Or ware or ware did all the Romneylikes go or ware or ware did they go??? I'm all a lone on this page number 5

Dear Friends:

You have to love Vice President Joseph R Biden for his straight forward and honesty!

He is not like Romney's malarkey and falsehoods.

God Bless. Amen. + XOXOXoxo

check out this on Rolling Stone if you want to know how repulicans realy feel about us they want us to pay more taxes so the rich can save on their taxes

rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/tax-cuts-for-the-rich-on-the-backs-of-the-middle-class-or-paul-ryan-has-balls-20110407

We just learned a new revelation today from Stephie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager! She claims women, whether they are in Denver, Ohio and so on, don't care about what has happened over the last four years, but only care about what's going to happen the next four years!

good by everyone

In the last few days, the increase in premium costs per family over the last four years! in 2008, obama delclared that he would gurantee savings for every family of $2,500. Surprise.. it went up $2432.00

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/rising-health-costs-undermine-obama-pledge-to-curb-trend/

If you want to know how Romney and the Republicans feel about half of America, the 47%, you need to hear what they say behind closed doors.

Romney got caught Red Handed on Camera.

His 47% statement on how he despises 47% of Americans while Donors set dining on $50,000.00 a plate dishes of delicacies tells you the people he prefers to associate with.

If you can't afford $50,000.00 a Plate Dinners, he has no time for you.

Many of the 47% are lucky if they make $50,000.00 a Year!

Entitlement:

That which one has paid into for 45-50 years

And the pay-off is now due.

SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE

This is what they want to cut. The amount OWED to CITIZENS by the U.S. Government

ENTITLEMENT

Is not food-stamps , medi-cade, housing subsidies, school loans, etc.

This is what they can not cut.

No family or person should be destitute due to the mis-handling of the Budget by bushie2/chinny and/or the refusal of the Replicans/T-Bag Trash to Pass president Obama's Jobs Bill.

They authorized two wars UN-FUNDED(no increase in taxes or reductiuon in expenditures to pay for).

Medi-Care Part D UN-FUNDED (no increase in taxes or reduction in expenditures to pay for).

Tax breaks for everyone till 2010. (Without Cutting the Budget to Allow For this Reduction in Income (TO the Government) from tax reduction income.

70% OF DEFICIT SPENDING 2008 -2010. 100% Deficit Spending 2000-2008. 30% Deficit Spending 2010-2012

President OBAMA has only passed one BILL( THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE BILL)

It does NOT go into effect until 2014!!!

So the wealthy and Replican/T-Bag Trash

Want the U.S. Government to take from those that have paid into a system for 45-50 years

So the WEALTHY & CORPORATIONS do not have to pay their FAIR SHARE.

I (as a Social Security receipient) say:

To keep people from going with-out food and shelter ,I can do with less. The education of the young is the ONLY COURSE we as Americans can take to insure the survivability of this great experiment (as Ronald Reagan) called it.

A starving child in the United States . This I WILL NOT HAVE on MY CONSCIENCE.

The GREEDY will be taken care of. KARMA WORKS

Says the hypocritical Former Senator from a State with no usury laws to restrict those evil capitalists from charging whatever interest rate they want.

Did they ever finish that investigation of his Son Hunter and his Brother James involvement in that Hedge fund/ lobbyist fraud scheme?

Biden is so stupid, does he not realize that he is being used over and over again by a Muslim, who is hell bent on destroying our country. Biden, get a brain, and start using it. You are a fool, you are a puppet.

George Carlin was right.

They wanted your Pensions. They got it and replaced it with worthless 401ks.

They wanted your Medical and Dental over and above your Pay, they got it.

Now Romney and Ryan want your Social Security and Medicare Insurance that you paid into your entire working life.

They will get it!

Romney wants your Children to go to War in Iran and Not his five sons, he already has half of that!

Suckers!

George Carlin was right.

They wanted your Pensions. They got it and replaced it with worthless 401ks.

They wanted your Medical and Dental over and above your Pay, they got it.

Now Romney and Ryan want your Social Security and Medicare Insurance that you paid into your entire working life.

They will get it!

Romney wants your Children to go to War in Iran and Not his five sons, he already has half of that!

Suckers!

If Romney had his way he would find a way to Exterminate the 47% and he would do it with the very same smile on his face he wears every day...

Gov. Romney insulting comments to 47% American voters........

Sorry, Governor the arrow already left the bow ........

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Way to go, Joe. Great pit bull imitation. Ever hear the 4 Tops sing "Its the Same Old Song". Thought you would have something new by now instead of the same thing over and over again. Is it true that people really go into attack mode when they are seriously losing? By the way, better keep your eye on the middle east. So much for foreign policy.

Joe says ""Ladies and gentlemen, we are our brother’s keeper,...." Sure Joe! Is that what inspires you to make contributions of ONE PER CENT of your income while Romney is making contributions of THIRTY PER CENT? And HE's a bad guy who doesn't care about the less fortunate? How about putting your money where your mouth is, Joe!

The ability of Obama/Biden supporters to misinterpret and distort the facts is astounding! Equally amazing is their ability to forget the misstatements made by Messiah Obama and his stalwart (albeit bumbling) Vice-President Joe. I'm very glad to hear, however, that the Democrats have removed Uncle Joe's muzzle and are allowing him to speak once more. Why? Because every time he opens his mouth, he costs Obama a few more votes. The man is a walking, talking, gaffe. The only upside to Uncle Joe is that, given his propensity for stepping on his own tongue, he is bound to make several more idiotic statements before the shouting is all over.

For example - Uncle Joe criticizes Romney for an "open mike" statement, forgetting his own "it's a big f - - - ing deal" open mike gaffe. Also, Romney's camp has repeatedly explained his 47% statement in a clear and lucid manner, but Uncle Joe only hears what he wants to - never allowing facts and truth to interfere with his intended pronouncements.

For all my liberal Democratic friends - just remember that Uncle Joe, with all his pithy remarks, non sequiturs, and malapropisms, is only a heartbeat away from the presidency. If THAT doesn't scare the Hell out of you, nothing will!

Remember in November!

SORRY TO ALL IN THE ROOM WITH THE LONG POST. JUST WANTED TO MAKE A POINT THAT THE REPUBLICANS IN THE ROOM HAVE NOT A CLUE AND FOLLOW BECAUSE THEY ARE BRAIN WASHED!

For all the republicans to eat! All from a fact check. Like I keep saying must sucks to be a republican. Then again it must suck to not even know one when you guys look at one! You have been replaced by the tea party. The name tea party in itself is a laugh! How pathetic is Grover Norquist for even starting a group called the tea party. What a troll. Bet you guys don't even know that name .

Tax experts — including one who supports Romney’s plan — say the Republican presidential candidate’s promise to cut individual income tax rates without either favoring the wealthy or losing revenue isn’t mathematically possible.

That’s the conclusion of the Tax Policy Center in a report the Romney campaign attacked as “biased” (although the campaign previously praised the TPC as “objective,” when it issued a report critical of a rival’s tax plan).

And it’s also the conclusion of an expert from the pro-business Tax Foundation, who states that the Tax Policy Center analysis “correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners.”

Romney has proposed very specific tax cuts. He would make the Bush-era income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts permanent, then cut all income tax rates by an additional 20 percent across the board, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (which hits primarily upper-income taxpayers), and permanently repeal the estate tax (which currently applies only to estates valued at $5 million or more).

Romney has said he would offset the loss of personal income tax revenue (estimated at $360 billion a year by the Tax Policy Center) by reducing tax deductions and credits. And he has said he would do this while making sure that those at the top keep paying the “same share of the tax burden they’re paying now.”

But he has steadfastly refused to say which tax preferences would be cut or reduced. He has pointed to the revenue-neutral proposals for rate-cutting put forth by the deficit commission as evidence that what he proposes is possible in theory, but those proposals pay for the cuts largely by taxing capital gains at the higher rates that apply to ordinary income, a measure Romney has specifically ruled out.

So Romney has failed to produce evidence that what he promises is possible. And we judge that the weight of evidence and expert opinion is clear — it’s not possible.

Romney says this criticism ignores his separate plan to cut corporate tax rates, which he says will stimulate economic growth. Indeed, there’s evidence to suggest that cutting corporate taxes can do that, and the Tax Foundation expert (who supports Romney’s plan) suggests that more jobs would be an acceptable trade-off for a less progressive personal income tax system.

But how much growth to expect is debatable, especially because Romney proposes to cut only the corporate tax rate, not corporate taxes overall. He would offset the rate cut by eliminating tax preferences resulting in no loss of revenue. During the Bush administration, Treasury Department experts concluded that the corporate rate could be dropped to 28 percent without losing revenue (Romney proposes 25 percent), but that such a trade-off “might well have little or no effect” on economic growth.

Romney’s experts predict about a 1 percent increase in growth. One of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study says that is “implausibly large” and even if it materializes it wouldn’t prevent a tax increase on middle-income taxpayers under Romney’s income tax plan.

There’s room to argue that the benefits of increased growth are a fair trade for a less progressive tax system. In fact, that’s exactly the case made by the Tax Foundation’s expert, who notes that “the currently unemployed will receive the greatest benefit in the form of a job.”

But Romney’s claim that he can somehow slash individual income tax rates without losing federal revenue or favoring the wealthy remains at best unproven, and in our judgment, based on available evidence, impossible.

Analysis

The Evolution of a Tax Plan

Mitt Romney first revealed his tax plans on Sept. 6, 2011, in a 59-point economic plan titled “Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth.” The former Massachusetts governor proposed maintaining the Bush-era income tax rates, repealing the estate tax and lowering the corporate tax from 35 percent to 25 percent and broadening its base. The plan was criticized by the Wall Street Journal as “surprisingly timid.”

The campaign expanded it on Feb. 22, 2012, to include repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and cutting the marginal income tax rates by an additional 20 percent across the board. The Wall Street Journal quoted Romney as saying “he would direct Congress to make up lost revenue from the rate cuts by limiting deductions, mostly for wealthier Americans.”

Wall Street Journal, Feb. 23: In describing his plan Wednesday, Mr. Romney pledged to preserve popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations for middle-income families.

“For high-income folks, we’re going to cut back on that so that we make sure that the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more,” Mr. Romney said. “We want middle-income Americans to be the place we focus our help, because it’s middle-income Americans that have been hurt by this Obama economy.”

A couple of months later, Romney was overheard telling donors that he would “probably eliminate” the mortgage-interest deduction for second homes for high-income taxpayers and possibly eliminate deductions for state income taxes and local property taxes. But the Romney campaignlater retracted those comments, saying that he was offering some possible options — not making policy proposals. He has yet to offer any specifics.

A $250,000 Cut for ‘Millionaires’

In March, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center did an analysis of Romney’s corporate, individual and estate tax plan and found it would cost $480 billion a year, or $4.8 trillion over 10 years, beginning in calendar year 2015. At that time, the Tax Policy Center said it did not attempt to gauge the impact of eliminating or reducing tax deductions, credits and exemptions “[b]ecause we have received no details on proposals to reduce tax preferences.”

The TPC’s detailed calculations showed that — before any reduction of tax deductions — Romney’s plan would result in 99.97 percent of those making $1 million a year or more getting a tax cut (compared with what they pay now) and that the cuts would average $256,603 each. But further down the income scale, the benefit would be considerably less. For those making between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, 94 percent would see a tax cut, and it would average $1,226, before any loss of deductions or credits. These cuts are all in addition to those enacted during the Bush administration, and Romney would not allow those to expire as scheduled.

We should add here that TPC’s analyses are generated using the same sort of computer modelingof the tax system used by the U.S. Treasury and the Congressional Budget Office. We haven’t seen Romney dispute these figures. In fact, when the TPC issued findings on Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s tax plan earlier in the GOP nomination fight, Romney issued a press release calling the analysis “objective.”

Nevertheless, Romney has insisted that under his tax plan — once he releases the rest of it — the wealthy would pay the same share of the tax burden that they do at present. “I’m not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest,” Romney told Bob Schieffer on June 17 on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Romney, June 17: … my view is the right way to do that is to limit them [tax preferences] for high-income individuals because I want to keep the progressivity of the code. One– one of the absolute requirements of any tax reform that I have in mind is that people who are at the high end, whether you call them the 1 percent or 2 percent or half a percent, that people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now. I’m not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest. I’m looking to bring tax rates down for everyone, and, also, to make sure that we stimulate growth by doing so and jobs.

But, when pressed for specifics, Romney told Schieffer that he will “go through that process with Congress as to which of all the different deductions and exemptions” will be eliminated or reduced. In that interview, he said the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued areport in December 2010 that proved it is “mathematically … possible” to reduce tax rates and reduce the deficit.

That’s true — but Romney failed to note that the commission’s illustrative tax-reform proposal “taxes capital gains and dividends as ordinary income” (see footnote on page 29), eliminating a tax break that benefits mostly those with high incomes. But Romney’s tax plan would “[m]aintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains,” taking that option off the table. Under current law, capital gains (profits on sale of stock or real estate, for example) are generally taxed at atop rate of 15 percent, while ordinary earnings from salaries or business are taxed at a top rate of 35 percent of income over $388,350. (If the Bush-era tax cuts are allowed to expire, the rate wouldreturn to 20 percent.)

So how can Romney design a revenue-neutral plan that would cut income tax rates without disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest, and still maintain the current low rates on capital gains and dividends? That was the subject of the Tax Policy Center’s latest report, which immediately renewed the debate over who would benefit — and who would not — under Romney’s tax plan.

A Tax Debate, Renewed

The Tax Policy Center issued its report Aug. 1. It’s called “On the Distributional Effects of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform.” The report was co-authored by William G. Gale, a former staff economist in President George H.W. Bush’s White House in 1991-1992, and Adam Looney, a former senior economist in the Obama White House.

TPC makes clear that the report is not an analysis of “Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be.”

Rather, the center studied the impact of “a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed.” The center determined that Romney’s proposals for individual and estate taxes would cost about $360 billion a year, beginning in 2015. Offsetting such steep revenue losses by curbing tax preferences “would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits,” TPC said.

Tax Policy Center, Aug. 1: Offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented, and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the EITC and child tax credit.

The center concluded it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan without providing “large tax cuts” to high-income households.

Tax Policy Center, Aug. 1: Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.

That was true even though the TPC eliminated or reduced tax expenditures “starting at the top” in an attempt to maintain the progressive nature of the tax code — one of Romney’s stated goals. “Even after eliminating all available tax expenditures for households earning more than $200,000, this group still faces a net tax break.”

On the day of the report’s release, President Obama renewed his attack on Romney’s plan in aspeech in Ohio.

Obama, Aug. 1: The bulk of this [tax cut] would go to the wealthiest Americans. A lot of it would go to the top 1 percent. Pay attention here — folks making more than $3 million a year — the top one-tenth of 1 percent — they would get a tax cut under Mr. Romney’s plan that is worth almost a quarter of a million dollars — $250,000 they would save under his plan.

It’s true that the report (page 19) said that those in the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would receive a $246,652 net tax break. But, as we noted earlier, it’s not “under Romney’s plan,” as the president said. It’s under a set of assumptions used by the Tax Policy Center to raise $360 billion a year in revenue by eliminating or reducing tax expenditures.

The report, however, does support Obama’s larger point that Romney’s plan would likely disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

The Romney campaign dismissed the Tax Policy Center report as “biased,” saying it “ignores the positive benefits to economic growth” that would come from other parts of his tax plan — such as reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and broadening the base. In announcing his revised plan in February, Romney said that his entire tax plan — including the corporate tax cuts — will be paid for through a combination of cutting spending, broadening the corporate tax base, and placing “some curbs on personal tax deductions, exemptions and credits.”

It is true that the center’s report did not consider the impact of the corporate tax changes. The report said: “Any reductions in revenue due to the lower corporate rate would be offset by reducing corporate tax preferences. As a result, we examine only changes to the individual income tax, alternative minimum tax, payroll tax, and estate tax. We ignore the effect of the proposal to reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent.”

William McBride of the Tax Foundation, a pro-business nonprofit, writes that reducing the corporate tax rate will spur 1 percent to 2 percent more economic growth.

But McBride also writes that TPC “correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners.” That’s not a bad thing, he argues, because the U.S. already has “the most progressive income tax system in the industrialized world,” and it is “well past time to consider the costs and benefits of such an extremely progressive system.”

But there’s reason to doubt that Romney’s corporate tax-rate cut would produce the growth that Romney and McBride predict. McBride cited an economic study from 2004, which looked at data from 70 countries and cited estimates suggesting that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1 percent or 1.8 percent, depending on the method used.

But Romney would offset his rate cut by eliminating corporate tax preferences in order to bring in the same amount of revenue. When the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy looked at such a plan in 2007 (under President George W. Bush), it concluded that it was possible to cut the top corporate rate to 28 percent without losing revenue through various base-broadening provisions. But it also warned that “little or no” economic growth might result (see page 48):

U.S. Treasury, Dec. 20, 2007: [T]he Treasury Department estimates that the combined policy of base broadening and lowering the business tax rate to 28 percent might well have little or no effect on the level of real output in the long run because the economic gain from the lower corporate tax rate may well be largely offset by the economic cost of eliminating accelerated depreciation.

If accelerated depreciation is maintained, Treasury estimated that the top corporate rate could be cut only to 31 percent without losing revenue. That would result in a long-run increase of 0.5 percent in economic output, Treasury said.

The Romney campaign insists that economic growth will somehow make its tax plan work as promised, but we’ve seen nothing to support that. Romney’s experts predict about a 1 percent increase in growth. Looney, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, calls that “an implausibly large estimate,” but nevertheless ran the study again assuming that growth rate and an additional 12 million jobs. The result, he told ABC News, is that it would offset only about 15 percentof Romney’s revenue loss from individual tax cuts.

“Even in that case, there’s still a shift in the tax burden from high-income taxpayers to low- and or middle-income taxpayers,” Looney told ABC News. “It’s smaller, but it would require a net tax increase on the middle class.”

The Tax Foundation’s McBride argues that a less progressive income tax system is still a good trade-off for increased economic growth. “[L]ower rates combined with a broader tax base should lead to significant economic growth,” McBride writes. “The benefits of such growth will benefit some more than others, but arguably the currently unemployed will receive the greatest benefit in the form of a job.”

Here we should note that the study McBride cites to support his prediction of a 1 percent to 2 percent increase in growth refers only to the effect of a corporate rate cut, not a cut in individual rates. That study, using data from 70 countries, concluded that tax rates on individual labor — whether it’s the average rate or the top marginal rate — “are not significantly associated with economic growth.”

But Romney is not arguing that more jobs and growth should compensate for a tax system that puts a greater burden, or a larger share of a reduced burden, on middle-income taxpayers. He’s promising that the share of taxes won’t change. He has failed to prove that’s possible. And based on available evidence, we don’t see that it is.

MSNBC must have discovered Ohio is voting for Romney. They spent a great deal of time telling us that Ohio voters number who don't think Obama was born in the US has doubled. The number of Ohio voters who don't think Obama is a Christian has gone way up.

Ohio has all but been written off as stupid doodie heads the rest of the US should pay no attention too by MSNBC.

• A vote for Obama is a vote for this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/8032746/Riots-in-Spain-over-austerity-measures.html

Mitt your lying, lies,Lies of the GOP & Paul Ryan TeaWackers, Mitt R. Bain, Citizens United and all the Alec corps : that pays off the RepublicanPUKES Politicians. Its all about the Wealthy getting richer and the middle class getting poorer.....They don't want to help the poor...Who are the one's that leach off the taxpayer. The Wealthy: they get welfare both for themselves an for the Corps. ...But it seems that the Wealthy get away with it ..They steal billions and the few poor steals a few thousands. So what does the GOP want, is Screw the MIddle Class to get even with the few. As I say its the me me me and F everyone else.... The failures of the Republicans party trying to take away SS & Medicare & Health care for Woman so they can give their wealthy Blackmailers more money...To hell with the Poor and Needy. Let them freeze in the winter and stave the Old and Babies,let them die from bad water, do away with the EPA and thats what you'll have, just like all you Tea baggers want...You make me sick with your Me Me Me altitude. Greedy and you all call yourself a REAL Christians, Mormans. What a laugh: Wake up...Sounds like Mitt!!!!!!Fuss up your tax Return: Stop your lieing RYAN:

Romney spokesperson comment: "The Romney plan for a stronger middle class will create 12 million jobs and encourage upward mobility instead of more government dependency." Romney has no plan the CBO says that many jobs will be created in the next 4 years no matter who is at the helm.

Thinks about it. Biden is the more experienced and knowledgeable person of the Obama/Biden pair. Scary!

Social Security System:

As it now functions.

There is no Social Security Trust Fund!

Unless one considsers the 2.2 Trillion Dollars the government borrowed from it. Government takes the Trust Fund to pay for Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan WARS and says the people now owe 2.2 Trillion Dollars to themselves and will pay interest to the FEDERAL RESERVE CORPORATION each and every year till we pay off what we owe to ourselves. SCAM ANYONE

Everything paid into Social Security each month from workers pay-checks pays for the benefits now being received.

Willard(Light In The Loafers) "MINT" Romney and the PHILOSPHER of the Replican Party (Paulie Ryan) who went to the school of Ayn Rand ;a person who professed ATHEISM.

Are LYING to the over 65 when they say they will not be affected with their NEW PLAN where one can take care of their own retirement.

When you take away the money from those dropping out of the system to the amount collected to pay those now drawing benefits; there results another one of their DEFICITS.

Who is going to pay for those now retired if there is no money being collected.

THE SCAM OF THE OVER 65 by willard and rand, I mean ryan or do I.?

I know I'm way off topic, but I just had time to watch the Mass. debate with sen. scott brown, and I'm totally disgusted. What a display of arrogance from someone who represents the citizens of the state.

For years I was told that I was 25% French, and I've always had negative feelings about about the French. Nevertheless, I believed what I was told. Two years ago, a cousin did a study of our family tree only to find out that we were our grandmother (Bebout) was Flemish from Belgium, and in fact from the Flanders region, famous for a major battle during WWI.

We have all been told family stories of one kind or another - What brown is doing is horrible, because it effects so many of us. How many of you have had a genetic history taken or a documented ancestral history completed? I'm sure there will be surprises for many.

Why does Brown not just talk about his platform, or is he too weak to do so. He sounds like he's a descendent of a weasel, very unbecoming.

My ancestry is all from northern Europe, with grandparents from England, Germany, Ireland, and Belgium --- what in the hell are all the white people so freaked out about race for --- you'd better get over it, because the winds of time are coming. Plese learn to be inclusive.