Spank, it's not like it's that intellectually deep of a point.

Now, hopefully, Romney also got Kaine's point.

Gosh, I am just glad to see that the general public is now figuring out that so few actually pay fed. income taxes.

I'm sure it came as a big old surprise.

I expect it to resonate with the polls next week to change so more. Of course given today's news on the jobs numbers, there is no doubt going to be a change.

Yes Spanky, considering most of the 47% are elderly, the disabled, the working poor, and deployed military in combat zones, Mitt Romney totally had a point they need to take "personal responsibility".

Spanky-

Gosh, I am just glad to see that the general public is now figuring out that so few actually pay fed. income taxes.

So Spanky, you figure people are not smart enough to figure that 47% comes mostly from GOP tax cuts?

So Spanky, you figure people are not smart enough to figure that 47% comes mostly from GOP tax cuts?

It was like 30% before the Bush Tax Cuts. In addition, why are more of the "47%" residents of red states than blue states? Romney wouldn't be stupid enough to insult his own base, would he?

Gee Xabre - you think Kaine knows that?

And sorry fellas but them there is Obama's tax cuts. As you recall Bush's ended, by operation of law in '10.

O went ahead and signed a new bill with the same rates, rates he said we needed cause we were at the time in a recession.

Unlike the boom times we got going now, right?

You all did see today's job numbers? Only 385k more jobless claims.

Gee Xabre - you think Kaine knows that?

Considering most of the GOP posters on this board haven't a clue that their states hold more of the "47%" than the blue states, I don't exactly rely on the GOP for reliable information.

No not that you big silly - the source and location of the tax payments is not particularly relevant as it all goes to the same place.

You say that "most of the 47% are elderly, the disabled, the working poor, and deployed military in combat zones."

So why then does Kaine, a dem want to impose a tax on them?

Kinda odd, right? Or perhaps the general public no likey- likes the fact that so many don't have any skin in the game?

And of course Cali, bluest of the blue has a huge welfare role. Why is that I wonder?

So why then does Kaine, a dem want to impose a tax on them?

Because he buys into the same idiocy that fuels the GOP.

And of course Cali, bluest of the blue has a huge welfare role. Why is that I wonder?

But not nearly as bad as the South:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/where-do-the-47-percent-live/

Of course, those are all clearly Democratic states. I wonder, if I were to overlay a map of states by educational attainment, do you suppose I'd get a similar result? So really, whose population would Kaine's proposal affect more?

Lol, so Spank, now you and presumably the GOP are arguing against tax cuts?

That's what got me about the stimulus. The biggest chunk of the stimulus was tax cuts. When Republicans argue the stimulus failed, are they now saying tax cuts don't work? Oh my, I hope Norquist doesn't get wind of this. When he realizes how he's lost his stranglehold on the party, who knows what that man might do.

But it is good to see your party blinders not allowing you acknowledge that other forms of taxation exist, and thus focus all your energies on a single stat.

Republicans arguing against tax cuts... Almost as funny as the fiscal cliff talk.

Let's see, what is the fiscal cliff. Oh, it's that sequestration thing, right? And sequestration is the cutting of 10 percent of defense budget lines and 8.5 percent of all other discretionary spending (basically everything other than entitlements) budget lines. So, in other words, if we fail to make budget cuts (budget cuts being a good thing), then we'll be faced with budget cuts (budget cuts being a bad thing).

The world is screaming out for a reincarnation of George Orwell. If only I were more skilled a writer.

Wow, really Kaine, you don't want to win or what?

Wait, mayhaps I'm wrong and those free-loading elderly and disabled and children and veterans and

troops in combat and the working poor should be taxed so Big Oil and Big Pharma and Big Agri can get

their subsidies. Just because you're working two jobs to barely be above the poverty level doesn't mean

you shouldn't have "skin in the game." Wait I have a better idea, let's have the government set up the

47 percent with accounts in the Cayman islands so their tax status won't be an issue. Right...right?

C'mon Tim, don't stoop, rise!

Today, still...

Rombot.Has.Nothing.

Whose arguing against tax cuts? Certainly not me.

My point is the tax rates mean little compare to the tax provisions and regs. Perhaps you recall back when rates were in the 60-70% range. Back when there where some interesting provisions allowing all kinds of shelters and other ways to reduce the effective rate.

Stimulus totally failed. And now we get QE3, cause you know, our money is worth too much as it is. Printing more money that nobody wants. Yep, seems like a great idea.

I don't remember top income tax rates that high - I wasn't paying taxes until we had entered the Reagan experiment with low income tax rates. But I've read about that, and thought about it some.

Here's the deal (and for the life of me, I can't understand why nobody from either party talks about this stuff). The top rate in the 50s was over 90 percent. JFK dropped that top rate to 63 percent. How did we get by with rates that high? Because hardly anyone paid any taxes at those rates.

How? Tax deductions. And for people making that much, what was the primary tax deduction? Business expenses.

Now, in this cartoon world of Joe the Plumber, neither side seems to remember that the things that grow businesses are paid for in pre-tax dollars. And the result of this 30-year experiment with low tax rates? Capital sloshing from one bubble to the next, and disincentive to start businesses because now it is easier and less risky to gain wealth via parasitic and hardly taxed means. We're seeing a hollowing out of the economy, simply because that experiment seems to have proven itself not such a good idea. We used to have a tax system that worked as an incentive for slow, conservative business growth. Now we have a tax system that works as an incentive for cowboy capitalism.

no point in arguing with Xabre, he thinks its the Gov's job to redistribute wealth via the constition. Tell me how levying taxes is equal to wealth? In fact only a handful of countries levy such a 'wealth tax'.

And now we get QE3, cause you know, our money is worth too much as it is. Printing more money that nobody wants. Yep, seems like a great idea.

I wish one of the super blue libbies would explain how that isnt artificially inflating everything. While they're at it maybe one can explain why gas prices are still exceedingly high

Since President Obama is taking Virginia by a comfortable margin, and since Kaine is well ahead of his GOP opponent, I think Romney should be copying Kaine. I mean, Mitt certainly has nothing to lose at this point.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/va/virginia_senate_allen_vs_kaine-1833.html

Xabre Considering most of the GOP posters on this board haven't a clue that their states hold more of the "47%" than the blue states, I don't exactly rely on the GOP for reliable information.

Most of the GOP posters on this page are part of the 47%.

4 more 4 44

@Paul M. Well stated sir. Your logic is sound. Thank you.

Spanky-

And sorry fellas but them there is Obama's tax cuts. As you recall Bush's ended, by operation of law in '10.

explain to me why Obama did extend those Bush tax cuts that he didn't want to extend in the first place.

I remember "vaguely" something about throwing the 911 First Responders and the Unemployed under the bus by the Republicans...

I've an idea, why stop at 47%. I propose that only the top 1% fund the Federal Government. The other 99% should either receive benefits or simply pay nothing.

That's fair isn't it?

Right.....because Obama's way is SO MUCH better, right?

The 1% are still the 1%, and 23 million of the 99% are unemployed. (not counting the millions of illegals the bozo gave amnesty to!)

Not to mention the inexperienced community organizer adds 5.9 trillion (plus 14 billion from GM as of today) to our debt that our kids and grandkids will be paying on.

Send this novice back to Chicago where he can visit his buddy Blagojevich in jail, and accompany Jackson Jr. to Mayo!

HASTA LA VISTA OBAMA

explain to me why Obama did extend those Bush tax cuts that he didn't want to extend in the first place.

weak leadership, when he specifically said tough decisions were going to have to be made. He punted when faced with a tough decision.

Xabre:

Are you talking about the elderly who were too stupid to build their own retirement funds; the working poor who keep irresponsibly having kids that they can't afford; the "disabled" drawing Social Security, because some shyster lawyer taught their very fit ass how to beat the system? The military in combat zones are statistically negligible.

I don't care to support any of the above (except the military), so if you're concerned about them, simply send a little extra with your next 1040...the IRS will gladly accept it!

Funny, the article this thread is tied to is about a Democrat that agrees that a minimum tax should be levied against all Americans. Yet, the majority of the Dems on here are still attacking Romney for his 47% pay no taxes comment and won't vote for Obama. Funny thing is you libbies would be crucifying Romney if he would propose this, yet, when a Dem says this, you simply ignore it and continue attacking Romney?!

Alan, NJ

I've an idea, why stop at 47%. I propose that only the top 1% fund the Federal Government.

do you know what zero sum game is? For someone to have more, someone has to have less. The more the 1% has, the more they are expected to pay in taxes.

yet..

thousands of millionaires are part of the 47%.

Two thirds of corporations pay no federal income taxes

Mitt Romney while in college, pretending to be poor, also paid NO FEDERAL INCOME tax while living off selling investments.

And at this point, you cannot tell me (at least I haven't found anyone yet to provide proof) that Romney has been consistently paying FEDERAL INCOME TAXES up to 2011.

Sadly Kaine is going for the political answer, trying appeal to the hard right vision that 47% don't pay taxes. It is totally idiotic to consider raising taxes on people that are financially under water. They are receiving gov benefits because they don't have anywhere else to go.

we can list Ge as on of the 47% since corps are people and Ge paid no taxes, also there are thousands of millionaire that paid no taxes because of the crazy tax code.

Mitt has over 100 million in his IRA, he plans to give each of his sons equal shares, so they inherit 20 million dollars. So they will have 20 million is the bank, earn income of at least $500,000 a year and pay no, nada taxes, ever. Just does not seem right that people could have such resources, enjoy the benefits of our military, driv eon roads, and never give anything back. Just WRONG.

Let quit being stupid and dump the stupid income tax. The country can move to a Financial Transaction tax on all financial transactions. The cost is 0.03% per transaction. No need for filing taxes, it just happens. would put lots of lawyers out of business, that might be the best reason to do it!

And at this point, you cannot tell me (at least I haven't found anyone yet to provide proof) that Romney has been consistently paying FEDERAL INCOME TAXES up to 2011.

I believe the magic word is income. If he has no income explain to me how he would pay such a tax? In fact one of you libbies explain the difference between wealth and income.

spider-737231

I don't care to support any of the above (except the military)

we already know that you and Romney don't care about the old, the sick, the working poor, the working students, AND the military because the military is part of the 47%

I think the Obama admin should deal a death blow to Grover and simply filibuster or veto the Bush Tax cuts. Then the dems should introduce a tax reform bill that will start discussions with repubs in the House. Start with Corporate tax reform and move to general tax reform. Then introduce a bill to reform SS. And on day two of Obama's second term ....

The afternoon shift (Spanky) --

Good to see he got Mitt's point.

Well. Kaine just lost my vote. Good thing I don't vote in Virginia. Now I can cheerfully not vote for George Allen, as well.

On the flip side of that, I come to offer my own modest proposal, which conservatives and tea-partiers everywhere should approve --

Everyone who is left off the voting rolls in these purges or denied the right to vote at the polls because they don't have valid ID should be excused from paying taxes of ANY kind until such time as they are reinstated on the rolls.

If people in this country have no voice, they should have no obligation to pay.

After all, isn't "no taxation without representation" at the heart of the tea party movement?

Put your money where your mouths are, conservatives.

bayllie

do you know what zero sum game is? For someone to have more, someone has to have less. The more the 1% has, the more they are expected to pay in taxes.

This is such a BS argument!

I'm sure if you had millions, you'd open your door right up with money in your hand giving it to anyone underprivileged who asked for it, right??

Or give more to the government so they can send it in support of Africa, Pakistan, GM or anyone else who comes crying for a handout!

Dude sits here on some political blog acting like he knows what it's like to be in the 1%. Get real!

@ Steve Laker --

Well, we didn't learn much about bayllie in your rant, but we did learn something important about you.

Greed, yes. Compassion, not so much.

All right, the first thing we do should be to end funding for Bush's campaign to fight AIDS in Africa.

And then, move on to Head Start and school lunches for poor children.

Their free-loading parents will just have to figure that out.

Or not. What's the diff?

You'll still have yours.

And what you've unwittingly done here, of course, is to make the case as to why private charity cannot take the government's place in providing social services.

If it depends on people like you, it sounds like private charity would be plum out of luck.

After all, what else is private charity but a "handout"?

Oh, right. There's a tax write-off that goes with that, isn't there?

So nice to meet you, Steve.

do you know what zero sum game is? For someone to have more, someone has to have less. The more the 1% has, the more they are expected to pay in taxes.

Yes this is Obama's view of the economy. The pie is fixed (or in his economy shrinking), so for someone to have more someone else has to have less. That is why the concept of growing the pie is foreign to him. Just him you do not understand that if we grow the pie everyone benefits AND the Federal Government gets more revenue.

I just don't understand this obsession the right, I know this guy is a Dem, have with insisting everyone pay something to the Feds directly. My 99 year old mother get a Social Security check for a little over 1500 a month. She takes care of her house that my Dad built 30 years ago on that meager income. She pay her electric, phone, cable tv and for her meds above and beyond what is not covered by insurance. She pays for supplemental health insurance as well to cover what Medicare doesn't. She worked into her sixties and now some people think she should pay income tax on that meager income. This just blows me away. Of course she pays property tax, sales tax etc. I guess some folks just can't get past their prejudices. They won't say it, but they are just imagining hordes of THOSE people, who will have to pay if a minimum tax is implemented. This has seemed to be a conservative hot spot since one of THOSE people occupy the WHITE house, now doesn't it. Taxes codes and rules are not different now than they were under Bush, but for some strange reason this is a major issue. Imagine that!

The Obama administration and the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress had an opportunity to just what you are suggesting, but they punted and failed to deliver on tax reform. I have been saying for a long time, with little input from the lefties, we need to completely revise the current tax codes and close loop holes and cut subsidies that have been around for years and years.

I believe Obama has shown he is not a leader nor one who sticks to his principals. He promised that he would not go along with extending the Bush tax cuts but when it came to actually vetoing the extension he refused to show leadership and signed the tax extensions. Further I am willing to bet that he will again extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts along with the pay roll tax cuts, which he pushed for.

I agree we need more revenue but I am against raising taxes on anyone regardless of income until we completely cut the waste, fraud and duplication from current agencies. I want to see a complete audit of all government agencies and programs before we ask the people to pay more in taxes. (Example, the GAO Reports starting with the one in March 2011). Further why did the GSA buy solar panels from China for government buildings instead of from American firms, wasn't this a violation of the stimulus bill?

BTW, I am retired from the military, retired from my cities fire department and draw social security, and I pay income tax every year on all three.

And I notice that the left loves to point out that many of the 47% are retirees, well.....

The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record, worsened by a prolonged economic downturn that has wiped out job opportunities for young adults and saddled them with housing and college debt.

The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/11/06/us_wealth_gap_between_young_and_old_is_widest_ever/

So should they be paying more for their benefits? Do you think we should means test Medicare? We already means test Medicaid for seniors.

Laker Steve

This is such a BS argument!

why is it Laker Steve? If the total wealth is $100, and you have $90 and I have $10 and the income tax (no deductions) is 15%, you will pay 89% of the 100% tax liability. That's how the game is supposed to work.

if 10 people have $10 (and no deductions) then also 100% total tax will be paid

Now you have $90 pretax and your accountant uses off shore accounts, tax shelters, loopholes and all the "magic" tools to get out of taxes to make it look like you only made $10, guess what you only paid 11% just like the person who really made $10 but has no magic tools.

Get it?

I'm sure if you had millions, you'd open your door right up with money in your hand giving it to anyone underprivileged who asked for it, right??

this is another stupid point. If you don't want to "pay" for doing business in the United States of America, go do business in Russia. I hear that they have a lower tax rates and business "friendly."

also, would rather give part of my income to the needy then subsidize companies like Bain whether through taxpayer funded bailouts or through their bankruptcy scheme. When Bain forced Ampad to file bankruptcy, who do you think ultimately paid for it?

Alan, NJ --

Yes this is Obama's view of the economy. The pie is fixed (or in his economy shrinking), so for someone to have more someone else has to have less.

Beg to differ. If the pie shrinking, it's because the wealthy are hoarding.

Mitt Romney is the prime example.

Mitt Romney currently does nothing to grow the pie. What he does with his money now does not create jobs, if it ever did. If anything, he has made his entire career off of changing the borders on the pie chart. He certainly has not told us what he would do to grow the pie for the rest of us.

To grow the pie, you have to circulate wealth. When you circulate wealth, everyone benefits, including the rich. Romney could get even richer if he did something even vaguely productive with the money he hoards just in offshore accounts. If you expect growth, you cannot concentrate wealth in one corner of the economy and do nothing with it.

Those four-and-twenty blackbirds are finally coming home to roost.

Bayllie --

When Bain forced Ampad to file bankruptcy, who do you think ultimately paid for it?

The taxpayers, of course. Just like the taxpayers paid for GS Steel, when Romney and Bain ran up its debt, looted it for $50 million, and left behind a $44 million pension fund deficit.

But that's all imaginary, doncha know, just like Bush's deficit numbers, and the deficits that will continue under the Ryan budget.

it's because the wealthy are hoarding.

please tell me why. it should be entertaining nonetheless.

The taxpayers, of course. Just like the taxpayers paid for GS Steel,

and GM and Solyndra(FAIL) with Gov crony capitalism.

Beg to differ. If the pie shrinking, it's because the wealthy are hoarding.

I beg to differ. It's shrinking because we have 1.5% growth that cannot keep up with population increase.

Mitt Romney currently does nothing to grow the pie. What he does with his money now does not create jobs, if it ever did. If anything, he has made his entire career off of changing the borders on the pie chart. He certainly has not told us what he would do to grow the pie.

So if Romney comes in and instead of 100% of jobs being lost he has to cut 30% of jobs but saves the company has he created wealth?

To grow the pie, you have to circulate wealth. When you circulate wealth, everyone benefits, including the rich. Romney could get even richer if he did something even vaguely productive with the money he hoards in offshore accounts. If you expect growth, hou cannot concentrate wealth in one corner of the economy.

Those four-and-twenty blackbirds are finally coming home to roost.

You should have a read of this concerning Bernanke, QE and the money not circulating.

Because the Fed is paying 0.25% interest on excess bank reserves, and 90-day T-bills are yielding only 0.10%, there is no practical difference between U.S. banks holding excess reserves at the Fed and European banks holding time deposits at the ECB. In neither case is the new money created by central bank asset purchases going to circulate in the economy and do anything to boost aggregate demand.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/09/19/will-ben-bernankes-qe3-work-no-its-already-failed/

I believe Obama has shown he is not a leader nor one who sticks to his principals. He promised that he would not go along with extending the Bush tax cuts but when it came to actually vetoing the extension he refused to show leadership and signed the tax extensions. Further I am willing to bet that he will again extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts along with the pay roll tax cuts, which he pushed for.

Why is that hard to believe? His stated policy is to keep most of the Bush tax rates.

Anna Molly,

The taxpayers, of course. Just like the taxpayers paid for GS Steel, when Romney and Bain ran up its debt, looted it for $50 million, and left behind a $44 million pension fund deficit.

Romney has no problem sticking his greedy hand out when it benefits him. But he will call grandma and a soldier in combat a "victim"?

bayllie

When Bain forced Ampad to file bankruptcy, who do you think ultimately paid for it?

Not Corzine, that's for sure!

why is it Laker Steve? If the total wealth is $100, and you have $90 and I have $10 and the income tax (no deductions) is 15%, you will pay 89% of the 100% tax liability. That's how the game is supposed to work.

In your world, maybe that's how it's supposed to work. In the 1%'s world they see paying more going to all the fraudulent & duplicate government agencies bleeding the revenues dry instead of where it really needs to go, back into the system which grows the economy. Unless you're Obama's backed ACORN and Solyndra that is!

No one cares, bayllie. If they did, you wouldn't see them hoarding by the millions into Wal-Mart. Small business built this country and if anyone cared they would shop local like I do and support small business to get America back working again. FACT. Not opinion!

Alan,

So if Romney comes in and instead of 100% of jobs being lost he has to cut 30% of jobs but saves the company has he created wealth?

Again, Romney's objective was never about "saving jobs" but it was always about the max return profit on investment. If jobs were created, great. If jobs were lost, oh well.

Bain/Romney's objective was always to squeeze the most money out of each short-term decision.

[The Obama administration and the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress had an opportunity to just what you are suggesting, but they punted and failed to deliver on tax reform...]

Gee "sarge", the concept of "super-majority" still eludes you I see...

Maybe you can ask Little Seizure the Pizza TaxMan to explain it to you...he's all powered up, fresh and ready to go after his one day time out...just check under Spanky's skirt for him..he's there somewhere...he's the one with the knee pads.

Don't bother asking Spanky though...he's got way too much on his little mind, like how to deal with a failing business...oh well...back to the local "lawyer pool"...

PIZZA! PIZZA!

Laker Steve

Not Corzine, that's for sure!

Corzine is not running for POTUS but Romney is. And I can give you a list of "Corzines" that are funding Mitt's election

Poor Baylie, that is exactly the point. Why do you think so many corporations are moving their headquarters out of the USA? Why do you think billionaires are contemplating their options?

Please do some research on what is happening in France to all the billionaires under an avowed socialist president (instead of a closet socialist like we have).

Oh, phoooeeeey, I'll just give it to you as a freebie (see, I believe in handouts)! When the socialist president initiated plans to tax large incomes at a 75% rate, the French (not being totally stupid) billionaires began moving to...wait for it...Belgium where the income tax rate is 1/5 of what the rate in France will be.

Now follow me closely, Bayllie. If all, or even a large portion, of the billionaires leave and take their wealth with them, who is left to tax to support all the government "gimmees?" Very good, you got it right: the middle class. One more step: if the middle class runs out of money, who do you have left to tax? Very good, you got it right again: the poor. Oh, wait a minute, the poor don't anything to tax. So what happens to the government then? It collapses into a pile of dust!

Is that really what all you libbies want for our country: to see it collapse into a pile of dust? Because anybody with anything will be smart enough to move away and take everything with them.

Caesar --

(quoting me) it's because the wealthy are hoarding.

please tell me why. it should be entertaining nonetheless.

You might try reading the rest of the post. I don't exist to entertain you.

and GM and Solyndra(FAIL) with Gov crony capitalism.

So, are you saying that GM would NOT have failed if it hadn't been for government intervention?

Funny, that's not how I remember it, that's not how the Chairman of Ford remembers it, and that's not how Mitt Romney laid it out, either.

So what's your point?

As for Solyndra, of course, it would not be the only company that ever got government assistance to fail. The Small Business Administration, for example, does not have a 100 percent repayment rate on the loans that it guarantees.

If it did, why would it bother to "guarantee" anything? Just let the private sector deal with it.

The banks that provide SBA-guaranteed loans are no doubt happy to provide them at no risk to themselves, and then I'm sure that some of the same folks turn around and complain about government handouts to poor people.

So what's your point?

Bob in KC --

Now follow me closely, Bayllie. If all, or even a large portion, of the billionaires leave and take their wealth with them, who is left to tax to support all the government "gimmees?" Very good, you got it right: the middle class. One more step: if the middle class runs out of money, who do you have left to tax? Very good, you got it right again: the poor. Oh, wait a minute, the poor don't anything to tax. So what happens to the government then? It collapses into a pile of dust!

I see. So, if the middle class and the poor people in this country rely solely on the billionaires to provide them with money, then tell me again how Mitt Romney plans to "create MORE wealth" for the middle class without taking some of it from the upper classes?

Danger, danger, danger. Does not compute.

Robbie....can you explain your comments about Romney's IRA not having to pay taxes. When you reach 70.5 you have to take the RMD, right? That is taxed as ordinary income. If you know away around that, I would Ike to hear about it.

Spanky-

You say that "most of the 47% are elderly, the disabled, the working poor, and deployed military in combat zones."

So why then does Kaine, a dem want to impose a tax on them?

A Democratic Senator says he would be "open" to a minimum tax proposal in a right wing state and you think the world has come to see your point of view? Hardly.

See, the point, Bob in KC, is that the middle class already has the capability of creating wealth by circulating what it already has through the economy. The more it has to circulate, the more wealth it can create, and the better off the upper class will do as a result. At the moment, they seem to have forgotten this, as they did in the 1920s, and they are not recirculating enough.

A smart tax policy provides for re-circulation of the money through the economy, rather than for hoarding, which will ultimately grow the pie for everyone.

Just ask Bill Clinton, and 23 million jobs. The rich sure didn't get poorer in the 90s.

Bob in KC-545426

Poor Baylie, that is exactly the point. Why do you think so many corporations are moving their headquarters out of the USA?

why wouldn't they? Our current tax code REWARDS them for it and it even allows them to expense out the cost of the move of their HQ.

BTW, moving your HQ to Cayman Islands has nothing to do with NOT doing business in the United States. If you want to have an intelligent conversation at least get some basic knowledge before you speak. I was talking about doing business in this country - not having a fake offshore account like Bank of America does. Any income made on US soil should be subject to corporate income tax. None of the shelters shmelter. If you don't want to pay taxes for doing business in this country - go do business in Russia or Nigeria. I'm sure they will love to give you a tax break.

Laker Steve -- Gripe about government but you act AS IF the private sector doesn't over bill the government and WASTE taxpayer money. Did you read the article about all the doctors and hospitals UP-CODING to get more money from Medicare and Medicaid? These guys are STEALING our money.

How about all those defense contractors that bill the government over and above to line their pockets? These guys are STEALING our money.

BTW -- Quit lying about the unemployment rate. BLS says it's at 12.8 million unemployed. NOT 23 million.

I don't exist to entertain you.

yet simply typing on the keyboard you do. But tell me you exist to hate the rich. Yesterday you made the claim you dont hate them (more or less) just how they might have made their money. Now that wasnt too informative considering you disdain for Albany Joes profession. He says he's made a lot in the stock game and you were abhorrent to that. I doubt it was illegal, yet you despised it. Well you can always start doing nothing but Pro Bono if you feel you make too much. In fact you can adopt a prisoner and start a dog breeding ring. I read the rest of your post, it was the same anti wealth crap i've seen day in day out.

I love Pizza even little Caesars. so cheer up

Ballie -- You wrote:

Romney has no problem sticking his greedy hand out when it benefits him. But he will call grandma and a soldier in combat a "victim"?

Exactly. If he considers them victims then HE IS A VICTIM by his own standard. Everybody he disparages follows the same tax laws that he claims to.

Dont_carry_it_all

Exactly. If he considers them victims then HE IS A VICTIM by his own standard. Everybody he disparages follows the same tax laws that he claims to.

Romney is a hypocrite, a liar, and a selfish human being.

AM - you live in Virginia now?

Otherwise your vote is rather unimportant for Kaine, no?

LMARKT - I wonder, does your logic apply to what Mitt did in Mass.?

Naa.....

the only Logic i see from the left spanky is circular

Dont worry about Obama's religion under the pedagog Rev Wright but don't trust Romney because of his mormon religion.

LOGIC!!!

Spanky-

LMARKT - I wonder, does your logic apply to what Mitt did in Mass.?

What did Romney do in Mass? As a taxpaying, registered voter resident of Massachusetts, I must have slept through this Romney "goody" doing....I guess that's Romney's another dirty secret that he doesn't want to tell us about.

bayllie

Laker Steve

Not Corzine, that's for sure!

Corzine is not running for POTUS but Romney is. And I can give you a list of "Corzines" that are funding Mitt's election

Like Bain funded Obama in the last one?

Laker Steve

Like Bain funded Obama in the last one?

wow, you really don't understand what you read.

Which Romney are we talking about? The conservative Romney or the new moderate Mitt? He flips the flop so often, it's hard to keep up!

"I was a severely conservative Republican Governor." —Mitt Romney, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Feb. 10, 2012

"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose." -Romney in 2002

LoL Caesar, you've outdone your usual nonsense. Bravo, sir.

But tell me you exist to hate the rich.

No, indeed. I'd like to be rich, just like everyone else, but then, relatively, no one would be rich, would they, and the whole greed thing would start all over again.

Yesterday you made the claim you dont hate them (more or less) just how they might have made their money.

Not all of them. I just fail to see the societal value in what Albany Joe does for a living. Big difference.

What DOES he build, Caesar, except personal wealth? Pray, tell me. What does he do that lifts everyone else up? What does he do to merit favorable tax treatment? What makes him a job creator?

You see, Joe sucks at the teat, just in a different way, by relying on favorable tax policies.

He creates nothing at all.

Xabre called him a gambler. And that's all he is.

you've outdone your usual nonsense. Bravo, sir.

Look what you give me to work with sheesh, im not a miracle worker.

I just fail to see the societal value in what Albany Joe does for a living. Big difference.

I agree but you still demonized how he earned his money and you want to 'redistribute it? calling thievery neat little names like fair share doesnt change the final concept. Robin hood was great under a feudal system, we live in different times milady

You see, Joe sucks at the teat, just in a different way, by relying on favorable tax policies

then change them. YOu see its not that easy. why do you think its not? not even your Champion O will touch it. Punt and Punt away

What makes him a job creator?

to be honest I have no idea his exact profession. I could hardly answer that, ask him what jobs he creates.

Xabre called him a gambler. And that's all he is.

xabre also says income is wealth and that the gov. basic function is to redistribute it. I wouldn't take a lot of stock in what Xabie says.

YOu see its not that easy. why do you think its not? not even your Champion O will touch it. Punt and Punt away

Well. That's a convincing moral position.

Just like it must be good if it's legal. Indeed.

From now until Kingdom come, I'll look up to you for my moral compass.

If we're going to have a minimum tax, it should apply to corporate "people", too.

Since 60% of them don't pay any taxes now, and they're only footing 8% of federal revenues.

That's their lowest portion in the industrialized era - pay up, corporate "people"!

From MSNBC today:

Not everyone who pays no federal income tax is in the lower income brackets. A separate report released last spring by the Internal Revenue Service found more than 35,000 people who made more than $200,000 in 2009 also managed to zero out their tax bills.

As well as 60% of American corporations.

Other countries keep their corporations doing business in their borders.

Take Germany, for example.

Companies headquartered in places like the U.S. get HUGE benefits from their first-world locations - protection of their assets and copyrights; military protection overseas; roads, ports, airports and decent bridges; an educated management workforce; safe banks; promotion of their exports; tax credits for expansion, etc. etc.

But unless you put disincentives in place, they'll use that infrastructure and put the jobs elsewhere.

We can make them do it. We just have to have the will, and a few politicians who aren't bought off.

Germany has highly paid workers. And their manufacturing sector has recovered from the recession much faster than ours.

From CNN:

How Germany stayed economically healthy, while maintaining a strong working class, might offer a lesson or two for America's woes.

Unlike the U.S., Germany recovered quickly from the economic slump in 2009, mainly because German industry managed to keep its skilled work force during the crisis.

This was possible because the German government sponsored short-time work, or a reduction of working hours, thus avoiding layoffs. This measure was possible only where decent wages and management-union trust existed, what Germans call a "social partnership".

Even now, despite some growth in nonunionized companies and income inequality, the export-oriented manufacturing model of social partnership is strong.

Those who believe unions, high wages and workers rights are a burden for business should consider that this sector has been Germany's most successful. Exports, mainly manufacturing, grew by 2.3% (even with 2009 data included), higher than the average growth rate of the German economy over the past 10 years at 1.1%.

Here's how they did it: Instead of trying to outcompete global markets in cheap goods, German industry specialized in high-quality products and kept its share in a growing global market, as other European countries, Japan and the U.S. lost shares to China.

The German manufacturing strategy is based on making existing products better again and again, or as a Mercedes ad put it: "We are inventing the car. Since 1886."

This strategy is possible only with highly skilled and highly motivated workers and requires managers who promote a constant evolution of improvement in products and processes. This change-oriented management is successful because strong union representation on the shop floor, in the form of "work councils," and on supervisory boards ensures that workers' interests are always considered.

Oh come on - that would be grossly unfair to the poor folk. Having to pay the same rate as rick people - simply unfair.

Sorry Spanky, I forgot to add, and increase tax rates on the wealthy to a flat 40% ... no deductions.

Sorry Spanky, I forgot to add, and increase tax rates on the wealthy to a flat 40% ... no deductions.

On all forms of income as well?

Just 40%?

Come on, you got to do better than that, we currently spend over a Trillion each year we don't have and have to borrow.40% ain't gonna cut it, as you know.

Hey, why not get all France-like and go 75%

You can see how fantastic that is already working out for them, right?

But then again - that you are talking about rates tends to indicate you have no idea how the IRC works.

Income is income, it all uses the same infrastructure. A dollar is a dollar, it does not come in different currencies so why should one bill be worth more than another.

Um Spanky, show some brass and start with slashing the military budget ...

Come on, you got to do better than that, we currently spend over a Trillion each year we don't have and have to borrow.40% ain't gonna cut it, as you know.

Yes, that's why Obama's 2013 Budget Proposal cuts $400 billion from the deficit from 2012.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney will add $600 billion to the deficit on the backs of a $5 trillion tax cut and $2.1-$2.3 trillion on DOD overspending.

I have advocated cutting the military here for a long time blackcat.

And come on Xabre - Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term. Plus not one single dem voted for his POS budget.

Interesting to see that there was no protest in Bengazi, just a full on Al Qeada raid. TIme to pull all troops from the middle east. They don't want us there and I don't want to pay to build their sewers, or whatever the hell else we are doing there.

BTW Spanky, you do not pay income tax so what's your beef? Even if you come back at me and say you pay 20%, I say bull. You have already factored that into your billing, so it is your client who is actually paying your income tax.

And come on Xabre - Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term. Plus not one single dem voted for his POS budget.

The Senate votes on the budget resolution their committees put together, not the proposal from the White House. You seriously need an education.

Politics Chicago style.

The Washington Examiner published a 10-part report

The Examiner says 31 Obama campaign bundlers received clean-energy loans and grants totaling more than $16 billion. The auto bailout favored the United Auto Workers -- over secured creditors -- and eight of the 10 states getting the most contracts from the stimulus program were heavily Democratic.

Yes, the president for all, has his favorites buddies.

More facts:

· Study: Number of 'able-bodied' adults on food stamps doubled after stimulus change

A new government study found that the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps nearly doubled after Washington used the stimulus law to lift a key work requirement.

I know that we have to help does that are in need. However, this is how redistribution helps the government get control of the people. Make them dependent on you.

More Facts:

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people, under ObamaCare

• Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysts say nearly six million, mostly in the middle class, will face tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once Obama's health care law is fully in place.

If you vote for Obama after this past 4 years, then you deserve what you get. The problem here is that I and many like us don't think we deserve this disaster of Change and Hope.

Keep using the 47% comment until everyone gets tired of it. The big surprise is still to come.

For those that will never change their minds, do some research please.

You have already factored that into your billing, so it is your client who is actually paying your income tax

no one has to hire him. This isnt USSR BCWC so stop with the Class Warfare.

What Tim Kaine said wasn't anywhere NEAR what the media and GOP will make of it.

WE NEED A NEW CONGRESS. George Allen!? No way.

GO TIM KAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOPE PRESIDENT OBAMA TRAVELS TO VA SOON TO CAMPAIGN WITH HIM. WHAT A DYNAMITE EVENT THAT WILL BE.

WE NEED A NEW CONGRESS

Caesar--no @!$%#. It gets so old.

The Senate votes on the budget resolution their committees put together, not the proposal from the White House. You seriously need an education.

So how has that process been going Ruken, ehh, Xabre?

o how has that process been going Ruken, ehh, Xabre?

yeah how does it go again? tick tock little buddy LOL

Caesar Augustus-

You have already factored that into your billing, so it is your client who is actually paying your income tax

no one has to hire him. This isnt USSR BCWC so stop with the Class Warfare.

Pointing out simple business accounting is now class warfare? ... Wow.

blackcatwhitecat - apparently even breathing - if you're not a Republican - is now class warfare. It's all they have to scream. You know - raise taxes on the right - class warfare. Government help for those who are in need - class warfare. The GOP now has ONE talking point - class warfare.

How sad a once great party is disinntegrating right before our eyes. How low the Republican party has fallen!

Obama/Biden 2012

Riddle me this Spankster...Since you brought up French Tax Rates. Allow me to deflect: The effective personal and Corporate tax rate in Japan (our 3rd largest trading partner) is about the same as ours in the U.S.

Japan has a single payer health system dontcha know. And their health care is generally considered better than our "privatized for profit" system. And the Japanese enjoy a lower mortality rate. And most certainly their poverty rate is much lower than ours.

Why is that Spanky?

Pointing out simple business accounting is now class warfare?

except you're not. Spanky doesnt have a monoply on his particular area of practice, no one has to hire him and he does pay income tax. If that is taken into account on billing then whats the beef? You sound jealous to me so my conclussion would be you're attempting Class warfare rhetoric

. You know - raise taxes on the right - class warfare. Government help for those who are in need - class warfare. The GOP now has ONE talking point - class warfare.

no not at all but 'redistributing wealth, fair share' talk is. Not fair you have more give me some is. America, Land of Opportunity not the land of Guarantee. Got it?

What strikes me odd, as does my coworkers. Most of us were not Mitt supporters through the primaries, and many of us have stood up for his policies and through his gaffes.

When I asked a fellow coworker why he thinks that Mitt is still so close in the race, he said that there were two reasons...

1) The fact that Dem's never talk about what their side is going to do is very scary

2) The meltdown of our allies economies, who have the same policies as Obama, is reason enough to vote against him.

sirie, we need to clean Congress out and get rid of these people who wouldn't lift a finger to help our nation during some very dark days.

George Allen is not the answer. He's part of the problem.

Actually, we very well could go to a 25% RATE, if those who had income over $250,000 were not allowed any deductions and ALL income, regardless of source was taxed at the same rate.

Of course, as John Stewart pointed out so very, very, very well yesterday, that would increase the tax that Mitt Romney would pay, sufficiently enough that the amount of tax revenue raised would be enough to pay for food stamps for his family until the year FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY!!!

But at least, with the Republican plan, we never have to worry about that, as their solution is to just let the poor DIE

But at least, with the Republican plan, we never have to worry about that, as their solution is to just let the poor DIE

of course you'll back that statement up with proof right

Sanity said: Government help for those who are in need - class warfare.

Let's tear this philosophy apart for a moment. I am all for helping someone in need. What I am not for is generational assistance for people that can't find a way to break free from the government dole. Many people run into to financial trouble for one reason or another... temporary unemployment is never enough but at least it will put food on the table for a period of time. Cradle to grave government assistance should be eliminated.

We pay into social security and medicare if we work. Those aren't entitlements but investments. I say this because that's what will be thrown into my face if not clarified. Welfare should have time limits in order to facilitate advancement into education and then self sufficiency. Social programs sap up the largest portion of our federal budget. The military budget falls under social programs in expenditures. I'm for cutting the waste out of the military budget, but our largest boondoggle is in social programs.

Sirie....leaves out the most obvious reason there is not much spread in the polls, the white hot blind hatred so many on the right have for our President.

Most of the voters in Romney's column as of now, are supporting him because he's not Obama. One only has to read a lot of the posts here and elsewhere, they spout how they dislike or hate the Pres. he's this, he's that, ad nauseum, yet they rarely say why they like Romney and what are his plans.

I have yet to see one Romney yard sign or bumper sticker in my area, but I have seen some for the President.

I stole this from The Obama Diary:

Nate Silver:

If Obama wins both Ohio and Virginia, the election is OHVA

Get it? haha

Gingerbread Mamma said: the white hot blind hatred so many on the right have for our President.

In all honesty, have you ever asked yourself why there is so much hatred for Obama? Have you ever tried to figure it out? Don't give me the racist thing either because it means nothing. I'll give you a hint. It has to do with Obama's ideology and how he wants this country to end up.

Sirie....leaves out the most obvious reason there is not much spread in the polls, the white hot blind hatred so many on the right have for our President

I think your point of view is warped by your unmitigated and unwavering love for someone regardless what he does, what results he produces, or his (lack) of achievements versus some people that just disagree with him.

It's a relative kind of thing.

Japan has a single payer health system dontcha know. And their health care is generally considered better than our "privatized for profit" system. And the Japanese enjoy a lower mortality rate. And most certainly their poverty rate is much lower than ours.

Why is that Spanky?

That's way over Spunkie's head. So, I'll answer it for you. Japan doesn't spend over half of it's budget on defense. I think they learned their lesson after 1945. They also have a much better infrastructure and way better public education system than we do. But hey, they got the US military over there to protect them. Who's the smart ones here?

I think your point of view is warped by your unmitigated and unwavering love for someone regardless what he does, what results he produces, or his (lack) of achievements versus some people that just disagree with him.

Is that not hypocrisy then JoAnnaSmith1? You post no facts on this board (that I have seen), so how do you justify your dislike of Barack Obama, and consequently your support of Mitt Romney?

Because here are facts on what Mitt Romney will produce:

1) $5 trillion in tax cuts, mostly on the rich, and whose alleged positive effects have been disproven for years.

2) $2.1 trillion in DOD overspending, stemming from his proposal to fund the military at 4% GDP minimum.

3) Tying into 1 and 2, this produces an addition $600 billion in deficit spending. And for someone who has consistently whined about the national debt, I find it confusing your unwavering support for Mitt Romney confusing.

I'll give you a hint. It has to do with Obama's ideology and how he wants this country to end up.

Or better put, how FOX and Limbaugh tell you it's going to end up. Most of it is fear mongering and plain old crap. This administration has and is trying to get this country back on solid ground. Their problem is those unpatriotic obstructionist Republicans who only want to defeat him so they can return to the good old days of Bush and Cheney.

Don't give me the racist thing either because it means nothing.

I won't but everyone knows it is a factor. Denying it wont make it go away.

the white hot blind hatred so many on the right have for our President.

ive noticed this is the new words 'white hot hatred' . Nope, just his ineptness. Im sure Barry is a real nice guy but oh well, he cant run a lemonade stand let alone our country and that in there is enough to have as you put it 'white hot blind hatred'.

You post no facts on this board (that I have seen),

ditto, but fact of the matter is unemployment is at an unexeptable high, shakey economy, instability in the Middle East (of which we supported). Those are facts. Fact Obama has done little outwardly to get control. Words are nice but when they're empty what do you expect?

Is that not hypocrisy then JoAnnaSmith1? You post no facts on this board (that I have seen), so how do you justify your dislike of Barack Obama, and consequently your support of Mitt Romney?

Why don't we all just call a spade a spade, and a Xabre a Ruken?

I find it confusing your unwavering support for Mitt Romney confusing.

Bah, that's what I get for hitting 'Enter' after restructuring my sentence by before I re-read it. That's going to drive me insane.

Why don't we all just call a spade a spade, and a Xabre a Ruken?

What in the Hell are you even talking about?

Gingerbread Mamma also said this: yet they rarely say why they like Romney and what are his plans.

I will tell you why I support Romney... It's because he understands the economic conditions and has advocated for the reversal of many of the policies of Obama that has taken us deeper down the hole. Romney has further said he will reverse Obamacare. That one issue alone earns him my vote. The contrast between what Romney believes and what Obama believes is stark.

Of course I could go on all day about what I don't like about Obama's policies and what he has put into motion, but the two simple things above I stated about Romney is enough to convince me we will start heading into a better direction economically.

Brian, the hatred of President Obama began the day he was sworn in.

btw, check out what some Texan is doing with the empty chair routine. Nothing new here. We've been seeing it for four long hateful years.

It has everything to do with racism, just like it did with Eric Holder.

Republicans are bad for this country, bad for the entire world. History proves it. They have no answers, so they decide - let's blame President Obama.

Your incompetent party did nothing, and the Nation isn't going to forget it. Not this time.

It's because he understands the economic conditions and has advocated for the reversal of many of the policies of Obama that has taken us deeper down the hole.

Like what, specifically? I want to know exactly what economic conditions Romney grasps firmly that escape Obama.

Why don't we all just call a spade a spade, and a Xabre a Ruken?

I personally enjoy watching Xabre structure his wording to make it seem like he has a superior intellect while really looking silly.

I want to know exactly what economic conditions Romney grasps firmly that escape Obama.

BUSINESS for starters.

I have yet to see one Romney yard sign or bumper sticker in my area, but I have seen some for the President

because anecdotal evidence is always a for sure thing. But where I am the opposite is true, Romney wins

TonyBeeerm said: Or better put, how FOX and Limbaugh tell you it's going to end up. Most of it is fear mongering and plain old crap. This administration has and is trying to get this country back on solid ground. Their problem is those unpatriotic obstructionist Republicans who only want to defeat him so they can return to the good old days of Bush and Cheney.

What is this obsession with Fox News and Rush? Is this your reasoning for everything you disagree with? I'll give you some news... Most conservatives think alike... We have a general philosophy that is totally different from yours... get over it. If this administration is trying to help our economy, then tell me why Obama couldn't even tell David Letterman the amount of the National Debt when he was asked about it? Obama couldn't have cared less what that number was. How come Obama hasn't told Bernanke to stop QEIII? I could ask questions like this all day long and you wouldn't have answer one... I have an answer... It's because Obama doesn't care if the economy tanks... his only concern is to get re-elected.

| Why don't we all just call a spade a spade, and a Xabre a Ruken?

What in the Hell are you even talking about?

The characteristics between you "two" are striking. Right down to your angry outbursts and pompous demeanor. You re-reging right after Rukens banning was a key. At least you have cleaned up your language.

Being banned is hard.

Pat Boston MA. -

Your incompetent party did nothing, and the Nation isn't going to forget it. Not this time.

AMEN!

Salud

The characteristics between you "two" are striking. Right down to your angry outbursts and pompous demeanor. You re-reging right after Rukens banning was a key. At least you cleaned up your language.

Not that it is your business, but registering here after clicking my friend's FB link for a story on this site totally constitutes re-registering. Whatever you think JoAnnaSmith1, I'm not going to attempt to dissuade you. In the meantime, feel free to tell me how budget proposals going through congressional committees "is a lie".

Brianb1956 at #2.25 wrote:

Social programs sap up the largest portion of our federal budget. The military budget falls under social programs in expenditures.

Me:

That makes no sense. Why would defense spending, other than military retirement and the VA, be lumped under social programs? Why would weapons research and development, or supply and logistics, be a social program?

is this the same Ruken that claimed to have graduated Sigma Cum Laude LOL

is this the same Ruken that claimed to have graduated Sigma Cum Laude LOL

And thought Penn was the same as Penn State. The guy is a riot. A pseudo-intellectual's pseudo-intellectual.

Willard firmly grasps that he DOES NOT care about 47% of the electorate..."his job is not to worry about them"...

...Now, he starts to regurtitate the 'redistribution' talking point, which is in essence saying the same thing...

....guess that's how he understands the economic conditions...I don't care about the poor, the elderly, the handicapped, or the troops in combat zones........

They're all freeloaders, and want to take my money.......

The only redistribution that Willard appreciates, is the distribution that flows constantly from the middle to the top!

@blearyeyed

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-spending-by-program.jpg

The link is older (2005) I don't know if there are drastic changes though.

I don't know how 'truthful' this link is. But it while the claim that SS / Medicare > Military appears to be confirmed, one also has to take into account that FICA funds Medicare and SS directly. In addition, 'Veterans' (most likely VA) is separate from military, but one could argue that one is a direct cause of the other.

Xabre

Come on, you got to do better than that, we currently spend over a Trillion each year we don't have and have to borrow.40% ain't gonna cut it, as you know.

Yes, that's why Obama's 2013 Budget Proposal cuts $400 billion from the deficit from 2012.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney will add $600 billion to the deficit on the backs of a $5 trillion tax cut and $2.1-$2.3 trillion on DOD overspending.

You got a link that precisely points out these claims you make? And not some leftist article like MSNBC which twists more than a piece of licorice.

Funny how you know so much about Obama's budget proposal, because it sure wasn't part of the Democratic Convention. Neither was any plan moving forward.....just more of the same hopey-changey BS.

Pat Boston said:

Brian, the hatred of President Obama began the day he was sworn in. Actually Pat, the hatred began before he was sworn in... it started the moment he was elected. In retrospect, if McCain would have been elected, he would have been hated by the left... and demonized... with greater angst and force.

btw, check out what some Texan is doing with the empty chair routine. Nothing new here. We've been seeing it for four long hateful years. I haven't paid attention to any comedy routine lately.

It has everything to do with racism, just like it did with Eric Holder. I believe the racist thing has been blown way out of proportion. Even though it took a huge number of white people to put Obama into office, the left has been using racism as a crutch to thwart any objection to Obama and his policies... You can't deny it.

Republicans are bad for this country, bad for the entire world. History proves it. They have no answers, so they decide - let's blame President Obama. Like democrats are trying to do to Romney? Come on Pat, this is the way of politics. One side pitted against the other... blaming and tossing arrows to each other's side. I could say that what you are implying is that democrats are the golden children doing no harm, nor ever making bad policies, or choices... that's disingenuous.

Your incompetent party did nothing, and the Nation isn't going to forget it. Not this time. I didn't realize that there was an independent party... You'll have to show me where I sign up.

You got a link that precisely points out these claims you make? And not some leftist article like MSNBC which twists more than a piece of licorice.

Funny how you know so much about Obama's budget proposal, because it sure wasn't part of the Democratic Convention. Neither was any plan moving forward.....just more of the same hopey-changey BS.

Obama's 2013 Budget Proposal is public knowledge located at whitehouse.gov.

The Tax Policy Center used census data using Mitt Romney's own proposals off his website (mittromney.com) to arrive at the figures I stated.

Around here....if you put a Romney/Ryan anything on your car or yard its likely to get shot up or destroyed. Last week two vehicles (with people in them) were shot up with AK's! Lawn signs will get a brick through the windows. I do however see a lot of Obama 2008 remnants where people have tried to tear them off!

And thought Penn was the same as Penn State. The guy is a riot. A pseudo-intellectual's pseudo-intellectual.

oh I know, the goof tried to correct me on the use of spelling of German nouns. Perhaps he thinks combining Greek and Latin will really up his smarts. Xabre, Ubermensch, ubersmart

Obama's 2013 Budget Proposal is public knowledge located at whitehouse.gov.

and public garbage like the rest of his. I dont need to see his proposals, I live in his concocted crap now. Tell me whats the difference between him and Bush?

Bleareyed said: That makes no sense. Why would defense spending, other than military retirement and the VA, be lumped under social programs? Why would weapons research and development, or supply and logistics, be a social program?

Reread my sentence. I'll interpret it for you. Social programs are above the military budget in expenditures... military is below social programs in expenditures... meaning, we spend way more federal money on social programs than we do on the military budget. I hope this clears up any confusion.

btw, check out what some Texan is doing with the empty chair routine. Nothing new here. We've been seeing it for four long hateful years. I haven't paid attention to any comedy routine lately.

Brian,

Is that right? Go ahead, look the other way just like your party has always done. I strongly suggest you go see what this person in Texas did with the empty chair. It isn't funny.

What your party did to Eric Holder was unforgiveable.

Why is Mitch McConnell allowed to continue to be the Senate Majority Leader? His behavior is/was worse than Joe McCarthy's ever was.

hugedupa said: Around here....if you put a Romney/Ryan anything on your car or yard its likely to get shot up or destroyed. Last week two vehicles (with people in them) were shot up with AK's!

So the Obama supporters are reverting to violence on anyone that supports Romney? Says a lot about the mentality of Obama supporters.

@Pat Boston MA:

btw, check out what some Texan is doing with the empty chair routine. Nothing new here.

I about died when I heard the review on the radio about Clint's latest movie coming out tomorrow:

"...since Clint Eastwood enjoys speaking to an empty chair, 'Trouble with the Curve' will have plenty of opportunities..."

Pat in Boston said:

btw, check out what some Texan is doing with the empty chair routine. Nothing new here. We've been seeing it for four long hateful years. I haven't paid attention to any comedy routine lately.

Is that right? Go ahead, look the other way just like your party has always done. I strongly suggest you go see what this person in Texas did. It isn't funny.

Pat, do you think I care what some person did in Texas? People do all sorts of things every day of the week. Go ahead and blame me for not caring... I have other things I'm involved with than looking for what some person did that offends someone else.

Again, tell me where I sign up for the independent party... I didn't realize independents were so strongly against Obama... liberals keep on saying that independents support Obama.... someone needs to get their story straight.

Pat in Boston said: What your party did to Eric Holder was unforgiveable.

Do tell me Pat, what did the independent party do to Eric Holder? I haven't heard this yet. Still waiting for directions as to how to sign up for the independent party. You seem to be a little slow in providing it.

Would you look at that? Brian is back!

Did you post that release from Sally or Tyler, I must have missed it.

Brianb-

You told Granny that the reason righties "hate" Obama is because of his ideology. Which part of his ideology do you and your cohorts hate? Is it because he wants everyone to have a level playing field? Is it the part about caring for people who can't care for themselves? Or is it the part about keeping a new aristocracy from taking control of the country? The same aristocracy Teddy Roosevelt fought so hard against, by the way. Then, in one of your earlier posts, you threw out the usual, all encompassing blanket over everyone receiving entitlements, and that, my friend, is the part of YOUR ideology that turns my stomach! You seem to assume that you have the experience, the wisdom, and the moral authority to decide who deserves assistance and who does not. Conservatives can decide who is worthy and who is not. Contrast those two ideologies, and I readily choose Obama's.

And to hugedupa - You don't believe your own self-serving fiction for one minute, do you? Or maybe you really are that delusional. After all, to use a favorite Rush quote, "EVERYBODY KNOWS!" liberals hate guns, especially automatic weapons.

So the Obama supporters are reverting to violence on anyone that supports Romney?

you say that like you're surprised.

Did you post that release from Sally or Tyler, I must have missed it.

I noticed Hugh Class aka Tea Tard this or Cracker Moron that, had about 20 accounts but I don't recall your concern about that poster's re-reg status.

Really CA? I don't notice your concern about Brian's.

You'll join them in banned land soon enough. By the way, how was YOUR time out?

Around here....if you put a Romney/Ryan anything on your car or yard its likely to get shot up or destroyed. Last week two vehicles (with people in them) were shot up with AK's! Lawn signs will get a brick through the windows. I do however see a lot of Obama 2008 remnants where people have tried to tear them off!

You must live near a US embassy in the Middle East.

Obama 2012 - Hopey Changey

Poor, JoAnna, you seem snarkier than usual.... it is hard to feel it all slipping away, and you will have to admit that you are wrong and that you are indeed fortunate to have a President who cares even about the concerns of the undeserving?

Like you?

I don't notice your concern about Brian's.

perhaps i dont care about the re-reg crap in general.

You'll join them in banned land soon enough. By the way, how was YOUR time out?

it was fine, Im sure your leader is getting a far more remedial treatment. I doubt I'll be banned. At least not as being a re-reg as you claimed.

dksouthern said: You told Granny that the reason righties "hate" Obama is because of his ideology. Which part of his ideology do you and your cohorts hate?

Very simple... all of it.

Poor, JoAnna, you seem snarkier than usual.... it is hard to feel it all slipping away, and you will have to admit that you are wrong and that you are indeed fortunate to have a President who cares even about the concerns of the undeserving?

Like you?

I would be snarky too if the candidate I supported lumped me into a demographic and then proceeded to label us as "victims" and needing to "take personal responsibility for our lives". JoAnnaSmith1's angst is somewhat understandable.

An excellent point, Xabre, and one we should all consider when reading the posts of the rwnj's.

Poor, JoAnna, you seem snarkier than usual..

Don't you have some school marm-ing to do? Collecting letters from admins letting you know that it's okay for people to be here, you know, like it's any of your business. Seems about your speed.

CA "perhaps I don't care about the re reg crap in general."

Yes. We already know that about you.

So perhaps you could explain your post at 2.16 which puts the lie to what you say? Thanks.

Ceasar Augustus: you asked for proof, look at the Republican budget plan, as written by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republicans. It makes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP as well as Pell Grants and other services which those who are poor utilize to LIVE. When, because of those cuts, people don't have those services, they may very well die.

But at least Mitt Romney will have a less than 1% tax rate, that's what is important, right ?

. When, because of those cuts, people don't have those services, they may very well die.

so hypothetics are facts now. I see

So perhaps you could explain your post at 2.16 which puts the lie to what you say? Thanks.

care to see where i made the claim or merely mocking the 'tick tock little buddy' thing? Again tell me why I would care how many re-regs there are. technically you are one yourself huh

Why poor JoAnna! I must have struck a nerve, dear. And here you were, attacking another poster, claiming he had no right to be here.

Tsk, tsk, poor JoAnna: Hypocrisy does not become you.

And Caesar, trying to deflect are you? You can't have this both ways, dearie, either re regging is a problem or it is not.

Like Mittens, you are currently taking both positions! No wonder you like him!

JoAnnaSmith - You must live near a US embassy in the Middle East And in your demented, uneducated mind you thought your post was "cute?" You're nothing but the typical dumpster diving Republican who has no class and even less integrity.

Obama/Biden 2012

Seek - And your post is the epitome of "class"......really?

Why poor JoAnna! I must have struck a nerve, dear. And here you were, attacking another poster, claiming he had no right to be here.

Ruken/Xabre can stay here as long as he/she wants. We just can't have enough entertaining idiocy from the Left around here.

either re regging is a problem or it is not.

Apparently it is for you. You're obsessed with it you old school-marm you.

School-marm - a person who exhibits characteristics attributed to strict adherence to arbitrary rules

And Caesar, trying to deflect are you? You can't have this both ways, dearie, either re regging is a problem or it is not.

its not my problem LOL.... deflect, tell me you know definition. here I'll say it again

"Again tell me why I would care how many re-regs there are. technically you are one yourself huh"

I have no problem with you being one. feel better?

Poor JoAnna, you are really struggling with this, aren't you? It is hard to get called out like that, isn't it, you feel a bit the fool? Well, no matter, you will recover nicely, I am quite sure.

Caesar: It doesn't deflect from YOUR problem to project it on to me! It is, however, humorous! But, I do enjoy your limited ability to interpret my moniker.

Caesar: It doesn't deflect from YOUR problem to project it on to me! It is, however, humorous! But, I do enjoy your limited ability to interpret my moniker.

i think simply you failed to see the irony. willful ignorance but you own it

good day

newday - so who is Election Day a re-reg of? Maybe Harley Chic??? Certainly sounds like the same stupidity.

We all know JAS has very limited intelligence. Ya think she's related to CA????

Obama/Biden 2012

Not Harley – maybe “ElectionDayYet?” aka alwaysfaithful

Dennis - TY - you always can figure these things out.

But the point is that once the bully is confronted, one can expect the same result each time.

CA runs.

Later all!

[good day]

It seems ndD...R is another on a long list to hand Little Seizure his ass in a bag and send him packing...that or his boss caught him stealing company time by posting from work.

It doesn't take much, does it ND...

Brianb...you find a job yet? Real Americans are getting tired of supporting you. Freeloader. (Mitts words, not mine)

Hi ya Mickey: I am always amazed at how CA folds like a house of cards!

Canada has what is called a Goods and Services Tax which is similar to a VAT of roughly 9%. Some Provinces add to this and the result is 15%. The poor receive some of this back via income tax rebates. I have yet to see any tent cities up here. It pays for Universal Healthcare and inexpensive education that are both first rate.

So, the rising tide theory only works when all the water is going somewhere else other than swimming pools for the wealthy. If the wealthy only pay then it is for sure that the rewards will mostly go to them. They will squeak loudly and that is the wheel that will be oiled.

BCWC: I am not an economist; but does not any form of consumer tax unjustly affect the lower income levels. My thought is that it takes a larger portion of their income. Example a 20 cent tax on product X is a larger percentage of a person earning 50 thou, than that of a person earning 100 thou.

Please set me straight.

Obama/Biden 2012

Exito, You are correct but perhaps the justice in it comes with as I said healthcare and education. Their is greater mobility within the classes. A top ranked world university degree costs about $6000 per year up here, plus no insurance companies for healthcare. You figure put the savings that would accrue to the average US family.

Obama/Biden for sure.

but does not any form of consumer tax unjustly affect the lower income levels. My thought is that it takes a larger portion of their income. Example a 20 cent tax on product X is a larger percentage of a person earning 50 thou, than that of a person earning 100 thou.

You are exactly right Exito. Any form of flat tax is harder on those with lower incomes.

Exito, yep and the reason for family member deductions on your federal and state taxes. After spouse, 2 kids a person has to have about 40K before his tax bill is greater than 0. Then there are home mortage interest deductions as well as health care costs. The higher your income the more deductions become available. For investors dividends are taxable as income but at a very low level. Capital gains allows investors to write down the first $3000 of losses incured against gains so they get a tax free $3000. And on and on and on. Here is a simple one for people. Look at your 1040 first section where you add up all your income (before deductions). Then go to the last section and find the tax bill (not your witholding or refund) and divide the income number into the tax bill. You might be surprised to find the actual number is in the 3%-4% range. Sure the tax rate was 10-15% but only after all the standard deductions. If more people actually did their own taxes we might be able to have a more informed discussion.

Which would hurt the poor more? A VAT tax that allows them to take their kids to the doctor without having to come up with $200 or more on the spot or no tax and continue to hope your kids or yourself don't get sick? it's amazing what one can afford, even one living at the poverty level, when you don;t have to worry about such things as healthcare and education.

Thanks everyone for the help. I do appreciate that.

4 more 4 44

I thought he already did 6 years ago with his "Macaca Moment".

bob...what planet are you on or alternate reality are in???

Romney does not pay federal income taxes because he has no salary as reported under W-2's...

He pays millions in capital gains taxes which are taxed at the maximum 15% before deductions, just like you, me, Obama, Buffet, Buffet's secretary...anyone.

Realize also the Romney paid income taxes on the portion of his investments that came from his salary while at Bain...At or about 35% before deductions!

In addition, the Romney's contributed 16% of their earnings to charity.....Obama....less than 1%....

What does that tell you?

I find it amazing that you fail to include that in your rant about his income taxes.

Shepherd - Romney has donated 16% to his church - which counts as charity even though it is used for increasing the spread of Mormonism - nothing more. That hardly counts as charity.

Obama/Biden 2012

Seeking - you sir are a dolt. Do some research and look up Mormon church philanthropies..

Morgs74:

Look up the definition of 'tithe'. Here's a link from the Mormon Church's own website:

http://mormon.org/faq/church-tithing

Yeah I'm sure all they do is spread Mormonism. Like all churches. No helping hand to the poor, no food bank support, no shelters for homeless, no soup kitchens, no aid to families with ailing family members. You mean those things that churches don't do and eat up all the money promoting their religion?

You mean those things that churches don't do and eat up all the money promoting their religion?

Or in the case of the Catholic Church funding their legal defenses and settlements? Sorry, I had to.

Morgs74 - with every post you prove how little intelligence you actually have. The majority of the Mormon's tithes goe to spreading Mormonism throughout the world. Get a clue!

Obama/Biden 2012

Yes said sir!

I have never voted (I know I know), but consider myself an outside observer of politics. That why I can't vote to remain unbaised. However on to my point.

I believe the republicans controlled so much of the government for so long that they really lost touch with what they should be all about. The democratics still are what they are supposed to be because they fight for every little thing. As a nation we need them both. They are like a mom and dad. Mom still loves on us maybe a bit to much, got it, thats what she does. But dad quit being the guy who would put his foot down when it was really needed and worked and saved his butt off for the family. Now dad is a fat drunk that sits on the couch yelling at the kids and hitting mom.

Every republican voter should just not vote. I'm not saying for them to vote democrat. Just not vote. Let the dems have the senate, house and president. Let the people who are sitting in office know that they are tired of their fat drunk butts. Let the dem have a cycle then come back with a true purpose. Being a conservative is not about caring about religion and gay marraige or whats happening on the other side of the world. Let them come back and focus on getting money into the government and trying to save some for the future. When dad quits drinking and gets a job, mom the kids and himself are all going to be better off.

And WHO paid the BILLIONS in missles for the Lybia bombings and the Obama DRONES all over the Middle East?

I thought he was quite clear with the message that the middle class was paying for it. Please blame Obama for that please do. I am going to google all the crap that was on FAUX hyping the public up saying if we dont do something it just proves Obama is a muslim and loves terrorist. Then he supports them through the UN and now he is a war criminal right? Still a muslim terrorist lover though.

He is a muslim that go to a radical white people hating black christian church.

Loves terrorist he violated pakistans borders to kill bin laden.

bends over to muslim countries by helping rebels over throw libya.

oh why do i bother with u. im not even writing in english anymore.

Too funny.......WHO gives a crap about Mitt Romneys Horse?????

Run to the mailbox and get your Obama checks! Pathetic!

The FEDS came out this morning and said that 6 MILLION people will pay $1,200 in tax penalties if they can't afford healthcare.......oops...too busy going on Letterman, JZ & Beyonce, and the View to give a d@m!

luvenia....

Romney's paid several million in taxes and contributed about 16% (millions) to charitable organizations.....

Even you cannot argue that the Romney's are very charitable and giving....

How do you feel about the Obama's only giving 1% of their earnings to charity???

Shepherd - when you just make up figures it defeats your lies. The Obama's reported 15% in charitable donations in 2011 - you're a liar!

Obama/Biden 2012

I believe charity is stuff you do other than what is required by not instead of. If you write it off to not pay taxes that isn't charity. That is you supporting a particular organization or cause more than you support your government.

If I wrote of all my taxes to give it to a charity that only gives stuff to people researching the weather conditions on Saturns moons it would show my intentions. Screw the rest of you citizens I am all about this weather thing we got going on over here. Not right at all. FYI raised in a Mormon family. Studying weather on Saturns moon is a better charity than old Mitts charity. All religions are crazy but oh my his is up there on the loco chart.

Am I the only one who saw Mcpaddywacker just come out of right field and start trying to bash patty for being a dem, when she clearly is a rep? They litterally have the same belief about everything for hating black people to not believing in dinosaurs and he just went after her with a vengance.

This is why I am all for people having the right to bare arms. It is a great way for the "stupid problem" to take care of its self.

Shepard..Tithing 10% of your income to the LDS church is NOT charity! Most of that money goes into Building more LDS Churches and Church businesses. Charity my A$$.

Please dont forget that the Mormon church also spends a lot of money influening votes. Would not be suprised if you looked inside Mitts superpac to find all of his charity dollars at work for him.

How does anyone really know what Mitt has paid - his federal taxes that he released for one year was a partial one. So nothing from other years, as everyone here knows.

So other than the Mormon church - what other charity has he supported?? Except the charity for himself that is.

Obama/Biden 2012

Patty---I care a lot about Romney's horse. I'm not interested in subsidizing his quest for an Olympic gold medal, which is what we as a country have done by allowing that deduction.

And please get over the tired meme that all Obama supporters are on the dole. I certainly am not and never have been.

Speaking of freakshows, whats with the orange guy? Is Boehner representing a group of umpa lumpas and just trying to relate to them or something? That guy scares me for some reason. I know he has to be pretty well off so it is totally his choice to look that way. Weird decision. Then I think about other choices he gets to make because of his position in the government and get scared.

I don't really have anything to say to you Patty, I just like looking at my new avatar.

After President Obama serves his second term, it will be Hillary's turn in 2016. Unless, Sen. Mark Warner wants to be President, in which case, I would also vote for him.

Hey "Laser"

Boehner is a good looking hunk!

XOXOXO

Guess you're in LOVE with creepy Harry Reid?

yeah patty...you have shown that you are a typical lib.....rigid, one-way thinking with no consideration of reality or other possibilities.......

"Amy"

It SHOULD have been Hillary's turn in 2008 INSTEAD of an Unknown, Selfish Rock Star!

SHE should have won!

"mcpaddywack"

Are you kidding me??????

I will be first in line at the door in November to VOTE for Romney?

You've got me confused?

Patty.......but she didn't. He had the better organization and still does.

Hillary's doing a great job as S of S.

Hillary? Even the Democrats didn't want her. They cast her aside for an unknown, unproven, "historic" choice.

GM - actually having Hillary serve as Secretary of State has made her a more formidible opponent in 2016. President Obama did her a great service by picking her as S of S. She will have more experience in foreign policy than any other candidate and is already very knowledgable in US issues. She will be extremely hard ot beat in 2016!

Obama/Biden 2012

They cast her aside for an unknown, unproven, "historic" choice.

the results match said choice. Caveat Emptor

Yes, it is from Fox and you have the link.

URGENT: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, after insisting for more than a week that the White House had no evidence to suggest the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was anything but a 'spontaneous' act, concedes that it was an act of terror.

Like if they did not know this. Unfurunately great people were killed because someone droped the ball.

It only took them a week to finally admit what everyone else already knew, including our intelligence agencies and the Libyan Government. Obama just refuses to admit that his foreign policy stinks.

BTW, I am still waiting for Obama to admit that the attack on our troops at Fort Hood, TX was a terrorist attack and not a stress related incident.

hey go back to your closet and wack your paddy, another walmart republican I see. Can't get a date so you hate women, what a loser,

actually the majority of these moochers are republican voters living in the south and midwest...

Or Republicans living in the North, the South East, the North West, The South West, the East, and the West.

:)

Rick I think I share your dislike of hillbillies from the south.

You do realize that the majority of people defending your sorry...well you know are southern "hillbillies" geesus. You give yourself more credit than your due!

hugedupa - actually the majority of them are minorities from all over the country - you know - the ones you continue to put down as frequently as possible!

Obama/Biden 2012

All polls are an exercise in futility until after the first debates.

But this is money-making season for the pollsters - kinda' like Christmas. Both parties are handing out checks for daily polls to measure - what exactly?

Polls are great for dances.

Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Read the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution.

All it takes is an amendment to change that.

The problem with all democracies is that as more and more people learn they can vote themselves funds from the national treasury there will eventually be no one to put money back in. Unless there is a proper restraint in place to prohibit this in America the ideologies of the left that the efforts of the many should tend the failings of the few the few will vote themselves into the majority. This is inevitable.

Those few people that have real problems and needs should have someplace to turn to for help. It is NOT the government however. My charity and giving should be by choice not be government dictate through taxes.

Those "few people" who have "real problems" had better not depend on people like Mitt Romney for help. There was a time, not that long ago, when the government did NOT intervene on behalf of those "few people." They slept in alleys, became prostitutes, and died like animals. In France it led to the Revolution. You know what you might do? Go back and read some of Charles Dickens. Start with "A Christmas Carol" and work up to "Our Mutual Friend." Maybe you can find the Classic Comics version.

You might also take five minutes or so to sit down and think about the meaning of a phrase like "promote the general welfare."

Alternatively -- and more fun -- would be a trip to a third-world country that is divided into the rich and the poor and the poor receive very little help from the government. You don't need to travel as far as India, where a friend of mine watched a pack of dogs fight over the carcass of a dead baby in the reflecting pool of the Taj Mahal. You can take a train to Mexico City that will use the scenic route through the squatter settlements surrounding the city itself, where the poor live in shacks of cardboard and tin, and the toilet is the back yard.

By the way, you're not a Christian, are you?