirator or as a victim.

Consider. Romney makes no bones about the fact that he pays no more than he is legally required. What person in their right mind is going to hold that against him? That's perfectly reasonable. However, if Romney bases his tithing on his taxable income, which he has minimized in every possible way, he is going to necessarily reduce his tithe. Enter the dancing horse. He has taken a $77,000 deduction for that horse and has consequently reduced his tithe by $7,700. Even a money-loving Mormon might find that a bit tough to swallow.

For conspiracy lovers, there's a real blockbuster. Remember, Senator Reid is also a Mormon. Perhaps his unnamed source is a highly-placed Mormon who knows that both Romney and the church are cooking books. Remember also, church income is not taxable. Imagine the church telling the IRS that indeed Romney has tithed a grossly overstated and falsified amount. Romney has his deduction. The conspirator(s) gets a payoff, and no one is the wiser. You think it can't happen: Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, and for true down-in-the-gutter, anything-for-money there's Jerry Falwell. You bet it could happen.

Is Mitt Romney really so obtuse, so dumb, so totally out of touch that he can't see this? Is he really so dumb that he believes throwing out a hash of easily disproven lies is going to divert public attention from this issue? Is he so dumb that he thinks we're even dumber?

Bill wrote:

But two can play this game. Suppose someone were to grab a megaphone and shout out Obama was classified as an exchange student during his college years and not an American citizen. You want proof? Who the hell needs proof, Senator Reid has set the standard in these matters and no proof is required.

Me:

How does it feel when a dem starts playing the repub game? It's a favorite Karl Rove trick and its finally being used against him - well, against his favorite boy toy.

But... but... but... It's OUR turn - Willard & Annie Romney

Great Point Feisty!!!

What did Senator McCain see in Romney's tax returns that made him reject him for VP? He seemed the logical choice right? But instead he chooses a nobody (Palin) to be his VP. Doesn't make sense does it? Unless Harry Reid is right and Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years. Now that makes sense. McCain sees the handwriting on the wall. "I'll never get elected if I chose this tax evader." "The people will kill me in the election".

So, why hasn't McCain criticized Reid about his statement on Romney's tax returns? BECAUSE HE KNOWS IT'S THE TRUTH. Simple answer. Romney would be dead meat if he releases those returns. I love it.

OBAMA IN 2012.

Bill in Fairfax --

That's filthy stuff you are trying to peddle.

You've stooped to a new low.

@David -- That is the job of the IRS and not speculation on the part of others. Gov. Romney obviously has been successful in his personal decisions when it comes to his finances, business, career and the non-profit sector. That is a person I want leading this country.

@Tom and others who seem to forget this from Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain has class and even though he disagrees with Reid, he respects his role.

Sen. John McCain said on Tuesday he can "personally vouch" there was nothing disqualifying in the 23 years' worth of tax returns that Mitt Romney submitted to his team in 2008, when he was vetted for a vice presidential spot.

"Everything was fine," McCain told reporters on Capitol Hill. "I can personally vouch for the fact that there was nothing in his tax returns that would in any way be disqualifying for him to be a candidate."

When pressed about whether Romney might be shielding his returns because he paid no taxes, McCain refused to discuss such specifics.

"Please, I am not going to get into that kind of conversation," he said. "All I can tell you, and I can tell you again, is there was nothing disqualifying in his tax returns. And that is a fact."

What I find strange about this whole Harry Reid brouhaha is, the only person who has reviewed 23 years of Willard’s tax returns is John McCain and he HAS NOT called Harry a liar…

I guess the IRS is either incompetent or just sitting on their hands.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, noted in a statement that Obama's 2011 effective federal income tax rate is 20.5%

OMG. How is this so. Why is the President not paying 35% in taxes? Is using a loophole to lower his rate? Is Romney not following the same tax code and paying what is expected of him?

A better question would be is, if the President is so offended by the low tax rates available to top earners by legally following the law, why does he, on principal, not refuse these deductions?

I guess he has no principals or is just another hypocritical politician.

"Do as I say, not as I do"

BTW Still waiting for the faux outrage on this board over Michelle's $6,000 jacket after the flap over Ann Romney's $900 blouse. But I guess fairness and consistency is dead.

David Walker: I enjoyed your post. I don't think Romney is dumb, but I do think he's arrogant. Sometimes arrogant people simply look dumb.

What did Senator McCain see in Romney's tax returns that made him reject him for VP? He seemed the logical choice right? But instead he chooses a nobody (Palin) to be his VP. Doesn't make sense does it?

Only if you ignore history and make up your own facts. Sarah Palin energized the base of the Republican Party in 2008. Something that was lacking in Senator McCain's resume. Romney, perceived as a north east republican has the same problem as McCain with the base. Something that is alluded to on the board frequently. The choice of Palin filled in this gap, but don't let facts get in the was of your baseless speculation.

Backhouse, Feisty, well said and good points. David Walker, terrific post!

Conservatives claim there is nothing illegal in Romney's tax returns and use that line to defend him. No one, to my knowledge, has claimed Mitt has done anything illegal. The point is not that Romney can legally hide millions off-shore to avoid taxes, the point is that most American citizens who do not have millions to hide anywhere are paying their fair share of taxes by not hiding money off shore. Romney says he pays taxes, well so do I, but I don't hide money off-shore to avoid paying that legal "fair share" rate established by Congressional law and signed by Presidents current and past.

What Romney does may be legal but it raises ethical and moral questions about his character. His tax returns can point to a very real and huge problem in this country. The wealthiest among us have a different set of rules to play by. Those rules may seem simple when one talks about income tax code rates. The loopholes and tax breaks that most Americans use are mortgage interest deductions, property tax deductions, dependent deductions whereas Romney and those like him have Dressage horses and horse expenses to deduct; several multi-million dollar homes to deduct; they can put millions out of reach of the IRS by virtue of tax laws that favor those with the most; and they earn the biggest share of their yearly incomes through capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate than earned income.

The biggest problems that Romney knows releasing his tax returns will expose are: 1) our existing tax laws favor those with the most; and 2) Romney is the poster boy for privilege, wealth and the notion that he thinks he is special--Romney represents the greedy segment of the 1%, unlike Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who represent the generous segment of the 1%.

Ben -

GOP’s Seven Biggest Economic Lies (per Robert Reich)

Demagogues through history have known that big lies, repeated often enough, start being believed — unless they’re rebutted. These seven economic whoppers are just plain wrong. Make sure you know the truth – and spread it on.

1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else.

Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and has dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth.

False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

3. Shrinking government generates more jobs.

Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers.

4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy.

Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits.

Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone.

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax.

Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else.

The point is not that Romney can legally hide millions off-shore to avoid taxes, the point is that most American citizens who do not have millions to hide anywhere are paying their fair share of taxes by not hiding money off shore.

@Jody, Do consider paying 20% on 750K fair?

The Obama family, in tax returns released Friday by the White House, reported an adjusted gross income of $789,674 for 2011, down from$1,728,096 in the previous year. The family income topped $5.5 million in 2009.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent on income of $789,674 last year.

"The tax code should not (be) written in a way that allows for the wealthiest Americans to pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-class Americans," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

If the President believes in fairness, why does he continue to take deductions to lower his tax rate? Why does he not practice what he preaches?

I guess the IRS is either incompetent or just sitting on their hands.

What the hell does the IRS have to do with whether or not Willard paid taxes and if so at what rate?

I don't recall Harry accusing Willard of doing illegal... do you?

@Jody -- Being legal raises moral and ethical questions???? Really??? Exposing that existing tax laws favor those with the most is a known fact. Nothing new there. My question is why hasn't the president enacted true tax reform????

It's amazing how you conservative republicans think you have all the answers and know what's in everyone's minds. Fact is you're all clueless and you are not mind readers. Reading your posts this morning just shows your desperation.

Labor secretary Broom-hilda Solis has tried to swoop in for the save. Just like she had leaned on the BLS to cook up some better than expected July jobs numbers

Can you back this up? Where did you get this information?

_____________________________________

Harry Reid told me and since every lefty liberal believes Harry Reid, it MUST be true.

LMAO!!!!

Edit; I don't recall Harry accusing Willard of doing anything illegal... do you?

Alan, NJ asked:

"OMG. How is this so. Why is the President not paying 35% in taxes?"

The answer is very simple. The 35% rate DOES NOT apply to incomes under a certain amount. Here is a link: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Income-Taxes/qt/Tax-Rates-For-The-2012-Tax-Year.htm

Thus, even a person with no deductions who has reached the 35% rate will not pay an effective 35% rate. Additionally, other sources of income are taxed at different rates, like one of Mitt Romney's favorites - carried interest.

This isn't opinion; it's arithmetical, empirically demonstrable fact.

Bill, Fairfax, VA: But two can play this game.

Great post again Bill.

Every day with Obama and the Democrats it is a new low. Theses types of tactics are nothing new for Obama, he has used the personal destruction of his opponents route all through his political career. It requires that he achieve a new low everyday, and that the media goes along with it. Two items he has succeeded in doing now for his entire career. It is a certainty Obama and Axelrod have their Grease Board of Slime all written up as to how they will lie, cheat, and steal what they can, when they can, for this campaign. We're now into the McCarthyism phase of that process with their minions like Harry Reid telling absolute lies on the Senate floor, and the media just walking away from it. The perfect formula of a smear campaign.

Obama 2012 - "I replaced Churchill's bust in the oval office with one of my hero and mentor, Joe McCarthy"

@TNV -- Robert Reich is a leftist hack and only one man so what he says should be taken with a lump of poop. I cited groups that are left leaning with their conclusions which include several on their team and an organization on what Obamacare will do to premiums. Sorry nice try but all foam and no beer.

@Mo -- And you say that with a straight face while all the prognosticators on here speculate what is in Romney's tax returns??? LMAO!!!!

Dont know about Joe, DCIA-but I can provide insight into his assertion:

The "jobs created" number is offered to us by survey, and then seasonally adjusted. Those seasonal adjustments are assumptions made by the surveyors-that is, they are based on an expectation of what "should" be occurring. That is why the jobs numbers are adjusted every month-when real data is available. It is similar to the GDP adjustments- of which there are typically three- being adjusted up or down when more data becomes available.

The media, however, missed the boat on this month's announcement- they focused on the preliminary jobs created number, and not on the rise in the unemployment rate. Why did the unemployment rate rise? Well, here you go

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

So, if you look to the handy column on the right, you can see that there were 195,000 FEWER employed people last month. Another 150,000 just threw up their hands and left the workforce, which left a net negative 45,000 employed people.

Both the number of unemployed workers and jobs created numbers come from surveys. So, let's assume both numbers are spot on, and do some math:

If, as the survey says, there were 163,000 jobs created;and

If, as the survey says, 195,000 fewer people were employed-

What was net job creation?

Clue for those about to jump in with opinion, rather than fact- the two surveys are independent of each other- therefore, that 163,000 is net of nothing but the independent survey result. The reason so many of you do not understand that is that most of the media do not understand it- and seem to have zero curiosity about it. However, the fact remains that, if both those figures are assumed to be correct, there was a loss of 32,000 jobs in July.

Actually, judging by most people's personal experience, the job losses were probably higher than that. Anybody out there hear of any mass hirings going on?

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth.

False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

Was China an economic powerhouse during the Eisenhower Administration? What was the production capacity of Europe 8 years after the Second World War? Where was Japan in its progress to becoming the 2nd largest economy in the world in the eighties and nineties. What was the total output of the other BRIC countries in the fifties?

Anybody who listens to Robert Riech is a fool as his partisan ramblings bear no resemblance to the real world.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits.

Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast.

I guess all those Baby Boomers retiring into the system at a rate of 10,000 a day are just a Republican fantasy?

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

Show me the money in the trust fund. Tell where the assets backing the trust fund are. Explain to me why, during the debt debt ceiling crisis of last year, the President threatened that SS checks could not be sent without borrowing the money?

7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax.

Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else.

Is it also unfair that these are the same people who receive the highest benefits from payroll taxes, or should you get back what you put in?

The answer is very simple. The 35% rate DOES NOT apply to incomes under a certain amount. Here is a link:http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Income-Taxes/qt/Tax-Rates-For-The-2012-Tax-Year.htm

Thus, even a person with no deductions who has reached the 35% rate will not pay an effective 35% rate. Additionally, other sources of income are taxed at different rates, like one of Mitt Romney's favorites - carried interest.

This isn't opinion; it's arithmetical, empirically demonstrable fact.

Accepted. However, you do not answer the question of why the President uses deductions to lower his tax rate when he is campaigning on fairness in tax rates. He is a rich man and can afford to pay more. He could simply return a 1040 with the standard deductions for him and his family. Why does he not stand on his principals?

Auntie Fascist

Senator Reid set the standard? LIKE HELL! He's got a long way to go to touch Orly Taitz and THE Donald!

Don't forget to add Mitt Romney to that list. He made the baseless claims that Obama was plotting to impose a "religion of secularism" on America, and now he's claiming that Obama wants to stop military service members from voting. But the media doesn't seem to mind at all. The corporate media let Republicons play by a different set of rules than Democrats.

NO CEASAR. The tax code, bought and paid for by the rich, has soooo many loopholes and tax credits etc. that the very wealthy can legally get away with paying no taxes.

Just like Big Business is privy to certain loopholes and write offs that allow them to get away paying no taxes at all. ZERO, ZILCH, NONE.

When it comes to having a million dollars in an IRA, you have to wonder how he did that.

Edit; I don't recall Harry accusing Willard of doing anything illegal... do you?

However, you do accept that Obama was a felony drug user?

Looking at the Barack claim, he smoked cigarettes that made smoke rings, smoked pot or marijuana, drank some booze, and did a little "blow" cocaine when he had extra money, but he never tried "smack" heroine.

§ 481.115. OFFENSE: POSSESSION OF SUBSTANCE IN PENALTY GROUP 1. (a) Except as authorized by this chapter, a person commits an offense if the person knowingly or intentionally possesses a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 1, unless the person obtained the substance directly from or under a valid prescription or order of a practitioner acting in the course of professional practice.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a) is a state jail felony if the amount of the controlled substance possessed is, by
aggregate weight, including adulterants or dilutants, less than one gram.

When pressed about whether Romney might be shielding his returns because he paid no taxes, McCain refused to discuss such specifics.

"Please, I am not going to get into that kind of conversation," he said. "All I can tell you, and I can tell you again, is there was nothing disqualifying in his tax returns. And that is a fact."

What John really wanted to say about his "good" friend Willard:

And what I mean by, "nothing disqualifying" is that Mitt paid so little in taxes that I would have been absolute toast with him on the ticket. My gardener literally paid more in taxes than Mitt, and he's an illegal. I mean, come on, between us we would have had more multi-million dollar vacation homes than a season's worth of episodes of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". Can you imagine how that would have played with the little people? That's why I picked the girl from the trailer park in Alaska.

Dcia: I will say it's unAmerican though.

So what is being an American to you far left liberals? Paying more than you owe in taxes? So you follow the rules, pay your taxes, and on April 15th say "You know, I'm not taking that deduction and my rates are too low, so therefore I will volunteer to pay more taxes".

Is that a "Real American" to you Dcia? Do you follow that philosophy? If not, why do you expect others to do so?

@David - Great post. I oft contend that Romney isn't afraid of the IRS, nor is he afraid to tell us non-wealthy folk he can avoid paying taxes because he is too damn rich. His biggest worry is the 'splanin he has to do to the Mormon Mafia on why he shafted them for some really big bucks. Ya see, he can't make it to Tier One Heaven without a blessing from the top Mormon Ayatollah, and if he has been remiss in paying the forced and mandatory 10% to God, he is in deep doggie do-do. Funny thing, that Mormon God, ya gotta pay your 10%, or you aren't ever going to become master of your own solar system.

FYI - Last I knew, that 10% mandatory rate to participate in prayers to and favors from Mormon Gods used to be pre-tax dollars. Being the fiscal cunning folk they are, my best guess is that rule still applies. Now, it's a good investment if you want to become a master of a solar system in the afterlife, but it sure is a bitch if you are simply trying to exist in this one. Proof positive flat tax income systems are a non-event for the wealthy, but utterly destroy the working class.

DCIA so he paid no Income tax right? no income, no tax right? but how is that unamerican? you said he follows the rules. if i could not pay taxes legally i wouldnt either.

Ron, IN, California Tom, great posts.

It is quite entertaining to watch the GOP, Romney, and Mitt defenders cry "foul" because Harry Reid mentioned that a credible source told him Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years. Lindsay Graham, Reince Priebus and the rest of the crowd call Reid a liar, demand proof from Reid. It is entertaining because this comes from the crowd which demanded President Obama's birth certificate and now call it a forgery; make unfounded claims that his college transcripts would show he attended Harvard as a foreign exchange student from Kenya; started the rumor that he was born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim and on and on the list of flagrant lies multiply like rabbits. Just last week Iowa's birther bigot GOPer Steve King said that President Obama's birth announcement could have been sent from Kenya--ignoring that the announcement was provided to the newspaper by the Honolulu hospital.

Let's be clear, the GOP is angry and upset because Harry Reid has a credible source and decided to play their game. They are outraged and demand proof yet the GOP has no proof of any of their claims about President Obama; the GOP makes no effort to tell their own to "put up or shut up". Harry Reid, with his one statement, has boxed Mitt Romney and the GOP in their own corner--time for Mitt and the GOP to show us the money. Touche'.

In further revelations, Administration official admits tax cuts create jobs, except if the are for over 250K. I just wonder what happens to that one dollar above the 250K mark and why its so damn ineffective as a dollar under 250K. There must be some economists that are as precise as particle physicists to nail down to the dollar when a tax break is no longer effective.

So, an administration that told us that the first stimulus would have unemployment below 6% by now, expects us to believe their figures for a do over? Why stop at 1.5M? Why not a gazzillion quadrillion? It's all fantasy anyway and god forbid someone actually holds you to your numbers. (you know 8%).

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis tells liberal radio talk show host Bill Press that if two of President Obama's jobs bills were enacted at least a million and a half new jobs would be created.

Solis says if the Bush-era tax rates those who make under $250,000 were extended it would act as a stimulus and create more jobs. Transcript below.

Bill Press, radio talk show host: You mentioned else that seems to me we don't talk enough about and that is how many more jobs would be created if Republicans in the House had only passed the jobs bills that President Obama has sent up for them. There's at least one dealing with infrastructure and construction work. Correct?

Hilda Solis, U.S. Secretary of Labor: Yes, absolutely. That's a million jobs right now.

Press: And where's that legislation?

Solis: It's hung up in the Congress.

Press: Right. And wasn't there another one for public employees -- police and firefighters and teachers?

Solis: Yes. Absolutely. And those are all middle class jobs, Bill.

Press: Right. That's another bill that's hung up. Right? So put the two of those together, you're probably talking about a million and a half jobs?

Solis: And, in addition, if we were to give the tax breaks to the middle class, those that make below $250,000, that's money that's going to be brought back into the economy. People will spend it. That also acts as a stimulus, that will create more jobs.

David Walker said: How is it possible that Mitt Romney cannot understand the impact of his refusal to release his taxes?

How is it possible that liberals don't see his refusal as a way to throw it back in your faces? You act like Mitt Romney should just comply with the demands of liberals and those that are insisting he provide documentation that is not required. He provided the mandatory tax returns but the witch hunt the liberals generate are documentation that is not necessary.

What the liberals are doing is a diversionary tactic. That's all. Nothing more... and the Romney camp sees it that way and should hold back on providing information that is demanded but not required.

This is the exact same thing as the conservatives demanding to see Obama's education records... not required, but something to create a diversion. I could personally care less if Obama was a straight F student.

Taken directly from the Democratic Handbook... create an unnecessary diversion to cause an inkling of doubt, even if there's nothing there to back up that doubt.

Liberals are so flaky. We know your tactics

David:

Good post. The problem is that Romney has been catered to his entire life. If you are constantly reassured that you are better than the rest, when there is no supporting evidence to suggest that is true, you become a mite cranky when the "little people" (read that: anyone other then Romney and those he considers his equals.) demand information that you believe they don't have the right to.

Romney claims he is a yippee skipee WONDERFUL business man. Let him prove it.

And, Ben dear, your desperation is showing. I realize that you find it frustrating that no one else is taken in by the GOP lies like you are, but you might use that as feedback, and begin to read sources that are not as impeached as the ones you currently rely on.

However, you do accept that Obama was a felony drug user?

Clever attempt at distraction this morning Alan, sorry I'm not in the mood to play along...

The TOPIC was tax returns... do try to focus will ya?

I will say it's unAmerican though.

DCIA,

Judging from the responses, I would say you successfully kicked the hornets nest!

Keep up the good work, I couldn't agree more! ;o)

JAS1 -- Are you advocating for the THEFT that takes place in our TAX CODE?

CLEAN up the tax code. At least the thieves will have no where to HIDE.

Clean taxes, clean bills.

CEASAR -- And I bet you want others to pay your personal bills too.

Im not a liberal DCIA so no i want no one but me. In fact I pay my own bills.

Ben, why don't you ask the GOP House and the GOP filibustering senators that question? The GOP has consistently voted NO to eliminating tax loopholes that favor the rich as well as big corporate interests, insists on extending tax cuts for the rich while whining about the deficit and debt, and Paul Ryan's plan actually decreases taxes on the rich and adds trillions to the debt. President Obama could have his staff rewrite the tax code but Congress has to pass it. To completely overhaul the tax code requires BOTH parties in Congress to participate, not just democrats and not just republicans.

Caesar, to add to others answering your question. GE and about 10 other big corporate businesses paid zero taxes; they paid zero because of legal tax deductions and loopholes. Mitt Romney is no different than GE. I remember well the conservative right throwing hissy fits about GE because of its ties to NBC.

Clever attempt at distraction this morning Alan, sorry I'm not in the mood to play along...

The TOPIC was tax returns... do try to focus will ya?

You were the one that brought up illegality. I simply pointed out that the only Presidential candidate that has admitted committing a felony is Barack Obama. Even you admitted that Mitt Romney has done nothing illegal. Pity that standard does not extend as far as the President.

And again the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign is revealed as they accused Romney of a felony when their own candidate has already confessed to one.

Romney= Mr. Cayman Islands!

Roney= Mr. Loophole!

Romney=Liar!

http://romneytheliar.blogspot.com/

Obama/Biden 2012

My question is why hasn't the president enacted true tax reform????

Short answer Ben. The republican do nothing congress. Next dumb question.

I guess taxes are like everything else this president does, all talk no action.

Here we have the perfect example where he, as a member of the 1%, could come out and announce that I will pay an effective rate of 30% on my taxes to show my commitment to fairness, and I will forgo the deductions to which I am entitled as part of the sacrifice I am calling on others of the 1% to make.

However, we have already seen that this President does not lead by example, he leads from behind.

There are no depths to which Mr. Brocolli Bill will not dive

Your devotion to parsing my posts flatters me Miss Feisty, thanks for reading. As a token of my appreciation I've set aside a heaping mound of fresh cut brocolli just for you. Enjoy.

Jody said: Let's be clear, the GOP is angry and upset because Harry Reid has a credible source and decided to play their game. They are outraged and demand proof yet the GOP has no proof of any of their claims about President Obama; the GOP makes no effort to tell their own to "put up or shut up". Harry Reid, with his one statement, has boxed Mitt Romney and the GOP in their own corner--time for Mitt and the GOP to show us the money. Touche'.

This is all made up stuff Jody. I do appreciate your attempt at spin though. The GOP isn't angry as you liberals are. I haven't seen so much ire coming from your side since Bush won the election in 2004. There is no outrage from the GOP per se. If you want to know the truth of the matter, more people took notice of Reid's lie than they did over his alleged source. Maybe Harry has a contact in the IRS that made up a bunch of stuff about Romney and Reid calls that source reliable. It's an amusement. Reid certainly hasn't boxed in Romney because Romney hasn't released his returns and plans on not releasing them. Wow... what a fantasy land you live in... hopeful dreams in character assassination based on no facts, no proof and no definable information.

@Newday -- So using the CBO, Brookings Institue and Third Way are impeached sources. I'll remember you said that. Presenting facts is never a sign of desperation. Signs of desperation are the lies promoted by you and the rest of the left on here. You make yourself sound so absurd and pathetic when you try to lie and speak in an arrogant tone. You should have stayed in bed longer and watch Springer.

What the liberals are doing is a diversionary tactic.

Pissy, whiny, cry-baby conservatives wouldn't know anything about that, would they? You folks love your diversionary tactics, but you sure do hate when the tables are reversed. Come on you cry baby conservies - step up to the table and shove it in, chew it, and swallow it. Liberals have dealt with this bull crap for years now, as conservatives have used every diversionary un-unifying tactic to destroy the economic recovery. What a bunch of thin-skinned wimps. No wonder you crybabies are on murdering rampages around the country. You can't stand accepting defeat.

Alan, NJ

In further revelations, Administration official admits tax cuts create jobs, except if the are for over 250K. I just wonder what happens to that one dollar above the 250K mark and why its so damn ineffective as a dollar under 250K. There must be some economists that are as precise as particle physicists to nail down to the dollar when a tax break is no longer effective.

Tax cuts for low incomes are more stimulative than tax cuts for higher incomes because people with modest incomes spend the extra money on things like food, rent, autos, and home appliances. People in Mitt Romneyhood's tax bracket sock the money away in Swiss bank accounts or the Cayman Islands or summer homes on the French Riviera. Which tax cuts do YOU think helps the U.S. economy more?

dcia @ 1.10 -- no longer is proof required. check with harry, barry and the nan for the new guidelines on how to be an effective dirty liar.

@Mo -- Congress has nothing to do with this. The president should come to the bully pulpit and say he is in favor of sweeping tax reform and what those are. He doesn't have the cohones. OK -- next dumb response.

As a token of my appreciation I've set aside a heaping mound of fresh cut brocolli just for you. Enjoy.

Would you please pass the hollondaise sauce? ☺

The main reasons why Mitt Witt won't release his tax returns is it will Prove he was running Bain

up until 2010. Along with his "investing" in foreign bank accounts (to avoid US Tax's) And his only charity giving goes to the LDS church, with Huge write -offs. What a great choice for "Commander & Chief" (sarcasm) Harry Reid is a ton more believable than Flip/Flop Mitt. Also look for one of Mitt's

Tax guys to come forth with the truth about Mitt's escape from Any tax's in the last 10 years. You sure know where Mitt's priority's are. And its not with "You" people. Thanks Annie for sharing that pillow talk moment.

dont worry ben, you're only credible source should be first read...right newday?

In fact I pay my own bills.

I'm sure you do - but after receiving how much assistance from the government in the form of deductions?

Cynthia, why are you advertising other websites on this board?

America can care less what the GOP is thinking or doing, they are finish as a party !!!!!!!!

Dcia: JAS1 -- Are you advocating for the THEFT that takes place in our TAX CODE?

Now you're arguing something different. Interesting how the tune changes with liberals when you corner them. I have no problem with a simpler tax code, one with lower rates and few if any deductions. Kind of what Paul Ryan's was trying to do with his budget which is loosely based off of Simpson/Bowles. You know that budget, the one Harry Reid voted down in the Senate and refused to write his own.

Romney is doing no wrong. He pays millions in taxes, the rules of which are defined in the tax code, a tax code he did not create (see Charlie Rangel for that information). Reid and Obama's attack dogs need to state this fact openly and honestly. These McCarthyism tactics by Obama/Democrats are pitiful to watch.

sure Red, like i said, id avoid taxes if i could legally. It's my money. but im glad you dont take deductions (thats lie and you know it). Member i told you libs you need to stop casting stones from your glass shacks. you guys look foolish daily with your pseudo elitism

RedDev,

Last time I looked, tithing for church members is 10% at least on gross income.

Don't know much about Mormons, but they do believe in tithing.

And if you are a leader or"bishop" as Romney was, is the requirement even more?

Could be an embarrassment for Romney if he released years of tax returns.

praysalot,

Another reason not to release tax returns. He would be caught in a lie.

@David Walker: Re the conspiracy involving the LDS Church and cooking the books: Given my personal knowledge of the church, I've often thought that something similar has happened. Great posts Backhouse, David and Feisty! And thank you TNSEVOL for reminding us of the greatest myths that the GOP tries to perpetuate. GOP= Gluttons of priviledge.

Obama/Biden 2012!

Ceasar -- The last I looked it was the RED STATES taking more federal dollars out of the system than they pay in. Hope you don't live in one of those RED WELFARE STATES.

JAS1 -- Nice try at spin but my position has always been clean taxes. You know that. Ryan's plan raises is garbage for many reasons. As a Democrat I support a plan SIMILAR to Simpson Bowles.

Like Bill you stoop too low with the McCarthyism junk.

Perhaps you should be asking Congresswoman Bachmann that question.

Bachman has been criticized by many on the right for her unsubstantiated suggestion, see Senator McCain's spirited defense. The left by contrast has just looked the other way regarding Harry's equally unsunstantiated suggestion, see Nancy Pelosi going all in.

Perhaps you should keep your eye on the ball.

dumbfux @ 1.20 -- It is "Hollandaise sauce" you rather dimwitted creature.

just like barry, get off script and see what a fool you become.

Sorry Ben but your misinformation is wrong. President Obama would have proposed tax reform if he'd have had any support from the republican do nothing congress. They told him they would filibuster any bill that had tax reform in it. Just like all the jobs bills he's proposed, and all the economic recovery bills, the republican do nothing congress filibustered all of them. The thing you conservative republicans don't understand is most voters know what the republican do nothing congress has done. Even you Ben, you're just to misinformed to admit it.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

What I find strange about this whole Harry Reid brouhaha is, the only person who has reviewed 23 years of Willard’s tax returns is John McCain and he HAS NOT called Harry a liar…

great catch. All McCain has do say is: I've seen the tax returns, and I can vouch for RomneyHood...it does make you wonder!

Correction -- Ryan's plan is garbage for many reasons.

billy bob...dumfux is pretty dense. i wouldnt hold your breath. besides fools are entertaining its fun watching it chase its tail

DCIA yeah like Cali Ill and NY...the liberal bastions of hope right, they take no money its only states like texas and az right? LOL. please provide proof of that claim

Tax cuts for low incomes are more stimulative than tax cuts for higher incomes because people with modest incomes spend the extra money on things like food, rent, autos, and home appliances. People in Mitt Romneyhood's tax bracket sock the money away in Swiss bank accounts or the Cayman Islands or summer homes on the French Riviera. Which tax cuts do YOU think helps the U.S. economy more?

Obviously the tax cuts for the richest. They as you say are socked away in bank accounts or put into investment vehicles. These vehicles allow for the creation of capital that is then used to create new companies, buy new machinery, open new plants. I know it would be wonderful if cutting the taxes of a million people by $5 a week would mean the creation of $5M in investments but it doesn't. It is consumption, not investment. We live under a capitalist system. It may suck but its better than any of the alternatives that have been tried.

prays a lot

Americans do pay taxes on foreign investments and most folks that have a 401k or IRA have at least some foreign investments.

It is fair to assume that Romney's tax returns are scrutinized regularly by the IRS

@Mo -- If your reasoning was true, then the president would not have proposed anything since 2010. That dog doesn't hunt. Sorry Mo. Hey Johnny what does Mo get as a consolation prize for playing and losing???????

@bayl -LIE -- So hypocritical but typically absurd and pathetic. Left left cries foul when someone does call Harry a dirty liar and cries foul when someone doesn't.

Sorry Ben but your misinformation is wrong. President Obama would have proposed tax reform if he'd have had any support from the republican do nothing congress. They told him they would filibuster any bill that had tax reform in it. Just like all the jobs bills he's proposed, and all the economic recovery bills, the republican do nothing congress filibustered all of them. The thing you conservative republicans don't understand is most voters know what the republican do nothing congress has done. Even you Ben, you're just to misinformed to admit it.

So my question is, if we re-elect the President why would anything be different? Even Clinton, who was impeached by the house, got more done than this President. He does not have a working relationship with the Democrats in congress never mind the Republicans.

caesar -- good point. entertaining they are.

what would you think of a vote to determine just which definition of feisty fits the dumbfux the most accurately?

1. full of animation, energy, or courage; spirited; spunky; plucky

2. ill-tempered

3. troublesome; difficult

Romney, "Trust me."

Reagan, "Trust, but verify!"

Give me a break RedDev. You liberals are so snarky, insultive and throw names out there at conservatives at every opportunity. The way you view us shows you think of conservatives as second class citizens and you are the elite. Let me clue you in... Everything this administration does not only effects me, but effects you too. Every little snip at our freedom involves you... but for some reason you don't care about it and in many instances you support it. We aren't making this stuff up about how the Executive Office is diligently working behind the scenes to prepare for confiscating our goods, services and way of life...

EO 13603

EO 13559

EO 13618

EO 13549

None of these were approved by Congress but yet involve the lives of every citizen of this country. The contents of these Executive Orders tell me that the President has at his disposal everything needed to disrupt commerce, take over all forms of manufacturing, natural resources and practically put everything in the control of one office... his. I can't remember a president ever setting up executive orders in such a manner. Since I don't trust him, because of his demonstrated disdain for this country, it leads me to believe he has very ominous plans... Can I prove it? I can only prove history and a couple of examples where men in power completely changed the course of history that possess his mindset.

Ignorance is based on avoiding the obvious. People avoid it because they have a natural tendency to trust... I don't trust, so don't go claiming I have a tin foil hat on... Read the EO's for yourself and take particular note of how they are set up and what they actually say.

billy bob, i am going with low self esteem

@Alan -- Unfortunately and ominously the answer might be found in Brianb's post 1.94.

Oh BrianB - you forgot about the evil sinister plan to implement Martial Law to circumvent the elections, while the Fast and Furious folks grab your guns, and Barney Frank forces banks to make bad mortgage loans to cause another housing bubble to usher in another economic collapse.

Ignorance is based on avoiding the obvious.

Sorry - I just don't see the obvious in that dubious, supposed, plan.

P.S. How cute - now BrianB has recruited Ben. I hear Northern Idaho is a refuge for like minded thinkers afraid of society.

To BillyBob & Caesar - thanks for reminding us,

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people - Eleanore Roosevelt

This from the AP:

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Monday defended her Senate counterpart for claiming that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney hasn't paid income taxes for 10 years.

Romney has said he pays taxes every year and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is wrong.

Top Republicans say Reid is telling lies.

Pelosi, who was campaigning in Florida, said though the allegation is unproven she didn't think Reid was wrong to put it out there. Reid has said only that the tip came from a former Romney associate. He also has said he isn't sure it's true.

Reid has raised the claim in media interviews and on the Senate floor.

Pelosi said she believes Reid when he says he got the information from a credible source. She also said it's up to Romney to release more of his income tax returns to prove that Reid is wrong.

Why is it liberals have this idea that just because someone accuses you of something, you need to produce evidence that they are wrong? I remember doing this as a child... have the liberals really stooped this low in their attempts to discredit someone? It's ridiculous!

White Collar Auto, my link is not advertising! That particular website does not use any advertising for monetary gains nor does it ask for any monetary donations.

Oh, and a big FYI : discrimantory misuse or falsly flagging comments can result in a limit on your ability to futher report on comments for up to a month. So put that in your tailpipe and smoke it!

Obama/Biden 2012

Dcia: JAS1 -- Nice try at spin but my position has always been clean taxes. You know that. Ryan's plan raises is garbage for many reasons. As a Democrat I support a plan SIMILAR to Simpson Bowles.

That's nice, but you still didn't answer the question. You called Romney "unAmerican". So what is being an American to you far left liberals? Paying more than you owe in taxes?

Like Bill you stoop too low with the McCarthyism junk.

It's the exact same tactic. Reckless accusations, attack on ones patriotism (as your "unAmerican" statement confirms), without a shred of evidence to back it up. It is pitiful to watch.

You said it, you wear it.

Caesar Augustus-

sure Red, like i said, id avoid taxes if i could legally. It's my money.

that's the point Ceasar, if Romney did it LEGALLY, why not show them? But while using tax shelters, deferments, loopholes, havens, deductions, off shore addresses, offshore accounts, horsey expenses, cleaning staff expenses, car elevator expenses, etc. may be legal, they may not be viewed positively
by a voter who makes half of what Romney claimed as a deduction for his dancing horsey…

Pissy, whiny, cry-baby conservatives wouldn't know anything about that, would they? You folks love your diversionary tactics, but you sure do hate when the tables are reversed. Come on you cry baby conservies - step up to the table and shove it in, chew it, and swallow it. Liberals have dealt with this bull crap for years now, as conservatives have used every diversionary un-unifying tactic to destroy the economic recovery. What a bunch of thin-skinned wimps.

I never understand this argument. The Democratic argument through most of the Bush Administration, which I agreed with, was that Bush sucked. However, whenever it comes to defending Obama the main argument of Democrats is "Bush did it first", or "Bush was worst". Now you make the argument that because Republicans use diversionary tactics, which you complained about for years, it's acceptable for Democrats to do the same.

How about you are both wrong.

If someone is in the gutter and campaigns to the base instinct of the electorate, you are now proud of the fact you are doing the same?

Unbelievable.

Feisty thanks, i have a great mind, see youre more of a thought than a person, a state of (ill) mind if you will. so suggesting i was a small minded person look no further than you discussing willard LOL...

Dumfux OWNED

RedDev - You can mention those other things, things I am aware of but don't subscribe to... but I am really glad you finally admitted you are ignorant. Trust Obama all you want... that's your personal choice... You ignore all the negatives and disregard them as if they don't exist... You aren't even curious about what's written in the EO's... so keep yourself in the dark. EO's are what the president puts in place to enact his rulings. Don't ever research what Obama is doing... just believe the complicent media... praise him... worship him for all I care... I choose not to place my trust in a president that has done many things to harm this nation, it's history and insult the population at large.

if Romney did it LEGALLY, why not show them? But while using tax shelters, deferments, loopholes, havens, deductions, off shore addresses, offshore accounts, horsey expenses, cleaning staff expenses, car elevator expenses, etc. may be legal, they may not be viewed positively
by a voter who makes half of what Romney claimed as a deduction for his dancing horsey…

Read your post. You answered your own question.

However, the same insinuations can be made regarding the President's past. He may have got into Columbia and Harvard but did he get in on his merits, or through some form of affirmative action? As someone who has pushed a narrative as "the smartest guy in the room", his admission criteria to the Ivy League may have not been too impressive and that would be an embarrassment that can be exploited by a political opponent.

But if he's got nothing to hide.......

God, this is such small ball as the country falls off the cliff. Can we please get a third choice?

Bayllie it is legal and it is his money and where in any law says he has to release his tax records. Lets ask Pelosi or Walserman about their tax havens. I bet even Kerry and Edwards have them. You villify if its a republican and canonize if its a democrat but you know what, the end of the day, you're a hypocrite.

Alan, I think the economy is the important discussion and why the left runs from it bothers me. Maybe their policies suck and they know it and can't defend it. Nope, they play top and spin around all day

OH NOES! From Bennie: "I'll remember you said that"...how will I EVER sleep again? Bennie, dear, when you rely on Fox "news" NO ONE takes you seriously!

brianb: your post at 1.94 is HYSTERICAL, given the "breaking news" you posted last night. "Ignorance is based on ignoring the obvious..."

So why do you do that brianb?

Give them HELL Harry.

JAS1 - Trying to label me, LOL. Spin away JAS1, you have nothing else. An American pays for the government he or she uses. Bain, under Romney used government help to reap their windfall profits. Yet Romney is the perfect example of what's wrong in America. Just like those in Euro zone, he practices TAX AVOIDANCE. That's unAmerican.

An American pays for the government he or she uses. Bain, under Romney used government help to reap their windfall profits. Yet Romney is the perfect example of what's wrong in America. Just like those in Euro zone, he practices TAX AVOIDANCE. That's unAmerican.

But the government we use costs 40% more than we are paying for it. Romney pays a tax rate of 15%, Obama 20%. Both practice TAX AVOIDANCE. I took standard deductions for the last 4 years. Am I guilty of TAX AVOIDANCE? The only way around this is to reform the tax code. Lets have this debate.

BTW Jody you never answered as to whether the President's tax rate of 20% is fair. If so, I'm guessing fair is somewhere between 15% and 20%? How about we all pay 18% for everything, including payroll taxes?

or you can do what RedDev does and take no deductions, right Red. you dont right

Alan NJ -- Romney is NOT for TAX REFORM. He is for eliminating middle class deductions. That's not REFORM that's THEFT.

Clean taxes for all including business.

Romney is NOT for TAX REFORM. He is for eliminating middle class deductions. That's not REFORM that's THEFT.

What middle class deductions are you in favor of keeping? Mortgage Interest? I benefited from that and will in the future. However, to me it is one of the most unfair deductions in the code. Why are renters paying me to buy a house? Dependent deductions? After a number of children, my number is 3, you should hit a maximum. I was single for most of my life so why should I pay for someone else's reproductive wishes? I do accept the argument that caring for your parents should be considered as that will save money on entitlements. Buying a green vehicle?

Too many deductions and loopholes. Burn it to the ground. Set up 2 to 4 rates and then let them argue about deductions again. Put a time limit of 10 years and push the reset button. That way they (the politicians) only have a short time to f... it up by adding their pet loopholes.

BTW Calling a loophole where by you do not give your money to the government can hardly be considered theft. The principal should be "How do we allow most people to keep more of their money". Government should not be a wish list. The principal should what is the minimum amount required for the Government to function. That is why both houses and the Administration should be forced to publish a multi-year budget that they have voted on, and is signed by the President.

The way we do it now is a farce.

JoannaSmith1 and Bill in Fairfax ---

Why is it okay for Romney to take advantage of the tax code but it's not okay for the poor to do so?

JAS1- To hide one's money overseas to avoid taxes is UnAmerican in my book.

Alan NJ -- What part of CLEAN TAXES to you not understand? I'm for eliminating ALL DEDUCTIONS period.

Then taking the average effective rate and making a clean progressive rate of taxation. Furthermore, I would EXEMPT the first say 15K or 20K of income from taxation for all.

Why are renters paying me to buy a house?

Alan - renters are not paying for you to buy a house. The deduction is passed to renters in the form of lower rents. It is a write-off as part of expenses in owning and maintaining rental property. If home owners did not have this deduction, the penalty would be on home owners since rental property owners would have this deduction and home owners would not.

Dcia: TAX AVOIDANCE. That's unAmerican.

Please define "tax avoidance"? Is it examination and study of the tax codes and following those codes to limit ones exposure to the government for taxes owed? That sounds like it's "Obeying the law".

Why is it okay for Romney to take advantage of the tax code but it's not okay for the poor to do so?

The poor are under the same tax laws and rules Romney, Obama, Buffett, or Joe Six-Pack are under.

- To hide one's money overseas to avoid taxes is UnAmerican in my book.

Hide? What's hidden? That money is taxable. If you have a 401K or an IRA, you have the option on investing in foreign securities. Romney does it, you do it, union pension plans do it. You can open a foreign account with one telephone call if you so desired. You continue with this "unAmerican" mantra, but only for a select few, in this case, Romney. It is really quite amusing to watch what are nothing but feeble attempts to drag one man through the mud.

What part of CLEAN TAXES to you not understand? I'm for eliminating ALL DEDUCTIONS period.

I would say that I agree with the basics. I was confused because you said that Romney only wanted to eliminate Middle Class deductions. I was wondering what they were.

So, is the President's tax plan or Romney's (based on Ryan's) closer to what you are proposing?

Oh my! I see the right wing nut cases came out in full on this site - with nothing to back up their lies and insinuations, as usual.

Backhouse, David Walker, Ron, - great posts, as always. It is almost funny watching the right wingers, Brianb, JAS, WCA, etc, bluster and lie as they try to defend the indefensible - Mitt. You can almost see their little faces getting bright red and I imagine they are stamping their feet as they try to mount a defense for the empty suit. But, that's all he is and all he is capable of becoming.

BrianB - you just look foolish with you mountain of lies and accusations. JAS you ALWAYS look foolish so, nothing new there. billybob - your name speaks volumes and you totally do not disappoint!

Obama/Biden 2012

DCIA, is it unamerican because you dont have the capabilities to do that? You have to elaborate on that. what is unAmerican about wanting to keep the governments hands off more and more money? If its legal, how is it unamerican?

Now if in your world you mean being American is left of Che Guevara, then yes most of us are unAmerican.

Alan - renters are not paying for you to buy a house. The deduction is passed to renters in the form of lower rents. It is a write-off as part of expenses in owning and maintaining rental property. If home owners did not have this deduction, the penalty would be on home owners since rental property owners would have this deduction and home owners would not.

If there was no Mortgage Interest deduction then revenues would be higher. In effect renters are subsidizing home owners when they buy a house. You are talking about the case of a rental property which is a business. If you are renting a house as part of a business then the current law regarding deductions seems to be adequate to me.

What I don't understand is why won't Mitt Romney just release his tax returns and end all of the discussion ?

He should have released them a long time ago, as in during his last Presidential race. Maybe he listed "Losing Candidate for President of the US" as his job and doesn't want to be embarrassed because that's all he's done for the last 7 years.

If he would release the returns, the issue would be over and we can go onto his tax and economic plans, Romney Hood.

SeekingSanity

Oh my! I see the right wing nut cases came out in full on this site - with nothing to back up their lies and insinuations, as usual.

Backhouse, David Walker, Ron, - great posts, as always. It is almost funny watching the right wingers, Brianb, JAS, WCA, etc, bluster and lie as they try to defend the indefensible - Mitt. You can almost see their little faces getting bright red and I imagine they are stamping their feet as they try to mount a defense for the empty suit. But, that's all he is and all he is capable of becoming.

BrianB - you just look foolish with you mountain of lies and accusations. JAS you ALWAYS look foolish so, nothing new there. billybob - your name speaks volumes and you totally do not disappoint!

Summer school finally out today? Made up those failed grades yet?

Alan NJ -- The WSJ quoted the Obama administration as being very open to cleaning up the tax code, for business and individuals. That said, it is Congress and a very powerful committee called the Ways and Means that will make sure the special interests and big business can continue to steal through the tax code. We need to replace those on that board. Congress is bought and paid for. The lobbyists make sure of that.

Clean taxes is what I will continue to advocate for as a Democrat.

JAS1 -- You write:

The poor are under the same tax laws and rules Romney,

Perhaps you've missed all Bill's DIATRIBES on the poor not paying any federal income tax. He is the one who fails to acknowledge they are following the law.

Alan, NJ: Summer school finally out today? Made up those failed grades yet?

Always some antagonist that just can't stand what's turned into quite a decent conversation. But that's all she's got, and all she's ever had since she showed up, so we have to make allowances.

Ben-636050

@bayl -LIE -- So hypocritical but typically absurd and pathetic. Left left cries foul when someone does call Harry a dirty liar and cries foul when someone doesn't.

what is it that I'm lying about has McCain stood up for RomneyHood? Does asking legit questions offend you?

Prove Harry that he's dirty: show me the papers!

Alan dahlin - never failed a class in my life but I guess you're talking from first hand experience. So sorry I didn't mention you - guess you feel left out - but you posted nothing worth mentioning - even in passing. Poor little boy!

JAS - deflecting as usual since you can't post anything of any value. But, you love posting your lies day after day and your pathetic nonsense. That's why most of us barely give your posts a 2nd glance - no substance as usual, just the usual stupidity. It's all we expect from you and all we get!

Obama/Biden 2012

The WSJ quoted the Obama administration as being very open to cleaning up the tax code, for business and individuals. That said, it is Congress and a very powerful committee called the Ways and Means that will make sure the special interests and big business can continue to steal through the tax code. We need to replace those on that board. Congress is bought and paid for. The lobbyists make sure of that.

Again I agree, but it is the responsibility of the Administration to propose changes. They cannot simply sit on their hands and bemoan the fact that nothing is happening. As to the Ways and Means committee I agree. They too are simply stalling until the election. However, if the democrats regained the house wouldn't that mean Charlie Rangel would be the chair again? That I cannot support.

Dcia: Perhaps you've missed all Bill's DIATRIBES on the poor not paying any federal income tax.

Do you believe 48% of the country is poor? I don't. In order to be properly engaged in the discussion of higher/lower, more-complex/ less-complex taxes, one should have an investment in the country where their taxes are subject to change when they vote for more or less government.

It is just so easy to say "Lets raise taxes, except not on me."

Alan said: Summer school finally out today? Made up those failed grades yet?

You hit it right on the nose Alan! What a great comeback! Since Seeking Sanity seems to own the franchise on InsultsRUs... and to think Sanitie's violations of the Community Standards are completely ignored by the MSN monitors.... wait... I forgot... Dum Fux is Sanity's friend.

JAS - deflecting as usual since you can't post anything of any value

This is just too funny.

Ceasar -- What complete nonsense. You really need to educate yourself. Disgusting. You must be a TROLL.

JAS1 -- Do you realize 50% of the population makes under 40K a year?

correction -- Working population, JAS1.

I wonder if Romney's old friend Dwek Solomon will help Mitt Romney with his tax returns ???

..and back to old Harry...some classics came out today

“I’m a member of Congress now, I don’t make too much money,” said Reid, whose net worth was estimated at $10 million in 2010. “But it’s all listed every year.”

Conservatives have begun accusing Reid of hypocrisy for his attacks on Romney. And the Las Vegas Review-Journal — in a somewhat different context — on Monday resurrected a 1974 statement in which Reid said: “Any man or woman who will not be completely candid about his or her finances does not deserve to be in public office.”

Asked about that statement at a news conference Monday in Nevada, Reid responded: “In 1974, I wasn’t in Congress.

“All you have to do is go look,” he added. “I file every year, every stock trade, every piece of land I buy, all the money I have, it has the value of my homes, it’s got it all there.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79419.html#ixzz22sdm6HgA

But Harry, we want to know how much you're paying in tax. Financial statements do not reveal this. Could it be you're just an old hypocrite? BTW How is you can stay all year at the Waldorf-Astoria on a government salary? Can we see some expense claims please?

Brianb- I post fewer insults than most of the far righters on this site but I know you little children fail to acknowledge that. And, you - one of the top insult posters and one of the bottom posters of anything of value. You violate Community Standards just by coming on the site.

What? No complaints against your little buddies, Ben, Damage, njnb, JAS for their nastiness and stupidity.

The real problem with you is you can't keep up and you know it. So sad but it's no ones problem but yours. Try posting something of value instead of your biased and uninformed nonsense.

Obama/Biden 2012

no DCIA, how bout you edcuate me, after all you're a liberal with the smarter than thou tumor. you posted your opinion on UnAmericanism, how bout you enlighten us all.

dirp: What I don't understand is why won't Mitt Romney just release his tax returns and end all of the discussion ?

That's an interesting question. Obama and the Democrats certainly want to use it as a weapon showing how much money a businessmen like Romney has the opportunity to make if they work hard, smart, and are successful. Obama doesn't like the private sector much, it's clear from his comments. He thinks the class warfare route is a winner for him and Romney should not feed into it.

What is interesting is the media is spinning it the same way. If this was reversed and Obama was refusing to release some information, the spin would be "Look at Obama stand up to the unwarranted attacks!"

@SS I spit my water out reading your comment regarding the number of insults you post. It is a rare occasion that you do not insult someone's intelligence, values, etc..... Still don't ever see you posting an actual link to facts so what is that about the pot and kettle again. You are too funny. My neighbor's four year old doesn't call people stupid as much as you do and when he does he goes to time out.

Obama was referring to the recent study by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, which found that Romney’s push for additional tax cuts -- while keeping these tax cuts revenue-neutral -- would result in tax increases on the middle class.

To me personally, I hate tax cuts. They pretty much don't make any sense in my opinion; if you are trying to stimulate the economy, the best way to do that is by spending money to increase demand. If you want to lower tax burdens, it's fine, but only if tax burdens are exceptionally high. Right now, they are at their lowest in 50 years. I hate the Bush tax cuts; I say let them all expire in 2013. But for God's sake, what good does cutting taxes for the wealthy do when you are raising taxes on the people who drive our economy??? Romney's tax plan is class warfare; reverse-Robin Hood class warfare. Where Robin stole from the rich and gave to the poor, Romney shall do the opposite, in order to "create more jobs, increase wages, and help the American people." What kind of idiot could buy such crap???

Alan, NJ

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth.

False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

Was China an economic powerhouse during the Eisenhower Administration? What was the production capacity of Europe 8 years after the Second World War? Where was Japan in its progress to becoming the 2nd largest economy in the world in the eighties and nineties. What was the total output of the other BRIC countries in the fifties?

Okay then; the growth of foreign economies has essentially placed a ceiling (or cap) on top tax rates. But riddle me this; in 2001 and 2003, we embarked on a decade of "tax relief" that ONLY benefited the wealthiest Americans, and what happened???? Did we have great economic growth, and a record number of jobs created???? 30 years ago, we started a 30 year experiment of supply-side economics. How did that pan out??? Did deregulation and tax cuts grow the economy??? Or did they just balloon income inequality and lead to a massive recession??? The most important economic crisis we face today in America is not jobs, but inequality. Whenever we grow, we assume that it goes to everyone; unfortunately, in 2011 alone, 93% of the growth due to the stimulus went to the top 1% of Americans. We cannot continue to delude ourselves into thinking that inequality in America is nonexistent; in fact, we have the most unequal distribution of income in the industrialized world. Now, I'm not proposing a top tax rate of 91%, I think 76%, minus some deductions and exemptions, would do just fine. At the very least, we ought to eventually have a top tax rate of 70% for people making over $25 million, and a capital gains tax of about 35%. This will decrease income inequality and lead to REAL economic growth, not artificial prosperity caused by credit bubbles.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits.

Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast.

I guess all those Baby Boomers retiring into the system at a rate of 10,000 a day are just a Republican fantasy?

If you take a look at most charts, Medicare and Medicaid are not causing our deficits, at least not right now. In the late 2010s, when the Baby Boomers retire, they will; but now, the biggest drivers of our deficits are the recession and the Bush tax cuts.

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

Show me the money in the trust fund. Tell where the assets backing the trust fund are. Explain to me why, during the debt debt ceiling crisis of last year, the President threatened that SS checks could not be sent without borrowing the money?

According to Politifact, Barry Hinckley, a GOP candidate for one of Rhode Island's Senate seats argued that Social Security has no money; to be sure, it doesn't have any liquid money. But the Trust Fund does contain government bonds, which generated over $117 billion in interest in 2011 alone. Saying that Social Security has no money is like saying that Antarctica has no water. As for Obama, Politifact rated that as only half true, since the government could easily prioritize Social Security checks while delaying things for Medicare, Medicaid, defense, etc.

7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax.

Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else.

Is it also unfair that these are the same people who receive the highest benefits from payroll taxes, or should you get back what you put in?

Of course poor people get the most benefits; they get more money relative to their pre-retirement income. Is that fair??? I would argue yes, since people with larger incomes have more opportunities to save money for retirement via 401ks or pensions than those at the bottom the economic ladder. You try telling someone who makes $30,000 a year and lives paycheck to paycheck to set aside 5% of their weekly income for a 401k...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

ksw - and you again post nothing about the right wingers who insult - including you. Your posts are valueless as usual and you are a hypocrite. I'm sure your 4 year old neighbor can run circles around you, as far as intelligence goes.

They are highly selective in their outrage, are they not, Seeking Sanity? Basically, they want the rules to work this way:

"We get to insult, and trash people with impunity. Everyone else must accept that, and no fair if they do what we do."

SS: What? No complaints against your little buddies, Ben, Damage, njnb, JAS for their nastiness and stupidity

Have you noticed SS? You're really isolating yourself. Nobody much cares about yours, or any other of your friends, petty little attacks. At best they are amusing, at worst pitiful. You've had your run, now it's done.

Why doesn't Romney just silence his critics on this issue by releasing the returns ?

I know its petty and stupid, but so was (and still is to the die-hard haters) the whole birther issue. President Obama finally realized the issue would not go away unless it was addressed head-on. He produced the birth certificate copy.

That's politics in America, sometimes you do have to take on stupid issues, just to make them go away. Whether you talk about Jackson being an adulteror, Hamilton using treasury funds for speculation, or any of the other attempts to malign an opponent, the best way they are handled are by facing them head-on. Bill Clinton was/is [depending on the meaning of the word is :) ] a philanderer, yet because he addressed the issue of Jennifer Flowers, people accepted him.

The problem for the GOP is that they have accepted the neo-con, no taxes, teavangelical requirements for their candidates. Mitt Romney's problem is he does not fit that mold, yet he has twisted his set of values to fit into their box. Hopefully, the Tea Party candidates will lose, again, and the GOP will go back to wanting to govern the country, compromises, tax increases and actually working.

ksw - I put sanity on ignore a long time ago. I still see the name but never the comments. My computer thanked me.

If you really equate school records with tax returns, then let Romney release his as precedence like his father with taxes. Then ask Obama to release his.

Seriously, you guys must be all paid to defend Romney, if you can't see the simple difference. Let me put it is layman's terms.

If Romney thinks he pays to much in taxes as a "job creator" and is fighting to lower his rate (the only issue he has never wavered from) , then we have ever right to demand he show us what he believes is too high!!

Uh Seeking LOL Your response proves my point and actually I do post to those on the right who cross the line of insults. Not selective in my outrage at all just don't care for hypocrites.

Even my neighbor's four year old knows how to post links unlike you. He is a pretty smart little guy.

"We get to insult, and trash people with impunity. Everyone else must accept that, and no fair if they do what we do."

HOLLA NDD!

They sure are a bossy bunch of bullies!

In chimes Snuffy... right on time... lol

How many 'time outs' has Snuffy had for insulting people again?

I've lost count... lol

Newday you are simply wrong. I can only speak for myself, but if I go after someone in particular it's because they attacked me first. I have little use for liberal thought processes and their ideology, but keep the namecalling and immature insults to a minimum. If I get busted, I'll accept responsibility for my own words... not a problem to me. I will continue to speak truth about the policies about Obama, his actions that are detrimental to this country and those things are not in violation of community standards... most of the insults I receive back from my comments, are. I don't care if someone insults me.. as far as I'm concerned it's their own immaturity that dictates their words.

@Freshiee

But riddle me this; in 2001 and 2003, we embarked on a decade of "tax relief" that ONLY benefited the wealthiest Americans, and what happened???? Did we have great economic growth, and a record number of jobs created????

So you accept that Riech's contention that the high tax rates in the 50's are not possible because of the higher competition for capital, and the increased supply of educated labor at lowers wages than the American worker? As to the decade of tax relief that only benefited the wealthiest, I disagree. Bush implemented the most progressive tax system in the developed economies. That is why Democrats do not want to repeal most of the cuts because they know it will actually lead to a more regressive system. As to economic growth. I would argue we had a fairly good economy 2003 to 2007. Whether it was caused by the tax cuts (and the deficit they caused - Keynes), or by increased consumption, due to individuals leveraging their assets (borrowing against their homes), or just a huge housing bubble, I really don't know. They all seem pretty plausible.

Did deregulation and tax cuts grow the economy???

Yes. I think the economy grew from 2000 thru 2008, and even into today. I think that metric is irrefutable.

The most important economic crisis we face today in America is not jobs, but inequality. Whenever we grow, we assume that it goes to everyone; unfortunately, in 2011 alone, 93% of the growth due to the stimulus went to the top 1% of Americans. We cannot continue to delude ourselves into thinking that inequality in America is nonexistent; in fact, we have the most unequal distribution of income in the industrialized world.

This is a very interesting take on what is happening right now. Follower of Joseph Stiglitz? I don't know if his remedies are possible in a global economy. Where I would tinker with the system is that I would eliminate the estate tax complete but treat inherited wealth as income. Maybe earn it over a period so that businesses can be inherited, but remove other mechanisms such as trust funds. I do not believe the issue can be solved simply by taxing income at a higher rate. As to income re-distribution increasing demand, do have any examples where this actually worked?

As for Obama, Politifact rated that as only half true, since the government could easily prioritize Social Security checks while delaying things for Medicare, Medicaid, defense, etc.

But at the end of the day we both know that SS will have to be paid out of general revenues, and as we are borrowing 40% of those revenues, SS like other government programs have severe structural problems in their financing. I for one am not for simply removing the cap to increase revenues. To me this will just create a surplus that will be spent as before. I believe we should agree to the benefits paid on a bi-annual basis, divide that by the number of recipients and that will produce the amount revenue needed for the next two years. No surplus (or deficit), pay as you go.

I accept your point on the payout of SS being fair to the poor, but you cannot argue at the same time that it is unfair they more in, relative to their earnings. They lose on one side and gain on the other. It's not a bad deal.

Good to have this discussion with you. You raise some interesting points.

HOLLA NDD!

They sure are a bossy bunch of bullies!

In chimes Snuffy... right on time... lol

How many 'time outs' has Snuffy had for insulting people again?

I've lost count... lol

OMG she's back....spent your welfare check already?

Brianb-999431

David Walker said: How is it possible that Mitt Romney cannot understand the impact of his refusal to release his taxes?

How is it possible that liberals don't see his refusal as a way to throw it back in your faces? You act like Mitt Romney should just comply with the demands of liberals and those that are insisting he provide documentation that is not required. He provided the mandatory tax returns but the witch hunt the liberals generate are documentation that is not necessary.

First of all, conservatives are also demanding that Romney release his tax returns, so this is more of a bipartisan demand. Secondly, Obama is not required to release his birth certificate to the likes of Donald Trump and his birther ilk, and yet he did do it. Why??? Because he was pressured and decided that the only way to solve the problem was to face it head on. And now the birther problem is, for the most part, solved. If Romney wants to show that he has both integrity and the guts to stand up to people who push him down, he ought to release his tax returns. How else will we know how tough this guy will be as president??? Personally, to me he's like clay; someone who can easily be crafted and manipulated.

What the liberals are doing is a diversionary tactic. That's all. Nothing more... and the Romney camp sees it that way and should hold back on providing information that is demanded but not required.

Where the @!$%# were you when the birthers were in town???? The GOP invented diversionary tactics; for God's sake they diverted Bush's bad record on Iraq and the economy by using the tragedy of 9/11 and their assertion that Kerry wasn't a decorated Vietnam vet to their @!$%#ing advantage!!!! Now the joke is on you; funny how you squirm and squeal when you get a taste of your own medicine.

Taken directly from the Democratic Handbook... create an unnecessary diversion to cause an inkling of doubt, even if there's nothing there to back up that doubt.

Guess you forgot Karl Rove and the doubts about Kerry's Vietnam service, didn't you??

Liberals are so flaky. We know your tactics

You should; you invented them.

Too many deductions and loopholes. Burn it to the ground. Set up 2 to 4 rates and then let them argue about deductions again. Put a time limit of 10 years and push the reset button. That way they (the politicians) only have a short time to f... it up by adding their pet loopholes.

While I agree with your time limit, I cannot support only 4 rates. The problem is that over here people can make over $50 million a year and they only pay a rate for those making over $385,000. I say have 12 rates, going from 8% to 76%, for people making above $25,000 and those making over $50 million. That, in my opinion, would be a fair tax code.

JoAnnaSmith1

Dcia: JAS1 -- Are you advocating for the THEFT that takes place in our TAX CODE?

Now you're arguing something different. Interesting how the tune changes with liberals when you corner them. I have no problem with a simpler tax code, one with lower rates and few if any deductions. Kind of what Paul Ryan's was trying to do with his budget which is loosely based off of Simpson/Bowles. You know that budget, the one Harry Reid voted down in the Senate and refused to write his own.

Are you kidding me??? The Ryan plan has practically NOTHING to do with Simpson Bowles!!! First of all, Simpson Bowles contains defense cuts, something the Ryan plan omits. Secondly, Simpson Bowles contains REVENUES by taxing capital gains as ordinary income and devotes some tax savings to deficit reduction, while the Ryan plan cuts taxes by roughly $4.6 trillion and makes the code less progressive. Finally, Simpson Bowles seeks to REFORM Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, instead of privatizing the first one, decentralizing the second one, and doing absolutely nothing but promise a discussion on the third one, as the Ryan plan does. While I do not agree with everything that the Simpson Bowles plan states (particularly the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax), I can accept most of it, as it has bipartisan ideas. The Ryan plan is merely a piece of red meat covered in fancy words and apocalyptic statistics that somehow managed to get passed on as a budget.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

While I do not agree with everything that the Simpson Bowles plan states (particularly the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax), I can accept most of it, as it has bipartisan ideas. The Ryan plan is merely a piece of red meat covered in fancy words and apocalyptic statistics that somehow managed to get passed on as a budget

The Ryan plan is a step to resolve the structural problems of the entitlements of the country, as noted in Simpson/Bowles. While Obama argues for the small ball issue of $70 billion more a year by taxing the rich, the GOP is taking on the real issues that are draining this country dry. You may not like what they are doing, but in case you're not paying attention, we're running out of options. The Democrats are talking about someones tax returns, taxing the rich a miniscule amount, and staying the course with 1.5% GDP growth, 8%+ unemployment, and massive deficits.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

What's the point?

Alan, NJ: OMG she's back....spent your welfare check already?

Those penny slot machines take it in a hurry.

While I agree with your time limit, I cannot support only 4 rates. The problem is that over here people can make over $50 million a year and they only pay a rate for those making over $385,000. I say have 12 rates, going from 8% to 76%, for people making above $25,000 and those making over $50 million. That, in my opinion, would be a fair tax code.

I can only image the bickering as they try and create 12 rates. Interesting idea though. I think 76% is a bit high unless that's the absolute maximum including state. Even then I have philosophical blocks on the government taking more than half of what your earn. Why does government need so much money?

dcia @ 1.126 -- you mentioned in your post "That said, it is Congress and a very powerful committee called the Ways and Means that will make sure the special interests and big business can continue to steal through the tax code."

I have checked the record. Since the 79th Congress (1945 - 1947) Democrats have controlled the House Ways and Means Committee for 50 years (including the current 112th Congress).

It would appear as though the democrats have probably written most of the tax law. In addition to Rangel (and the legal issues he has had) you may recall Dan Rostenkowski (13 years as chairman, later spent time in prison).

They are highly selective in their outrage

Ever notice how those who whine about it the loudest are the same ones who are the most guilty?

OHHH!!! The irony.... lol

newday - I don't pay attention to their little "gang wars." It seems on any certain day they target one of us to gang up on.

Thanks for your backing!

billybob --- Appearances can be deceiving. Look at what Jack Abramoff now says. He owned the Republicans and wrote the tax loopholes and tax laws for them.

Freshieee -- You rock. Thanks for taking the time to set the record straight.

so Abramoff influenced how many years, maybe as many as 10?

it is not a deceiving appearance! the democrats had the majority for 50 years.

i trust you would acknowledge that there are individuals that lobby democrats as well.

in my opinion the democrats hold most of the responsibility for the tax code based on their control of this tax writing committee.

billybob -- BTW K street grew substantially during the Bush years. Just what are you advocating by defending lobbyists or the theft that's hidden in our tax code?

All that matters is it MUST stop. ASAP. You should just advocate for that and quit trying to blame. It's the crooked system that's to blame.

i am not advocating lobbyists. that they grew is sad. that they continue to grow is sad.

regardless, the Congress is responsible for what is in the tax code.

i am not blaming anyone. simply pointing our that for most of the last 70 years the democrats controlled the tax writing process.

i am a proponent of a flat tax or similar. no deductions, no social engineering.

billybob -- I advocate clean progressive rate of tax. No social engineering. Average effective rate we pay now, so no deductions, no loopholes, etc. Why should we jump through hoops?

dcia -- not sure where the hoops come from. scrap the current code. replace it with a postcard. no deductions, period.

i think we are in violent agreement.

Alan, NJ

@Freshiee

But riddle me this; in 2001 and 2003, we embarked on a decade of "tax relief" that ONLY benefited the wealthiest Americans, and what happened???? Did we have great economic growth, and a record number of jobs created????

So you accept that Riech's contention that the high tax rates in the 50's are not possible because of the higher competition for capital, and the increased supply of educated labor at lowers wages than the American worker?

Yes, the rates of the 1950s are not something we can rationally return to. The rates of the 1970s, however, is a possibility. I am not saying that we should tax someone making $250,000 with a 70% rate; that would be absurd. But taxing 70% from someone making, let's say, $15 million would be a reasonable rate, considering that the effective rate would be around 50-60% and that person would still receive about at least $6 million.

As to the decade of tax relief that only benefited the wealthiest, I disagree. Bush implemented the most progressive tax system in the developed economies. That is why Democrats do not want to repeal most of the cuts because they know it will actually lead to a more regressive system.

Not really; the Bush taxes cut taxes across the board, yes, but when you compare the 35% top rate to the top 45% rate in Germany, it is pretty regressive. Yes, there was an expansion of tax credits for children and the Earned Income Tax Credit, but in my opinion those only compensated for the massive tax cuts at the top of the income scale, not to mention the fact that those tax cuts only served to compensate middle class families for the stagnation of their wages as the cost of living went up instead of giving them extra disposable income to spend. Democrats probably don't want to raise taxes on everyone because they are afraid of being derided as tax and spend liberals and don't want to run into an election after voting for a tax hike on all Americans.

As to economic growth. I would argue we had a fairly good economy 2003 to 2007. Whether it was caused by the tax cuts (and the deficit they caused - Keynes), or by increased consumption, due to individuals leveraging their assets (borrowing against their homes), or just a huge housing bubble, I really don't know. They all seem pretty plausible.

While I agree that the Bush economy was fairly good (compared to the current predicament; compared to the rest of history it was the worst period of time since World War II), I have to say that it wasn't natural. The reason the economy grew after the bursting of the dot-com bubble was the maturing of the housing bubble, which artificially grew the economy and created jobs. The tax cuts did relatively nothing, according to the Tax Policy Center; and as for the reference to Keynes, deficit spending (according to most Keynesians, including myself) should only happen (A) when the economy is in a recession, or (B) when you are making important long-term investments or in a war.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

@Freshiee

I actually think we're pretty close. I don't think comparisons of income rates with other countries really help because we have state taxes and regional sales taxes that complicates the issue. In addition how health care is paid for in other countries also increases their tax rates for a service we have to find in the private market.

I think the core of the issue is how you tax dividends and capital gains without diminishing investment. This is where the super rich really acquire their wealth. Unfortunately I think the answer is pretty sophisticated in that you need to ensure that investments are held for a reasonable period (whatever that is) and there should be incentives for reinvestment rather than consumption. This doesn't help if you are trying to simplify the tax code. I think if we remove the corporation tax completely and all corporate deductions. Allow companies to write off plant and equipment as an expense instead depreciation over a number of years. Increase the rate on dividends to the same as income should encourage business to retain earnings and invest rather than distribute it back to the shareholders. Capital Gains should be structured by how long you've held the asset. The longer the lower the rate. If they applied this to the housing market this would also stop the practice of flipping, and reduce the probability of another housing bubble.

and as for the reference to Keynes, deficit spending (according to most Keynesians, including myself) should only happen (A) when the economy is in a recession, or (B) when you are making important long-term investments or in a war.

Remember, Bush did have two wars neither of which were paid for by current revenues. His economy should have led to inflation if we applied normal precedents. How this didn't happen shows the nature of the global economy to maintain or even lower prices either through cheaper labor or better allocation of capital. Bush spent like like a drunken sailor and the economy he left was terrible (I am for balancing the budget and Bush is not on my top ten list). However, I don't think his policies led to the recession, that was the housing bubble that occurred world-wide.

billybob -- Jumping through hoops refers to deductions, loopholes etc. Why do we have to jump through these hoops? I think that most Americans can agree on some things. Taxes would be one of those issues.

Most Democrats I know also would like a plan similar to Simpson Bowles as well. Despite what the right thinks.

Ben-636050

@Jody -- Being legal raises moral and ethical questions???? Really??? Exposing that existing tax laws favor those with the most is a known fact. Nothing new there. My question is why hasn't the president enacted true tax reform????

We have already used the example of John Edwards, who cheated on his wife while she fought her battle with cancer, and trying to cover up his affair. Edwards was not convicted of anything illegal. But based on ethics and morals, would you be good with having him as POTUS, Commander in Chief, and leader of the free world?

Puleeeze, stop with the weak defense of a weak candidate like Romney, who has already been caught once lying about his taxes trying to cheat to be eligible to run for governor in Massachusetts. Most rightwingers don't really like Romney anyway, and those who do are probably Mormon. We should suppress the vote for Romney by requiring his supporters to buy Hanes underwear and then they must prove they are wearing the Hanes underwear if they want to vote.

Did deregulation and tax cuts grow the economy???

Yes. I think the economy grew from 2000 thru 2008, and even into today. I think that metric is irrefutable.

I'll give you that, but the reason for the growth was the housing bubble; the tax cuts did nothing.

The most important economic crisis we face today in America is not jobs, but inequality. Whenever we grow, we assume that it goes to everyone; unfortunately, in 2011 alone, 93% of the growth due to the stimulus went to the top 1% of Americans. We cannot continue to delude ourselves into thinking that inequality in America is nonexistent; in fact, we have the most unequal distribution of income in the industrialized world.

This is a very interesting take on what is happening right now. Follower of Joseph Stiglitz? I don't know if his remedies are possible in a global economy.

Never heard of him; but I am a fan of Paul Krugman, on of his proteges. And theoretically, at least some of what he proposed can be applied in a global economy, but it requires an international trade authority with the same size and scope of the IMF, the World Bank, and/or the WTO.

Where I would tinker with the system is that I would eliminate the estate tax complete but treat inherited wealth as income. Maybe earn it over a period so that businesses can be inherited, but remove other mechanisms such as trust funds. I do not believe the issue can be solved simply by taxing income at a higher rate. As to income re-distribution increasing demand, do have any examples where this actually worked?

I am not sure how replacing the estate tax and taxing inherited wealth is any different. The time length may be longer, but it is still technically an estate tax. It would simply cut the estate tax either 0.4 percentage points or 5 percentage points, depending on whether the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2013. I also agree that tax policy is not the only way to reduce income inequality; it is one of four things you have to do. The other three are re-regulating the economy, particularly the financial and housing industries to prevent more crises like this one, restoring the power of labor unions (as they tend to raise wages for the middle and working classes, thus decreasing income inequality), and implementing economic policies that tend to benefit the middle class and the poor, like indexing the minimum wage to inflation or having the government negotiate deals between unions and companies to ensure wages increase as productivity does, working to lower costs for things like healthcare and higher education instituting a European-style industrial democracy (see the German Codetermination Act of 1976), and establishing universal healthcare in the United States. And wealth redistribution does not necessarily; if it flows from the top down, it might because the wealth would given to those down the ladder via government programs. If it flows from the bottom up, it will most likely keep demand growing along with the pace of economic growth and such, but the vast majority of people (the lower classes) will have to rely on things like credit to bridge the gap between stagnant income and rising cost of living, eventually leading to a credit bubble (and a credit crunch) like the one in 2009 that tanked the global economy.

As for Obama, Politifact rated that as only half true, since the government could easily prioritize Social Security checks while delaying things for Medicare, Medicaid, defense, etc.

But at the end of the day we both know that SS will have to be paid out of general revenues, and as we are borrowing 40% of those revenues, SS like other government programs have severe structural problems in their financing. I for one am not for simply removing the cap to increase revenues. To me this will just create a surplus that will be spent as before. I believe we should agree to the benefits paid on a bi-annual basis, divide that by the number of recipients and that will produce the amount revenue needed for the next two years. No surplus (or deficit), pay as you go.

I am not sure we should eliminate the concept of surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund; I would prefer a lock-box to keep Congress from using the excess funds. And the surplus would serve as a sort of "insurance policy" in order to account for "fluctuations" in the flow of benefits and revenues, just like the "rainy day" funds in the states.

I accept your point on the payout of SS being fair to the poor, but you cannot argue at the same time that it is unfair they more in, relative to their earnings. They lose on one side and gain on the other. It's not a bad deal.

I agree; essentially, for the poor it's great deal; they lose early on, but they payoff in the end when they need the income the most.

Good to have this discussion with you. You raise some interesting points.

As do you.

While I agree with your time limit, I cannot support only 4 rates. The problem is that over here people can make over $50 million a year and they only pay a rate for those making over $385,000. I say have 12 rates, going from 8% to 76%, for people making above $25,000 and those making over $50 million. That, in my opinion, would be a fair tax code.

I can only image the bickering as they try and create 12 rates. Interesting idea though. I think 76% is a bit high unless that's the absolute maximum including state. Even then I have philosophical blocks on the government taking more than half of what your earn. Why does government need so much money?

76% would only be the marginal tax rate, but I hope to establish to a system that gives you a "minimum effective tax rate," which would marginal rates minus a certain number of deductions. The top effective rate would hopefully be at least 60%. This rate is not necessarily to raise so much money as it is to reverse the growing gap between rich and poor that has opened up over the past 30 years. Back in the 1920s, when we had record income inequality, top tax rates were a little less than they are now, but current statistics show that income inequality is worse. Besides, I have gotten interested in this concept that if you put a high enough tax rate, the wealthy would rather put money into their businesses (creating real jobs) than put it in IRAs and/or financial investments that only seek to create (or expropriate) wealth and get taxed.

However, I don't think his policies led to the recession, that was the housing bubble that occurred world-wide.

Bush didn't directly cause the recession, but his policies (primarily the expensive Bush tax cuts) are part of the reason why we have a slow recovery (mainly due to deficit hawks and the fact that these temporary tax cuts are causing gridlock in Congress while also leading to uncertainty in businesses).

JoAnnaSmith1

While I do not agree with everything that the Simpson Bowles plan states (particularly the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax), I can accept most of it, as it has bipartisan ideas. The Ryan plan is merely a piece of red meat covered in fancy words and apocalyptic statistics that somehow managed to get passed on as a budget

The Ryan plan is a step to resolve the structural problems of the entitlements of the country, as noted in Simpson/Bowles. While Obama argues for the small ball issue of $70 billion more a year by taxing the rich, the GOP is taking on the real issues that are draining this country dry. You may not like what they are doing, but in case you're not paying attention, we're running out of options. The Democrats are talking about someones tax returns, taxing the rich a miniscule amount, and staying the course with 1.5% GDP growth, 8%+ unemployment, and massive deficits.

First of all, while the Ryan budget addresses entitlement problems, it does not solve them. Take Medicare, for example. Instead of working to lower medical costs, the Ryan plan essentially passes the bill onto seniors because the voucher it gives only increases with inflation plus 1% point, while healthcare costs increase by much more. By the 2030s, seniors would pay for more than 65% of their healthcare costs. Had the Ryan plan simply ended the fee-for-service payment mechanism for healthcare (and then expanded this regulation to the rest of the healthcare industry), healthcare costs would fall dramatically, or at least stop their exponential increase. As for Medicaid, it simply forces the bill on the states, which will most likely cause millions of Americans to be dropped and added to the uninsured ranks. Secondly, while I agree that Obama's tax hike on the rich is not enough (I prefer focusing on all of the Bush tax cuts and the hundreds of billions in tax expenditures), the GOP isn't fixing the major problems. For one thing, they won't raise tax revenues, even though they are far below the 18% average.

Let me give you my deficit reduction package, which will show you how we still have a lot of options, just not a lot of time:

I. Reduce the debt by $14.6 trillion over 10 years.

• $750 billion in defense cuts: cut waste in private contracting; reduce investments in new military projects to more sustainable levels; reduce active military personnel by about 8%; demolish 20% of all military bases, mostly overseas, to save over $55 billion a year; prioritize investments for drones, efficient weapon systems, and cyber-defense systems.
• Entitlement reform: Raise payroll cap to 90% of income; reinstate COLA; reinstate estate taxes; raise premiums for beneficiaries who make over $250,000; progressive indexing.
• Cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending except from NASA and Department of Education. Find ways to remove waste, trim costs, etc.
• Save $3.8 trillion by ending Bush tax cuts for ALL.
• Add two low income brackets to tax code. Raise top income tax rate to 45% and the second to 39.6%. Third and fourth go to 33% and 27%. Fifth and sixth are 21% and 18%. Seventh and eighth are 12% and 8%. Raise AMT tax rates by 3 points. Estimated revenues=$3.67 trillion.
• Increase capital gains and dividends tax rates to 24%.
• Reform tax code: decrease about 50% of all tax expenditures unless they are PROVEN to promote a significant amount of growth. Close loopholes, lower corporate tax rate to between 20-25%. Eliminate all corporate welfare. Broaden tax base. Convert most other expenditures to refundable tax credits and deductions. Approximate savings=$6.5 trillion.
• Reduce subsidies to oil companies, farmers, and ethanol producers by $100 billion.
• Place a 5% national fee on all financial institutions with assets totaling the equivalent of 3.6% of GDP.
• Total savings=>$16.3 trillion over 10 years.

As Harry Truman once said " I don't give 'em hell, I just tell the truth and they think it;'s hell".

Obama/Biden 2012

Thank you Dennis. It just goes to show how under handed the Willard camp is. I cant' believe the republican party has set their bar so low in picking Willard. Oh well, these same people voted for Palin in 2008.

What are you hiding Willard, show us your taxes???

Dennis, thank you for that

Democrats fiercely defend EVERYONE'S right to VOTE, and Romney could not be more out of touch.

The lawsuit calls for NOT depriving military folks to vote on the final week - and asks whether ALL Ohioans can have that same right.

And of course - the real culprits: This is all because the Ohio GOP legislature voted to restrict voters from casting early ballots after the Friday before the election.

Yes, thank you Dennis! I guess reading comprehension is not requirementof the GOP/TP. What part of the following do they not comprehend? The suit is to restore early voting for all Ohio citizens.

Read the entire lawsuit here. Maybe Romney should, too.

1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election. Ohio election law, as currently enacted by the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters. This disparate treatment violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be rectified by the Court enjoining enforcement of statutory changes that eliminate early in-person voting for most Ohioans during the three days before an election.

...

The Ohio General Assembly has failed to articulate any justification for this differential treatment of UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters, and no justification can be discerned. Indeed, these different deadlines exist despite the fact that, for purposes of in-person early voting, both UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters are identically situated, i.e., they are qualified electors who are physically present in their home county when they desire to vote in-person at their county board of elections office prior to Election Day.

...

For these reasons and those specifically alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing or enforcing the HB 224 and SB 295 changes to Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03, thereby restoring in-person absentee voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all Ohio voters.

Obama/Biden 2012

Does anyone know if this law only applies to Ohio? If there are other states with a simulator law, are they targeted to be sued?

Dennis, terrific post.

thetotas, it is an Ohio law and Dennis's comment states that. The GOP passed and signed various state Voter ID laws and those laws are being challenged in court for a variety of different reasons. Ohio is the only state law which restricted the last 3 days of early voting to only Veterans discriminating against all other voters and it is that discrimination that is being challenged in Ohio.

Mitt Romney and his buddies the TeaSupremacists Destroyed the GOP !!!!!

Dennis - the headline should be corrected to read "Romney Campaign AND Supporters Clueless"

Obama/Biden 2012

The only issue Romney Hood has never flip flopped on, lowering his taxes!!

Yeah, vote for that guy!!!

Good point. I think anyone left or right can see that the Ohio law as it is will violate the equal protection under the law clause.

Are there any conservatives out there who think that there should be differing "standards/opportunities for citizens as it regards to voting?

This fall Mckaskill is going to be unemployed just like Obama and every Democrat up for re-election.

Speaking of Obama.... He just gave ANOTHER 1 MILLION U.S. jobs to foreign criminals and welcomed them to stay in your neighborhoods.

Deferred action program could legalize 1.8 million young immigrants

"As many as 1.76 million young illegal immigrants could qualify for temporary legal status under President Obama's deferred action program, says a new report from the Migration Policy Institute. That's more than double the Obama administration's initial estimate of 800,000 people who would benefit from the program."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/deferred-action-program-could-legalize-1-8-million-221839009.html

Romney should make Harry Reid and others look like a FOOL! Release 10 years of his tax returns and shut them up! Why not?

Best post of the day !!!!!!!!!!!

Hey Tony Smith, are you OK ???

Tony - when you post the "communist" and "unemployed" nonsense it shows you really have nothing to say. It's idiotic - at best!

The only issue Romney really cares about is lowering his and those of his friends tax rates. It is the only issue he hasn't flipped on, so it must be the only thing he has principle for. Show us what you think is too high Romney, show us your tax returns.

Tony Smith 7734:

Taking suck to the next level.

Aren't you late for your Teapublican Anarchy Brigade Klatsch?

Don't forget to be bring the pound cake.

And always remember...

Rombot.Has.Nothing.

This fall Mckaskill is going to be unemployed just like Obama and every Democrat up for re-election.

Speaking of Obama.... He just gave ANOTHER 1 MILLION U.S. jobs to foreign criminals and welcomed them to stay in your neighborhoods.

Deferred action program could legalize 1.8 million young immigrants

"As many as 1.76 million young illegal immigrants could qualify for temporary legal status under President Obama's deferred action program, says a new report from the Migration Policy Institute. That's more than double the Obama administration's initial estimate of 800,000 people who would benefit from the program."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/deferred-action-program-could-legalize-1-8-million-221839009.html

Maybe that’s why this country under Obama is sinking closer to financial Armageddon under his administration – they don’t know how to balance a bank account.

Damn right...'cause we all know the last 3 Republican Administrations...Bush 43, Bush 41, Saint Reagan...they were AWESOME at that!

Under W.Bush we were sinking closer to financial Armageddon, under his administration – they didn't know how to balance a bank account.

DaNoid & Job1 -- So what??? Time to man up guys and take responsibility. One of the poorest signs of a leader is to blame others for his failures.

But, why don't you comment on the convoluted logic I presented??? Sort of hard huh?

Ben - sad isn't it? They keep dredging up the past to deflect attention away from the present. Four more years of this and we are in deeper poop than we are now. And could you imagine if Romney released years of his tax returns? The libtards would nitpick every line and it would let them focus on that instead of the issues for the next three months.

Ben-

Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, the "Jobs Created" number reported every month are the NET jobs created. So if we gained 163,000 jobs last month that is the NET of jobs created and jobs lost - we could have gained 563,000 jobs in the private sector but lost 400,000 in the public sector.

By the way, this is not a "lefty/righty" thing, it is the way the numbers have been reported for several years, spanning several Presidents.

Ben,

1 million more jobs were created in just the last 7 months than were created during President Bush’s entire first term, 48 months.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

It took FDR more than 4 years to dig us out of the Hoover Mess. So, our President needs more time to clean up the Bush mess.

Obama – Biden 2012 - Still Cleaning Up Bush’s Mess!!!

TN & Dennis -- The fact remains this country is losing way more jobs on a monthly basis than it is creating. What is so hard in admitting that fact. The bank account cannot grow when that is happening.

Per fearless leader's own words (paraphrase) "If I don't do it in my first term then I don't serve a second." I do agree that he has not broken any campaign promises -- since they were lies to begin with.

And your idea to balance an account is print more money and go further in debt and your still no closer to a balanced budget.

You libs do not understand budgets so you never propose one. Why don't you talk about htings you know. That way all we would hear from you is silence.

Ben,

On average 300,000 Americans retire every month while only about 150,000 enter the workforce for a net loss of 150,000 workers every month. Why do you think there is so much concern about Social Security and Medicare?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/RetirementCrisis/2010/12/27/id/381191

Ben -

TN & Dennis -- The fact remains this country is losing way more jobs on a monthly basis than it is creating.

You can call it a fact but it is NOT a fact. "Jobs Created" as reported is a NET number, no matter what you want to believe.

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July - www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

That means TOTAL EMPLOYMENT - Net number of jobs - not just jobs added. If you go to the BLS site, the BLS lists sectors that added NET jobs and sectors that lost NET jobs.

“I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts.”

~Bill Clinton

Sorry, tinfoil, but you are wrong

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

Read the table on the right. I explained it in my post above, but, to recap, the jobs created announcement, and the unemployment rate announcement, are based on surveys- and are independent of each other. The number of people employed last month was down by 195,000- of that, 150,000 gave up and left the workforce, leaving 45,000 fewer employed. The jobs created number is net of nothing but the survey results, seasonally adjusted- and subject to revision next month.

Thank you No Joe -- My ability to explain things to children has waned over the years.

Ben, don't you mean your ability to comprehend facts has waned over the years? Sorry but I just couldn't resist the temptation.

Perhaps if the GOP wasn't so in to "austerity" (while previously spending like drunken sailors) and obstruction rather that putting Country First, the states wouldn't be forced to layoff fire, police and teachers not to mention sanitation workers, street and road crews, etc. Public sector jobs are jobs, too.

Looks like Romney is picking a TeaWacko for VP ???????

That will be his down fall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Jody -- no problem with the shot -- but I meant what I wrote.

NJNB -- Labor participation rate has been steadily declining since 2000.

How many people have retired????

Furthermore, WSJ reported that the FED is having a hard time accounting for those that left the work force.

My guess is that with wages being driven down or stagnant, many are leaving to retire or to stay home with the kids as some families can no longer afford to pay for day care etc.

The US population increases at a fairly steady rate, about 150,000 to 200,000 each month. At the same time, a slightly smaller number of people leave the job force, that is they retire, decide to stay home, go to college, whatever. They are no longer part of the work force. During the current economy, the NET number of jobs created has been positive, just not to the point where the economy creates enough jobs for all of the new workers. THAT is why there has been a steady increase in the number of jobs, but the unemployment rate has not changed.

To boil it down, the number of workers available has grown faster than the number of jobs available. In order to reduce the RATE of unemployment, job creation has to increase faster than additional workers entering the work force. This can be done with penalties and incentives, but that would require putting the current majority in Congress out of work, since they don't want to touch taxes.

Ben, I see you fail to mention that congress has failed to act on President Obama's jobs bill for several months. The bill would give tax benefits to companies bringing jobs back to the US and close the loopholes for those outsourcing.

Did that just slip your mind in pointing fingers at the President or are you intentionally dishonest about the obstructionists in congress - the Republicans?

Obama/Biden 2012

SpeekingInsanity,

First, it is the job of Congress to decide what is proper legislation to be passed, not to function as a rubber-stamp for the ill-conceived notions of the Campaigner-in-Chief who basically demands that Congress must pass "his" jobs tax bill .... having a price tag of $447 billion when our country is about $16 trillion in debt.

Second, Obama's jobs tax bill did not even have solid support from within his own party. Jim Webb of Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tom Carper of Maryland (among others) were not supportive of his measure. The "Son of Stimulus" was not well received by Democrats.

Third, the Hoover Institution of Stanford University referred to this bill as "An infernal mish-mash of taxes, susidies and regulations". You can put all the lipstick on that PIG that you want, but at the end of the day, bad legislation is still bad legislation.

Better spread some of that "obstructionist" blame game to members of the Democratic Party. When the costs and problems of bad legislation outweigh the perceived benefits, even some Democrats can see it.

You, however, will swallow whatever is spoon-fed to you. I guess you'll just have to "read the bill to see what's in it".

What was the unemployment rate when Bush left office?

Crickets.

This fall Mckaskill is going to be unemployed just like Obama and every Democrat up for re-election.

Speaking of Obama.... He just gave ANOTHER 1 MILLION U.S. jobs to foreign criminals and welcomed them to stay in your neighborhoods.

Deferred action program could legalize 1.8 million young immigrants

"As many as 1.76 million young illegal immigrants could qualify for temporary legal status under President Obama's deferred action program, says a new report from the Migration Policy Institute. That's more than double the Obama administration's initial estimate of 800,000 people who would benefit from the program."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/deferred-action-program-could-legalize-1-8-million-221839009.html

Willard has proven that he is nothing more than a lying scum bag. How could anyone with an ounce of self respect work or be associated with him.

Jody, You say it so well...

Romney finds himself repeatedly in positions where he has to LIE ABOUT THE LIE - and he is under instruction from his $$Big Backers.

Convincing us that a sour pill is a sweet pill, is his mission.

I'm going to refer to Romney as Mr. Cayman Islands from now on!

Oops! You mean the same Cayman islands as this one?

Show us those tax returns Romney Mr. Cayman Islands !

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/03/06/top_iraq_contractor_skirts_us_taxes_offshore/

Obam/Biden 2012

job1

Substitute your presidents name for Willard and you would have made a true statement for once. But you didn't so your still the queen of silly posts.

rukidding47, Gosh, so many of Willard's supporters are buying into this lying scum bag.

Willard Romney Olympics documents aren’t being released for the public to view. Why?

Willard Romney is not being honest about his time at Bain Capital. Why?

Willard Romney and staff spent nearly $100,000 in state funds to replace computers in his office at the end of his term as governor of Massachusetts in order to keep his records secret. Why?

Willard Romney refuses to release his tax returns. Why?

Why? Because this man Willard Romney is hiding many things, and don't we the people have the right to know what he is hiding.

Jody---I guess Mitt wants to be President so badly that he doesn't care what lies he tells to win the office. I'm not sure he even knows why he wants to be President--he just wants it and in his world that must be enough.

I have read many theories on why Mitt won't release his tax returns---it tells us something that there are so many damaging reasons---low effective tax rate, no taxes paid at all, use of off shore tax havens, shenanigans with his IRA contributions, failure to properly tithe to his church--to name a few. When people argue over what kind of tax issues you are hiding---a real problem!

@Steeler -- "low effective tax rate, no taxes paid at all, use of offshore tax havens." If all of that is legal and in compliance with the tax code -- then more power to the governor or anyone else on the right or left. "Shenanighans with his IRA contributions." That is one of the greatest areas that throw up a red flag to the IRS. "Properly tithe to his church." WTF is that now in the tax code???? Ridiculous. Bill Cowher needs to come to your house and slap some sense into you.

Move-On put a humerous twist on Mitt Romney's tax returns: "Why Mitt's hiding his tax returns. 1) He filed all his corporations as dependents--because they're people, too. 2) He can't remember which house he left them in. 3) He actually owns the Cayman Islands. 4) He wrote off all his $10K bets to Rick Perry as charitable deductions. 5) His real name actually is Mittens."

Steeler Fan, it's time the media resurrect the "why do you want to be president" question. It has tripped up a good number of candidates over the years, most memorable, Ted Kennedy.

It really is sad to hear and read Mitt Romney lie about not only his own words but literally make up lies about President Obama and during the primaries about his own GOP opponents. It goes beyond gutter politics. It points to character just as much as his refusal to release his tax returns does. Romney is probably a decent person--arrogant and self-absorbed--but decent; he loves his wife and his family. George W. Bush is a decent guy--incurious and disengaged--but decent; he loves his wife and his family. Bush was victim of his own VP's ambitions and his own incurious nature allowed that victimization. Romney is victim of his own ambitions; he will lie, cheat, and do whatever it takes to get what he wants. On one hand, Romney reflects Cheney's devious and deceitful side while on the other hand, Romney reflects George W. Bush's incurious and unknowledgeable side.

Ben--Bill Cowher would probably agree with me---his brother is a CPA and I'm sure understands all of this, too. The biggest error people make about Mitt's taxes is to assume that the IRS has reviewed them and that they are OK. Beyond the same math check that any return is given, we have no knowledge that the IRS has ever reviewed Mitt's tax returns. They certainly would have interest in the deduction of expenses related to a horse that seems to be a hobby of Mitt's wife yet is treated on the 2010 return as a business expense and that Mitt has called a therapy horse.

My point was that I have read a myriad of reasons why Mitt might be refusing to release his tax returns, any one of which is very negative and taken together they paint an ugly picture of how he has handled his affairs. And we are supposed to trust him to run the country?

Steeler Fan,

"My point was that I have read a myriad of reasons why Mitt might be refusing to release his tax returns, any one of which is very negative and taken together they paint an ugly picture of how he has handled his affairs. And we are supposed to trust him to run the country?"

Romney made a calculated decision to run on his Bain record and a narrative as a weathly businessman.

Maybe he is regretting that decision. But he sure won't run as a former governor on MA. His base would leave in droves, so they are stuck with him going into Tampa.

Agree, Northstar---Mitt has been running on his competence---as a businessman, as the savior of the Olympics and as Gov. of Mass. Well, so far he has not released documents to demonstrate competence in any of these areas and, in fact, the campaign he has run has not seemed competent, either.

The Moron missionaries in France did a good job hiding Romney while brave Soldiers died in Vietnam ("Rambo Coward for President")

Ben,

If Romney wants to lower his tax rate because it is to high, then it would matter if he is paying low taxes.

This is the only issue he hasn't flipped on, so it is probably the only issue he will hold true to.

patriot -- I find your religious bigotry an offense to our country. religious freedom is one of the greatest parts of our nation and you have completely trashed that. shame on you.

for some balance should we discuss where Bill Clinton spent his time during Vietnam

Steven:

It's great to see you posting. Please keep up the good work. Your voice needs to be heard.

Jeffersonian.

Good Morning Steven,

Totally Jeffersonian! No question about it! ☺

PS: Ditto what Ron said!

The newest research from Nate has it as:

Today

“Obama chance of winning 72.0% Romney 28.0%”

“Obama chance of winning 72.0% Romney 28.0%”

I ♥ it!

Keep those numbers coming Job!

“Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home–but not for housing. They are strong for labor–but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights. They favor minimum wage–the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all–but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine–for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing–but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing–so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”

~Harry S. Truman

Uh, Steven? History is not your strong suit. The motto you attributed to Jefferson was that of the French Revolution- those kindly people who lopped the heads off those who loaned us the money to rid ourselves of the British.

Maybe that why so many remain liberal and deny the failure staring them in the face- they simply remain ignorant of fact, and swan through life oblivious to the destruction.

Job1,

thanks for the update.

The odds of winning for Obama are growing as the GOP goes to Tampa.

Meanwhile Romney is off today to raise money in Iowa and Illinois???

How much money does he need to lose a election?

Meanwhile Romney is off today to raise money in Iowa and Illinois???

Northstar,

Please don't remind me, Willard is going to be at a neighboring suburb this morning!

The stench here is unbearable...

PS: Good to know you made it home safe & sound! Just wait until next year! ;o)

no joe

Jefferson believed that the principals put forth in the motto.

E pluribus unum!

Remember, Out of many, one?

I, for one, have learned from history, enough so as not to repeat the bad, unlike others!

steve I believe it is much deeper than a phrase on a coin. Jefferson wasn't a socialist no matter how much you guys try to link it with claims like you just made. if that is the case, they would have given more power to government and less to personal freedom

Steven Jefferson also believed in limited government and your motto was from the French revolution.

Steven, great question.

The Big J o' course!

Steven, ditto what Ron said, keep posting. Jeffersonian, we are stronger together than we are separately; Lincoln, united we stand, divided we fall.

An interesting book to read is "Thirteen American Arguments" by Howard Fineman. It is not politcally biased but an interesting look at how this country was founded with two contrary and at odds ideological views and how those same arguments are as present in our politics today as they were in 1776.

ksw, many times the question of what do conservatives mean by "limited government" has been asked. When they start explaining what they mean, it usually turns out they mean what liberals mean--smart government which protects the public from the private, keeps us safe from enemies, builds roads and bridges, invests in research and development, etc. The size of Government must be reflective of the size of the population both nationally and globally. While conservatives claim they want limited government, those same conservatives pass big, intrusive government laws which place government squarely in the bedrooms and doctor's offices of women. It seems the "limited government" argument is more an ideological and rhetorical view than the reality conservatives demand and expect. What kind of country would this be if Government, to quote conservatives, could be drowned in a bathtub?

Jody, Very good answer to ksw and those like him. Too many people believe the "Big Lie" and the propaganda. They are very good at twisting thoughts and words to suit their skewed view points.

The truth will win in the end and the lamb will lay with the lion.

jody, look no deeper than the founding of our country, if it was intended to have super gov, they would have worded the constitution that way. Personal responsibility and freedom was the founding fathers intent. This isnt cuba or russia. To replace one tyranny with another. besides it took 13 sovereign states to ratify the constitution, so obviously large government wasnt the intention.

NewsFlash -- Dumbfux admits she is a ditto-head! Read 6.3 for more details.

ive read enough dumfux to last a life time, its the same venom from its pie hole day in and day out.

Red is driving a stake in the heart of the GOP and doing a good job I would say !!!!!!!

That is why they hate her... if she were irrelevant, they wouldn't even comment about her.

Steven - nice to "meet you. Jeffersonian, of course.

If we have learned nothing more over the past few years, we should all understand that we cannot succeed as a nation if we are divided. When a party preaches hatred for anyone that isn't just like them, they fall apart - as we are seeing with the GOP.

Obama/Biden 2012

Which is it?

BOTH!!!

With a heavy dash of arrogant tossed in for good measure...

no Feisty he asked about Romney not Obama, besides he threw in more than dash, he threw the whole shaker in.

BOTH!!!

With a heavy dash of arrogant tossed in for good measure...

Priceless!!!

Both - dumb and dirty.....and off topic....wonder who cleans up after her horse?...Do Myth and Ann have matching thigh high s*** boots?

The clean up must be the theraputic part to qualify for the tax deduction!

Queen Ann doesn't deal with fancy-prancy-horsie-dancing poop. She pays someone seventy-five cents an hour to clean up, and deducts those from her onerous tax bill as therapy expenses.

Yes and if Obama was clean he would release his academic records. Did Obama cheat while in school or did he get really low grades and/or was he just doing too much coke to go to class? The word is out. Obama needs to man up and release his academic records.

somanvb,

Your in-box must be full of the chain emails with the latest conspiracy theories from 2008.

Time to use the delete button.

President Obama has a BA degree and a JD degree with honors.

In fact, both Romney and Obama got the same degree from the same law school, Harvard.

Yes and if Obama was clean he would release his academic records

Perhaps when a white man who served as President of the United States releases his student records, perhaps the first black President in history will release his. The Presidents college records have nothing to do with the President ability to be President. However, Willard's tax lies and deceit on his record is important as to Romney ability to serve.

We have to remember it is rare that this Nation has ever had a successful business man serve as President

Look at the records of business men such Hoover and Bush that were big failures, which crippled the Nation.

Paul S, when Mitt's not running for president, he hires illegals to clean up after the horse! From the GOP debates, remember Mitt's, I can't have illegals, I'm running for President line.

How desparate are conservatives, it's college transcript time!

job, drop the stupid victim racist crap. Bush was bashed for his mediocre grades in college. He's white you tool. Besides, Obama is Arab anyways.

Besides, Obama is Arab anyways.

Oh really? Where did you pick up that racial tidbit?

he is closer to black then swahili with his name. Its fair to base it on that. more ethnic then genetic. but calling him black (half white right) is just as accurate. now back to giving the gov all your money Red. no deductions right Red?

closer to arab not black

Either way you slice your racism C-A, he shouldn't be the first to release his student records. If student records are now demanded, ask for Romney's too. Maybe he can start a precedence like his father and release his school records.

Taishmoser - student records have never been required or released by any candidate. Bush's records were released by an unknown person - breaking Federal law - as were John Kerry's. Everyone's student records are sealed - including yours and mine.

No other President in our history has had so much demanded of them as President Obama - first birth certificate; now student records, etc. It is absurd.

Obama/Biden 2012

I agree Seeking, I was just saying that if Romney wanted Obama to show his school records he could try to have them released by releasing his own and starting a precedence. Otherwise it is just grabbing at straws and trying to deflect attention from Romney not releasing his tax records.

TNSEVOL, Great Facts!

Good post TNSEVOL....too bad the GNOPEErs' can't handle facts...

GNOP - CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

TNSEVOL, terrific post.

Everytime I hear a republican legislator, presidential wannabee or governor claim the stimulus created zero jobs, just remember those same folks standing with GREAT BIG Checks touting the number of jobs that stimulus money would create in their states. President Obama's team should produce a campaign ad showing all those GOPers with their big checks proclaiming jobs created.

Jody---those same Republicans are now saying that we can't allow the mandatory reductions in defense spending to occur because it will cost jobs.

Even though they are liars and crooked, the GOP you're talking about would be replaced by teabaggers... the GOP is already rotting, but the teabaggers are going break the party.

I long for the day of balance, when the GOP starts working with the Dems again. We don't need a one party system. The GOP does however need to start sending adults back to the table and not screaming kids.

This fall Mckaskill is going to be unemployed just like Obama and every Democrat up for re-election.

Speaking of Obama.... He just gave ANOTHER 1 MILLION U.S. jobs to foreign criminals and welcomed them to stay in your neighborhoods.

Deferred action program could legalize 1.8 million young immigrants

"As many as 1.76 million young illegal immigrants could qualify for temporary legal status under President Obama's deferred action program, says a new report from the Migration Policy Institute. That's more than double the Obama administration's initial estimate of 800,000 people who would benefit from the program."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/deferred-action-program-could-legalize-1-8-million-221839009.html

Bob...But Fox is nonpartisan ?...wow do you live in lalalalala land. And yet your still here? Go have a nice cup of tea and digest more of Fox, Rush,Mitt Witt. Remember...don't Believe every thing you see on Fox Or TV (think mittens Billion $ ads, paid for by Billionaires)

Happy spoon feeding.

Gosh Bob, so many of Willard's supporters are buying into this lying scum bag.

Way less then those buying into the lying scum bag obama. . .

sonmanvb-

Just take out the lying scum bag part and you're right.

Um, the electoral college votes after the public votes so only an idiot would claim anyone is ahead. Why don't you bet all of your life savings as well as your own life on Obama because 72% is the exact same as 100%. The simple fact is that Obama and his peons have to use lies and smear tactics, because if they ran on their record they'd all be impeached. I am no fan of the Republicans, but after 4 years of Obama I will never vote for a Democrat again. Geithner is an admitted tax cheat and he's setting economic policy in America while Obama and the losers who vote for him hypocritically focus on Romney's tax returns. Hey if Romney turns out to be a tax cheat will Obama appoint him to lead the Fed?

jeff: Where have you been??? A candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the election due to the electoral college votes. Electoral college votes are by state....each state has a certain number of electoral college votes based on population. And right now the solid blue states and left leaning blue states add up to more than 300 electoral college votes as predicted by 528.

The rest of your post is nonsense too....I give you facts...you rant.

Poor Nate. His work is misused by so many who have no concept of what it is he does.

Nate is a statistician. He creates predictive models out of data he gathers from other sources. So, when I ribbed him about this

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/g-o-p-has-2-in-3-chance-of-taking-house-model-forecasts/

He had a ready response-

Garbage in, garbage out.

He does not rate the polls until AFTER the election results are in and tabulated. He then assigns a weight for each in his predictive models. Can you spot the flaw in that strategy? I will give you the answer: he cannot account for changes made by particular polling organizations to compensate for disparity in their polls and election results.

He understands that. You, obviously, do not.

no joe: Nate has been great in predicting the last several elections...more so than any other site.....say what you may about his predictions...that have been very correct that past several elections.

And I rather someone use statistics and accumulate data from other sources...then to be narrow-minded and only look at the sources that say what they want to be told.

And if you look at other sites, ALL of them have President Obama ahead in the electoral college by double digits.

The rest of your post is nonsense too....I give you facts...you rant.

So true Dragon!!!

no joe, no bo, nj

Poor Nate. His work is misused by so many who have no concept of what it is he does.

Nate is a statistician. He creates predictive models out of data he gathers from other sources. So, when I ribbed him about this

He had a ready response-

Garbage in, garbage out.

It sounds more like Nate was talking about nojo's thought processes. Lots of garbage goes in. A lot more comes out.

UAW... Be careful of what you wish for.

son: If it is a lie why doesn't Mitt just turn over his tax records and prove Harry wrong???? It would be so easy to make Harry look like a fool if Mitt turned over his tax records and showed he paid taxes...but he won't do it because his tax records would prove Harry correct.

Why hasn't McCain who saw Mitt's tax records say Harry is wrong.....all McCain has said is that Mitt did not do anything illegal....but McCain will not say Harry is wrong.

Mitt has been hiding his tax records for years.....but Americans will not let his get away with it this time.

Didn't you repeat this BS about a week ago just say no?

If it is a lie why doesn't Mitt just turn over his tax records and prove Harry wrong????

Once again the libtards miss the main point. It is not up to Mitt to prove Dirty Harry and Obama wrong, it is up to them to prove that Mitt did not pay any taxes for ten years and is a felon. Not the other way around. We know the dems are trying very hard to get rid of that dusty old paper we call the US Constitution, but you will NEVER succeed. So far Mitt has follows the rules/laws of the FEC.

Don't you think that tax cheat tim g. would be after Mitt if he broke the law in his taxes? This is NOTHING but a dem libtard distarction from the REAL issues that obama and the dem libtards can't and don't want to talk about, OBAMA's economic record. Nothing more, more less and Mitt is smart enough to allow you id10ts to wallow in your own filth

just say no mo reaganomics !!!

@SONBOY ; Moralistic high road, huh? Just wait until the conventions. I'm betting the Republicans outspend the Democrats on prostitutes 2 to 1. 3 to 1 on the kinky stuff, including S&M. Don't let your unfulfilled wives out of site...they are eyeing the pool boys.

There've already been articles reporting that the strip clubs owners in Tampa Florida say they're looking forward to the GOP convention because they expect their businesses to boom. The club owners said that Republicans are big spenders on that form of entertainment and the Dems are a lot more stingy. But of course, the GOP is still the party of "family values". The Hugh Heffner family. And what they value most is their freedom to be stinking hypocrites.

son: Even Repubs are callling for Mitt to produce his tax returns for last several years.

And yes, it is up to Mitt to prove Harry wrong....just release his tax returns...that is all it takes...and believe it....if Mitt could shut Harry up and win political points...he would do it in a heartbeat...but he can't because what Harry says is true.....or there is even more damaging stuff in the tax returns than not paying taxes for several years.

No one said a word about anything Mitt did was illegal....just unethical and not the type of actions Americans want in a president.

sonmanvb,

If Willard Romney was clean, he would release his taxes and get a 10 point bump in the polls. With such logic, Willard is really dumb or dirty. Which is it?

Just think what releasing his tax records, and proving Reid and the Democrats wrong would do for him. WHY NOT?

youraloser

Houston.....there are no stripclubs in tampa.

Then I guess the librul media is just making it up? Be the first to exposer their cruel hoax, loser. Here's an article to get you started.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/us/strip-clubs-in-tampa-are-ready-to-cash-in-on-gop-convention.html

Strip Clubs in Tampa Are Ready to Cash In on G.O.P. Convention

That is what you guys said in 2010. Nice try.

tracy: Electoral college is only used in presidential elections.....you might want to do some research before posting.

You might want to read what you posted and I responded to next time. You stated the Romney doesn't have a chance to win in November. Again you guys said that the GOP couldn't win in 2010 and your party got stomped into the ground. The electorial college edge you cite is based on polling of states that you naively assume that Obama will win, i.e. Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado & Wisconsin.

tracy: 539 has predicted several of the last elections correctly.....more so than any other site. And ALL sites for electroal college has President Obama double digits ahead.

Read some articles on the 2012 electoral college....and what it would take for President Obama to win....he doesn't need all the states you mention.

Why don't you tell me how Romney is going to get 270 electoral college votes????? What assumptions do you have to make???

I already posted this for you in this thread....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57444136-503544/the-electoral-college-map-how-obama-or-romney-could-win

The polls don't tell who will acutally be doing the voting. Republlican's are more motivated, but, generally in the past Unions and Democrats really pushed "get out the vote" more (Except for Wisconsion) which Polls were totally wrong. Of course issues like vote buying in Tenn. hopefully will not effect the election as well as voter fraud. It is ineresting to see how many Democrats are distancing themselves from Obams in order to try to get reelected. That says plenty. So I am pretty hopefull that the right voters will be out in force since The Supreme Court says only the voters can get rid of Obamacare and a majority are aginst it.

I do believe Claire is on her way out. We can only hope.

Throw out ever Democrat in the state